Dilbert of the year

[Elind]

It should also be mentioned that the moment we stop buying oil from middle-eastern countries, we will effectively ruin their economies. What are they going to do, sell sand? They would hate us even more.

Who cares, they won't then have enough money to do squat, although they will still have oil with which to make plastics to their hearts content.

 

[Zep]

What WOULD be a problem for them would be transportation that is cheaper to manufacture and run than gasoline-based engines, that produces an equivalent or better product, and is cheaper to change production over to, i.e. re-use existing build technologies. (While, hopefully, retaining the same adrenalin production factor in the product.) Then there would be an inexorable slide away from oil-demand for automobile use.

Note, however, that oil is used not just for cars, but for many other bulk purposes - plastics, lubricants, etc, etc. Industrial chemists should be able to make lists miles long of non-vehicle uses. So reducing dependence on oil for personal vehicles is not likely to greatly affect the oil producers.

 

[luchog]

There is just something awfully "wrong" with people that don't know how to use cars to release endorphins.

Bah.

Peppers are cheaper, more easily available, don't create unnecessary amounts of pollution, don't require dependence on foreign oil, and taste a whole lot better. And once you work your way up to to the level of habaneros or higher... the only way to get a more intense rush would to be a spike of junk.

Dang, now I need to go get me a good Vindaloo or Panang curry.

Cars are transportation. I was going to say that they're what I use to go get the peppers, but most of the best shops are within walking distance; the rest are a short bus ride.

 

[Freakshow]

Cars are transportation.

To you. To me, they are more than that. They are fun.

 

[IllegalArgument]

I still like Dilbert, but Scott Adams can be rather flaky. He's not someone I would look to for insightful geo-political commentary satire.

Example, his comments dealing with ID and evolution:
http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/comments/scott_adams_is_a_wally/

I find his do nothing attitude about our enegry dependence, especially annoying. Yes, I know we get more oil from non-Middle East sources, but what wrong with reducing a dependency on oil in general.

 

[CapelDodger]

I know what fungible means. But then I'm a librarian and I know everything.

That's all we mere humans ask.

 

[69dodge]

So that must mean a muscle car makes the statement, "I have to buy artificial testosterone."

Hey!

There are no good cars that aren't made in Japan.

Hey!!

To you. To me, they are more than that. They are fun.

Okay, I forgive you.

I don't know about Tricky, though...

 

[Tricky]

The only way to hurt oil producers is to globally use much less oil. In this, Dogbert is wrong. Reducing oil consumption (in part by using more fuel-efficient cars) will in fact hurt oil producers, even if a single purchase has no noticeable impact.

You've got it all wrong. We as a country could reduce consumption, then china or india would buy what we don't. You can't expect everyone in the world to cut back because of middle eastern politics.

You missed a word.

But even if it were just the US, there is no reason to assume that Chinese or Indian demand would rise to fill the gap left by lesser US demand. Yes, they're using more oil every day, but still not nearly as much as the US. If US consumption went down sharply, so would oil prices.

 

[Bruce]

Who cares, they won't then have enough money to do squat, although they will still have oil with which to make plastics to their hearts content.

Hey, you just wait, buddy. 20 years from now, you'll be riding around on your pussy little bicycle and the terrorists with show up on our shores driving Power Wheels and kick our asses with rubber pellet guns. Better learn to speak Arabic!

Death to America!!

Aargh! Stop it you guys! Ok, you can take over our country, just quit that. It really stings!

 

[Ausmerican]

FORD
Full Of Rust & Dents
F(rule 8)ed On Race Day

 

[luchog]

To you. To me, they are more than that. They are fun.

Feh. You're just a wuss who can't take the heat.

 

[Grammatron]

You missed a word.

But even if it were just the US, there is no reason to assume that Chinese or Indian demand would rise to fill the gap left by lesser US demand. Yes, they're using more oil every day, but still not nearly as much as the US. If US consumption went down sharply, so would oil prices.

I think if you read the cartoon again you will note that it's rather accurate.

Dilbert wants to buy a hybrid car so he can "reduce the country's dependence on foreign oil sources" so "the countries that hate US will have less money to fund terrorists."

That will not happen.

The reason -- although stated already I will repeat -- is because the cheapest producers of oil are "foreign oil sourcers" and are in the countries that "hate US."

True, if demand for oil drops in US so will the price, however I would argue that we would rely more not less on the oil from the countries that "hate" US.

