Raise the price of gas to $4 – before the next oil crunch

[billspiz]

This sounds ludicrous on the surface with so many people out of work..but I saw this opinion...I have no comment at the moment, but thought a different thread to start the week would be fresh..

Berkeley, Calif. – Remember last summer, when gas prices broke new records every day and the era of "energy independence" was on the horizon? Gas is half what it was then, but not for long. When OPEC's planned production cuts hit, tightening the global supply of oil just when economies are poised to resume growth, the world may well face the worst oil crunch in history.

The way to avert the brunt of that? It might not be pretty at first, but a price floor – a government-mandated minimum – on retail gas will buy us the time we need to wean us off the oil.

Oil's prognosis is grim for one reason: When prices are low, oil companies do not invest in new projects. That means we are draining global reserves without replacing spare capacity. From North Dakota to Kuwait, new projects that looked lucrative when every barrel fetched $147 got shelved when prices plunged. Many of these developments will resume when prices rebound but, because it takes years before oil from a new field reaches the market, it will be too late.

Cheap oil has been the engine driving US economic growth for decades; its evil twin is pricey oil and, given time, it will drive our economy over a cliff.

The effects of oil scarcity are by now well understood: soaring food prices, social unrest, geopolitical conflict – euphemisms for hunger, food riots, and war.

Last spring, hungry masses in Haiti, Bangladesh, Egypt, and other countries took to the streets, burning cars and looting stores over skyrocketing food prices. Consider it a preview of what's to come – abroad and here at home – if we do not leave oil before it leaves us.

During the summer of our discontent, pressure mounted to make long-overdue improvements to our national rail and inner city transit systems and to reengineer electric grids for wind energy. But the collapse of oil prices threatens to zap the political will to usher in the postcarbon era.

Surveys indicate that Americans who flocked to buses and trains this summer are getting back behind the wheel now that gas is a bargain again, and politicians who promised a clean energy future are now promising to build new highway lanes.

American voters and leaders need to act as though gas were still at $4 a gallon and put in place policies and spending priorities that will enable us to survive $5 or even $10 a gallon gas. We must work, play, eat, build, live, and legislate as though we will be scraping the bottom of the oil barrel in a decade.

With a growing world population that is ever more hungry for oil, it is just a matter of time before demand outstrips supply. The only sensible way to prepare for this is to stretch global reserves, making them last long enough to develop alternatives.

Oil may be in short supply, but ideas for how to wean ourselves from it are not. When oil prices were high, a cacophony of voices put forward a broad range of policy initiatives; some, such as reinstating the 55 mph speed limit, were sound; others, such as investing in ethanol, misguided. President Obama has at his disposal an experienced team of economic and environmental advisers who are more than capable of culling the best ideas.

Meanwhile, the one measure that should and could be instituted immediately is a floor for the retail price of gas. If, for example, the minimum were $4 a gallon and the market price was $2, the government would pocket the difference and find itself with billions to spend on mass transit.

Consumers will gripe, but they'll soon find solace in the reliable, affordable buses and trains they'll ride when gas prices soar beyond reach. For low-income individuals who would truly suffer as a result of such a policy, a payroll tax offset or refundable tax credit can ease the burden.

It's tempting to place energy security toward the middle of the nation's long to-do list. But delay presents immense risks. If the next oil crunch hits us while we're still down, all the bailouts in the world won't save us.

Erica Etelson is a journalist and the founder of the Berkeley Oil Independence Task Force.

[J.Q. Citizen]

I have a comment at the moment but first I have a question. When you posted this new thread, did you get a momentary window informing you that the thread would be posted after it went through a moderator first? I don't believe I've ever seen that before. I wonder if McKinneyNews.net is implementing some new policy?

Anyway, as I said, I have a comment...most of which can't be repeated. I would simply say that government control over the behavior of its citizens is never a good idea. This would, in reality, result in the nationalization of our oil industry.

From the article:
Oil's prognosis is grim for one reason: When prices are low, oil companies do not invest in new projects. That means we are draining global reserves without replacing spare capacity.
I would submit that it is government interference that has a more direct effect on exploration and investment by the oil companies.

I believe that this is a very, very bad idea and I believe that it ties in to the thread I started on the proposed infringements of our First and Second Amendment rights that should appear shortly. Assuming it makes it past the moderator.

[billspiz]

JQ..I never received the moderator message you reference...maybe its part of the Patriot Act and we're being monitored!!....:)

[J.Q. Citizen]

JQ..I never received the moderator message you reference...maybe its part of the Patriot Act and we're being monitored!!....:)

It was weird. We'll see if it gets posted. It's about proposed gun control legislation.

[billspiz]

really dumb question that I have yet to figure out...how do you do the quote thing where you can lift the quotes from the prior message that you respond to...thanks

[J.Q. Citizen]

really dumb question that I have yet to figure out...how do you do the quote thing where you can lift the quotes from the prior message that you respond to...thanks

It IS a really dumb question...you should probably be ashamed for even having to ask. Fortunately, Jane was kind enough to answer it when I asked it.

