Analysts: Keystone will RAISE my gasoline prices

[Dymanic]

What decision? To use oil for transportation? Because I gotta tell ya, the alternative was to not have much in the way of transportation.

I could not disagree more. We knew during the Carter administration that we'd be facing the scenario we're facing now. We were presented with an alternative course of action, and we collectively decided -- in no uncertain terms -- "To hell with that".

 

[Ziggurat]

I could not disagree more. We knew during the Carter administration that we'd be facing the scenario we're facing now. We were presented with an alternative course of action, and we collectively decided -- in no uncertain terms -- "To hell with that".

Strangely enough, all I can gleen from your message is that you're passionate about something, but in truth I have no idea what you're passionate about. What is "that" to which we have said "to hell with"?

 

[Dymanic]

What is "that" to which we have said "to hell with"?

Re-evaluating our culture of consumerism and self-interest. Mobilizing American determination and ability to win the energy war. Treating conservation as not merely common sense but an act of patriotism.

Just setting a clear goal for the energy policy of the United States would be a big step up. "Drill baby drill" amounts to "Don't do anything different from what we've been doing all along, and hope it lasts forever". That's not an energy policy; it's an energy fantasy. I'm passionate about not basing our future on hallucinated resources.

 

[Ziggurat]

Re-evaluating our culture of consumerism and self-interest.

That's a platitude, not a plan.

 

[WildCat]

Where have you been, under some rock? Is there a Republican anywhere who hasn't made the claim, either direct or implied, that approving the pipeline would help relieve gas prices?

Your claim, you prove it.

 

[Dymanic]

That's a platitude, not a plan.

And "Drill baby drill" isn't?

Re-evaluating our culture of consumerism and self-interest certainly isn't any part of our plan -- but then, as I've said, we really don't have one of those.

What we also don't have is any significant reserve oil production capacity, despite the often grandiose claims being made about the potential for oil shales and all that. What we do have is a tremendous reserve capacity for energy conservation, as we demonstrated quite clearly during the Arab oil embargo of the early seventies. What remains to be seen is whether we still have the ability to unify ourselves around a sense of shared purpose, as we did during, say, the second World War.

That really is the level of effort we're talking about here, if we are to have any hope of being completely overcome by the looming global energy crisis. Something I've said here many times before is our energy problem is, first and foremost, a thinking problem -- and that's unfortunate, because a lot of people in this country have traded in their brains for bumper stickers.

 

[WildCat]

Re-evaluating our culture of consumerism and self-interest.

You think you can change basic human nature with legislation? Good luck with that.

Mobilizing American determination and ability to win the energy war. Treating conservation as not merely common sense but an act of patriotism.

How does one "win" the "energy war"? What constitutes victory? Are there countries you think have won this energy war?

Just setting a clear goal for the energy policy of the United States would be a big step up. "Drill baby drill" amounts to "Don't do anything different from what we've been doing all along, and hope it lasts forever". That's not an energy policy; it's an energy fantasy. I'm passionate about not basing our future on hallucinated resources.

So what energy policy do you propose?

 

[Dymanic]

Your claim, you prove it.

I don't know how many samples would it take to satisfy you that I have met the burden of proof, but here's a quick one for starters:

Political accusations over the rising price of oil shot across Washington Tuesday, with House Speaker John Boehner accusing President Obama of blocking the way to a solution.

“The fact is, is the president blocked the Keystone pipeline; he’s blocked efforts to expand energy production in the Intermountain West, over in the Gulf and in a small portion of Alaska,” Boehner said at a Capitol Hill news conference, later adding, “We want lower gas prices for the American people. And the more that we can do to show the American people and to show the world that we’re going to move towards energy self-sufficiency, I think you’ll see the prices on the world market begin to come down.”

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/02/rhetoric-on-oil-policy-flares/

 

[Dymanic]

You think you can change basic human nature with legislation?

No, I don't even think that. Why do you so often resort to attempting to put words in my mouth? Is it because you find yourself unable to effectively argue against the things I actually DO say?

Are there countries you think have won this energy war?