 

[Orwell]

Well, how about you reducing your dependence on foreign oil so that you don't need to invade hostile countries in order to maintain your supply of oil, or to fork out vast amounts of money in order to import oil from faraway places?

One of the most fuel efficient economies on Earth is Japan. Japan also happens not to have a single internal oil source. Coincidence? I think not.

 

[Ziggurat]

Well, how about you reducing your dependence on foreign oil so that you don't need to invade hostile countries in order to maintain your supply of oil, or to fork out vast amounts of money in order to import oil from faraway places?

Question: If we reduced our oil consumption significantly, would the fraction of oil we import go up or down in response?

Answer: They would almost certainly go up, because foreign producers can extract oil at lower prices than domestic producers. The high-cost producers would be the first to cut back production in response to declining demand.

Would that then reduce our dependence on foreign oil? Not exactly.

 

[Badger]

Found On Road Dead

Fix Or Repair Daily

Speaking of cars, I've been looking for a Pathfinder, and I think I've found it...there's a Warren Miller Edition Pathfinder for sale in my friend's building. Mmmmmm

Jas, check your Skeptchick e-mail.

 

[Tricky]

Question: If we reduced our oil consumption significantly, would the fraction of oil we import go up or down in response?

Answer: They would almost certainly go up, because foreign producers can extract oil at lower prices than domestic producers. The high-cost producers would be the first to cut back production in response to declining demand.

Would that then reduce our dependence on foreign oil? Not exactly.

True. On the other hand, it would preserve our own domestic oil supplies to fall back on in case of emergency, which, in one sense, decreases our dependancy on foreign oil in that we wouldn't be totally scr3wed if we were cut off.

 

[Grammatron]

True. On the other hand, it would preserve our own domestic oil supplies to fall back on in case of emergency, which, in one sense, decreases our dependancy on foreign oil in that we wouldn't be totally scr3wed if we were cut off.

But we have an emergency supply already.

Notice Dilbert just doesn't want "bad guys" to have access to his money via oil, nothing about oil running out and us having none of our own.

 

[Ziggurat]

True. On the other hand, it would preserve our own domestic oil supplies to fall back on in case of emergency, which, in one sense, decreases our dependancy on foreign oil in that we wouldn't be totally scr3wed if we were cut off.

Depends on the timescale. An off-shore oil platform, for example, may take years to build, place, and get operational. And nobody, not even the government, is going to pour money into oil production infrastructure (for increased capacity OR maintenance) just to let it idle. We're only going to make those kinds of investments if we plan on recouping the costs, and the only sure way to do that is turn on the taps. So we're never going to have significant extra domestic production capacity, whether or not we cut domestic output. Which means that we still wouldn't be immune to oil-price shocks from sudden output cuts from middle-east countries.

None of this is to say we shouldn't be more energy efficient, though, because that's got its own economic benefits, as does increased efficiency with regard to pretty much any resource.

 

[Renfield]

That stopping buying from one source would not hurt their economy whatsoever. They would simply sell to the other people who had been cut off by our new suppliers (who couldn't increase their sales to us and at the same time sell to the other people).

The only way to hurt oil producers is to globally use much less oil. In this, Dogbert is wrong. Reducing oil consumption (in part by using more fuel-efficient cars) will in fact hurt oil producers, even if a single purchase has no noticeable impact.

that's what i thought too. Obviously consuming less oil would not eliminate the need for oil. The suppliers would still make money. The US could lower the global demand for oil somewhat though if you had some large scale success at limiting consumption.

 

[Tricky]

Depends on the timescale. An off-shore oil platform, for example, may take years to build, place, and get operational. And nobody, not even the government, is going to pour money into oil production infrastructure (for increased capacity OR maintenance) just to let it idle. We're only going to make those kinds of investments if we plan on recouping the costs, and the only sure way to do that is turn on the taps. So we're never going to have significant extra domestic production capacity, whether or not we cut domestic output. Which means that we still wouldn't be immune to oil-price shocks from sudden output cuts from middle-east countries.

None of this is to say we shouldn't be more energy efficient, though, because that's got its own economic benefits, as does increased efficiency with regard to pretty much any resource.

You'd be surprised. We have a number of wells right now that are shut in because they are not economic. If a crunch hit, they'd become economic damn quick. Not enough for years, but enough to tide us over while we crank up the infrastructure machine. It's bloody amazing how fast oil companies can move when there is a lot of money at stake.