I'd say the real action is just beginning, but there certainly are countries better poised to deal with it than we are. Again, I can only argue by sampling: Maybe seven percent of the people in LA use public transportation, and in some US cities, it's well below one percent. In Edinburgh, it's just under thirty percent. You remember "The Great American Streetcar Scandal", don't you?

So what energy policy do you propose?

I always thought something along the lines of "the most massive peacetime commitment of funds and resources in our nation’s history to develop America’s own alternative sources of fuel" would have been a good start -- especially if we had made that committment when Carter proposed it back in 1979

 

[Ziggurat]

And "Drill baby drill" isn't?

It's a slogan for a plan: increase domestic drilling. Whether or not it's a good idea, the desired course of action is clear. But I have no idea what you're actually calling for.

Re-evaluating our culture of consumerism and self-interest certainly isn't any part of our plan -- but then, as I've said, we really don't have one of those.

Nor have you provided one. So what exactly would you have us do?

What we also don't have is any significant reserve oil production capacity, despite the often grandiose claims being made about the potential for oil shales and all that. What we do have is a tremendous reserve capacity for energy conservation, as we demonstrated quite clearly during the Arab oil embargo of the early seventies.

Wait... do you want us to conserve energy, or do you want us to have a capacity for increased conservation?

Because the more we conserve, the less capacity we will have for further conservation. We're much better at conserving energy now than we were in the 70's, so the capacity for increased conservation that we once had is not the capacity we now have. Furthermore, the reduction in consumption required an economic price too. Whatever your plan is (and you won't really specify), I can't help but think it's going to require a reduced standard of living. Lots of environmentalists argue for exactly that, but if that's what your plan requires, you should state so upfront.

What remains to be seen is whether we still have the ability to unify ourselves around a sense of shared purpose, as we did during, say, the second World War.

A sense of purpose to do what? Do you even know? Because I really don't. Because you won't say.

 

[WildCat]

I don't know how many samples would it take to satisfy you that I have met the burden of proof, but here's a quick one for starters:



http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/02/rhetoric-on-oil-policy-flares/

Boehner talks about much more than Keystone in that quote.

 

[WildCat]

No, I don't even think that. Why do you so often resort to attempting to put words in my mouth? Is it because you find yourself unable to effectively argue against the things I actually DO say?

Those were your own words... "re-evaluating our culture of consumerism and self-interest" you said. Will you next demand to re-evaluate the tides or the rotation of the earth? You have the same chance of success.

I'd say the real action is just beginning, but there certainly are countries better poised to deal with it than we are. Again, I can only argue by sampling: Maybe seven percent of the people in LA use public transportation, and in some US cities, it's well below one percent. In Edinburgh, it's just under thirty percent.

What is it in NYC? Chicago? Don't you think population density plays a role here? LA has lots of people, but spread out over 470 square miles. That's an inherent problem for public transportation.

You remember "The Great American Streetcar Scandal", don't you?

Yes, no one like street cars. Crisscrossing cities with overhead electrical lines over every main street is ugly, and creates safety issues.

I always thought something along the lines of "the most massive peacetime commitment of funds and resources in our nation’s history to develop America’s own alternative sources of fuel" would have been a good start -- especially if we had made that committment when Carter proposed it back in 1979

Ah, the magical unknown "alternative sources of fuel". It does anything you want it to do at half the cost! Just like ethanol...

 

[Ziggurat]

I always thought something along the lines of "the most massive peacetime commitment of funds and resources in our nation’s history to develop America’s own alternative sources of fuel" would have been a good start -- especially if we had made that committment when Carter proposed it back in 1979

"Crises there will continue to be. In meeting them, whether foreign or domestic, great or small, there is a recurring temptation to feel that some spectacular and costly action could become the miraculous solution to all current difficulties. A huge increase in newer elements of our defenses; development of unrealistic programs to cure every ill in agriculture; a dramatic expansion in basic and applied research -- these and many other possibilities, each possibly promising in itself, may be suggested as the only way to the road we wish to travel.

But each proposal must be weighed in the light of a broader consideration: the need to maintain balance in and among national programs, balance between the private and the public economy, balance between the cost and hoped for advantages, balance between the clearly necessary and the comfortably desirable, balance between our essential requirements as a nation and the duties imposed by the nation upon the individual, balance between actions of the moment and the national welfare of the future. Good judgment seeks balance and progress. Lack of it eventually finds imbalance and frustration."
- Eisenhower's farewell address


Our record of politically-directed investment in alternative energy is largely one of failure. And marginal returns tend to decrease, not increase, with increased investment. There is no reason to think your proposal will succeed, and every reason to think it will fail.

 

[Dymanic]

It's a slogan for a plan: increase domestic drilling.

No, it's the absence of a plan. It's the default. "Drill baby drill" amounts to "Don't do anything special".

So what exactly would you have us do?

Massively upgrade public transportation. Massively expand electrical transmission infrastructure in anticipation of converting the bulk of our transportation sector to electric vehicles. Reduce commute distances through changes in zoning ordinances that separate residential areas from commercial areas. Dismantle the city of Las Vegas for scrap and reduce the population of the area to the carrying capacity of the land. (Okay, so the last one is a joke, but I'm hoping it's enough to give you some idea of the nature and scope of the changes I think we need to make).

Because the more we conserve, the less capacity we will have for further conservation.

Point taken. Of course, by the same logic, the more oil we produce the less capacity we have for producing more.

We're much better at conserving energy now than we were in the 70's, so the capacity for increased conservation that we once had is not the capacity we now have.

I'd say we arguably have available better means for conserving energy, but are rather lacking in enthusiasm for applying them. The ridiculous squabble over eliminating incandescant light bulbs is a case in point.

Furthermore, the reduction in consumption required an economic price too. Whatever your plan is (and you won't really specify), I can't help but think it's going to require a reduced standard of living. Lots of environmentalists argue for exactly that, but if that's what your plan requires, you should state so upfront.

Certain metrics have been established for measuring "standard of living", but "quality of life" is hopelessly subjective.

A sense of purpose to do what? Do you even know? Because I really don't. Because you won't say.

Or perhaps it's that you won't read.

I always thought something along the lines of "the most massive peacetime commitment of funds and resources in our nation’s history to develop America’s own alternative sources of fuel" would have been a good start -- especially if we had made that committment when Carter proposed it back in 1979.

 

[Dymanic]

"There is a recurring temptation to feel that some spectacular and costly action could become the miraculous solution to all current difficulties."

I don't see our current difficulties as having "solutions", exactly. It's about damage control at this point.

Our record of politically-directed investment in alternative energy is largely one of failure. And marginal returns tend to decrease, not increase, with increased investment.

And this does not apply to our record of politically-directed investment in OIL why?

There is no reason to think your proposal will succeed, and every reason to think it will fail.

Let's talk about those reasons.

 

[Ziggurat]

And this does not apply to our record of politically-directed investment in OIL why?

We don't have much politically-directed investment in oil. I mean, aside from the strategic petroleum reserve, but the primary purpose of that isn't economic, nor should we be using it as such.

Let's talk about those reasons.

I already told you. The track record so far is bad, very bad. Solyndra is the poster child for that sort of waste, but it's hardly alone. And marginal returns generally decrease with increasing investment, so we can expect it to get worse the more money we pour into it.

 

[Ziggurat]

No, it's the absence of a plan. It's the default. "Drill baby drill" amounts to "Don't do anything special".

Your response makes no sense. A plan doesn't have to be special to be a plan. And special or not, it is a plan to do something different. I'm not arguing that it's the right plan, but it's still clear what the plan is.

Massively upgrade public transportation.

How massive is massive? And again, we have the problem of diminishing returns. The best investments in public transportation have generally already been made.

Massively expand electrical transmission infrastructure in anticipation of converting the bulk of our transportation sector to electric vehicles.

Electric vehicles are currently a failure, and not because of a lack of infrastructure or government investment. There is no clear solution to their shortcomings either.

Reduce commute distances through changes in zoning ordinances that separate residential areas from commercial areas.

You have evidence that this will actually decrease commute distances in any significant fashion? More importantly, you have evidence that this will actually decrease the amount of driving people do? Because people drive for more than just work.

Dismantle the city of Las Vegas for scrap and reduce the population of the area to the carrying capacity of the land. (Okay, so the last one is a joke, but I'm hoping it's enough to give you some idea of the nature and scope of the changes I think we need to make).

Seems like the scope of changes you want to make require converting to a totalitarian system of government. Thanks, but no thanks.

Certain metrics have been established for measuring "standard of living", but "quality of life" is hopelessly subjective.

I didn't use the phrase "quality of life". I used the phrase "standard of living" precisely because there are available metrics for it.

Or perhaps it's that you won't read.

That comes from a post later than the one I was responding to, and I had not gotten to that post when I responded. Now I have.

 

[WildCat]

I already told you. The track record so far is bad, very bad. Solyndra is the poster child for that sort of waste, but it's hardly alone. And marginal returns generally decrease with increasing investment, so we can expect it to get worse the more money we pour into it.

Oh, I'd argue that ethanol mandates is the poster child for that. Far more expensive than Solyndra was.

 

[WildCat]

Electric vehicles are currently a failure, and not because of a lack of infrastructure or government investment. There is no clear solution to their shortcomings either.

I've argued for standarized, swapable batteries. Your batteries are running low? Simply pull into a service station and swap them (or it) for fresh ones.

 

[Dymanic]

We don't have much politically-directed investment in oil.

Four billion plus dollars per year in subsidies say otherwise -- but my question was really directed more toward your second sentence: "And marginal returns tend to decrease, not increase, with increased investment." Why does this not apply to oil? Do you disagree that the American taxpayer is investing more in oil every year and receiving less in return?

The track record so far is bad, very bad.

The track record so far is virtually nonexistant by comparison with investment in oil.

A plan doesn't have to be special to be a plan.

I disagree, as does the author of this:

If you've ever seen little kids play soccer, you know how comical it is to watch. The whole teams (except the goalies, who are usually bored and distracted by interesting bugs at their feet), chase the ball around en masse as the ball is more herded than played. Goals are the outcome of a chaotic knot of players kicking as rapidly as possible, not the skillful execution of premeditated strategy. And so it is with energy policy. To be precise, we don't have one.

When Team Right has the ball, it furiously kicks it toward the fossil fuel and nuclear goal. Restrictive regulations are dismantled. New drilling leases are awarded. Piles of federal cash are shoveled to their preferred recipients. Investment in renewables and environmental protection is slashed. Wars for oil are started.

Then Team Left gets control, furiously herding the ball toward the green goal line. Incentives are awarded for wind and solar. Piles of federal cash are shoveled toward the renewable manufacturers. Taxes on fossil fuel producers are raised and their incentives are slashed....

I recommend reading the whole thing.
http://www.energyandcapital.com/arti...gy-policy/1079

Electric vehicles are currently a failure, and not because of a lack of infrastructure or government investment. There is no clear solution to their shortcomings either.

Bald assertion.

You have evidence that this will actually decrease commute distances in any significant fashion?

How could it not?

More importantly, you have evidence that this will actually decrease the amount of driving people do? Because people drive for more than just work.

Sure. Americans drive for FUN. Always have. But that party is nearly over. Things change.

Seems like the scope of changes you want to make require converting to a totalitarian system of government.

Like I said, it was a joke. But we are already under the thumb of the most ruthless dictator the planet has ever seen: OIL -- and since government policy had a lot to do with creating that situation, government policy can help alleviate it.

I didn't use the phrase "quality of life". I used the phrase "standard of living" precisely because there are available metrics for it.

Like the guy who went looking for his lost car keys under a lampost because the light was better there. I used the phrase "quality of life" precisely to indicate that this includes things that cannot be captured by the availible metrics, but are just as important nonetheless.

That comes from a post later than the one I was responding to, and I had not gotten to that post when I responded.

It didn't, actually. I first posted that in #49, and you ignored it in #50. But whatever.