There are three ways that I know of to do quotes.
1. When you choose to reply to a given post, choose the "Quote" option in the bottom right. This includes an actual link to the original post.

2. After you choose to reply, and it puts you into that small box, you will see a number of tools in the top border. There are two lines of tool and options, with the bottom line being the longest. Fourth from the right is an option that lets you wrap quotes around a selection of text. Simply highlight the text you want and then click on that choice. This is handy if you've cut/pasted a fair sized chunk of text from somewhere else. You can also use that method to bold, italicize, underline, indent etc.

3. The essence of quotes or other formatting options is what's called a tag. For quotes, you put "[q uote]" at the beginning of a selection of text and then "[/q uote]" at the end. You have to remove the space between the "q" and the "u". I had to put those in or it would have tried to create a quote box.

After just a little experimentation, you should be able to figure out how to format a post however you choose.

[billspiz]

I knew I liked Jane for a reason other than her politics!!....seriously thanks JQ for the options...I was struggling and just like asking for directions on a road trip..I wait until I'm really lost!!.

[J.Q. Citizen]

I knew I liked Jane for a reason other than her politics!!....seriously thanks JQ for the options...I was struggling and just like asking for directions on a road trip..I wait until I'm really lost!!.
You're welcome.
I'm thinking of changing my name to JQ GPS Citizen.

[JaneBlow]

It was weird. We'll see if it gets posted. It's about proposed gun control legislation.

I have seen the message that a moderator must approve the post before. I think it was because there was some HTML code in it. If I remember correctly, I had to take out the hyperlinks and post it, then edit the post to put them back in. It may also have something to do with the length of the post. If it is really long, try posting half and then adding the second half in an edit.

I feel confident it is not about moderating the content.

[J.Q. Citizen]

I have seen the message that a moderator must approve the post before. I think it was because there was some HTML code in it. If I remember correctly, I had to take out the hyperlinks and post it, then edit the post to put them back in. It may also have something to do with the length of the post. If it is really long, try posting half and then adding the second half in an edit.

I feel confident it is not about moderating the content.

It wasn't particularly long and it didn't have any HTML code or tags that weren't identical to stuff I've done before.

I wrote it in the box. It was pretty straight forward and simple really. Just about a fascist plan to tighten gun control. I guess I can always recreate it. Any idea if the moderators still have a copy.

[JaneBlow]

This sounds ludicrous on the surface with so many people out of work..but I saw this opinion...I have no comment at the moment, but thought a different thread to start the week would be fresh..

Berkeley, Calif. – Remember last summer, when gas prices broke new records every day and the era of "energy independence" was on the horizon? Gas is half what it was then, but not for long. When OPEC's planned production cuts hit, tightening the global supply of oil just when economies are poised to resume growth, the world may well face the worst oil crunch in history.

The way to avert the brunt of that? It might not be pretty at first, but a price floor – a government-mandated minimum – on retail gas will buy us the time we need to wean us off the oil.

Oil's prognosis is grim for one reason: When prices are low, oil companies do not invest in new projects. That means we are draining global reserves without replacing spare capacity. From North Dakota to Kuwait, new projects that looked lucrative when every barrel fetched $147 got shelved when prices plunged. Many of these developments will resume when prices rebound but, because it takes years before oil from a new field reaches the market, it will be too late.

Cheap oil has been the engine driving US economic growth for decades; its evil twin is pricey oil and, given time, it will drive our economy over a cliff.

The effects of oil scarcity are by now well understood: soaring food prices, social unrest, geopolitical conflict – euphemisms for hunger, food riots, and war.

Last spring, hungry masses in Haiti, Bangladesh, Egypt, and other countries took to the streets, burning cars and looting stores over skyrocketing food prices. Consider it a preview of what's to come – abroad and here at home – if we do not leave oil before it leaves us.

During the summer of our discontent, pressure mounted to make long-overdue improvements to our national rail and inner city transit systems and to reengineer electric grids for wind energy. But the collapse of oil prices threatens to zap the political will to usher in the postcarbon era.

Surveys indicate that Americans who flocked to buses and trains this summer are getting back behind the wheel now that gas is a bargain again, and politicians who promised a clean energy future are now promising to build new highway lanes.

American voters and leaders need to act as though gas were still at $4 a gallon and put in place policies and spending priorities that will enable us to survive $5 or even $10 a gallon gas. We must work, play, eat, build, live, and legislate as though we will be scraping the bottom of the oil barrel in a decade.

With a growing world population that is ever more hungry for oil, it is just a matter of time before demand outstrips supply. The only sensible way to prepare for this is to stretch global reserves, making them last long enough to develop alternatives.

Oil may be in short supply, but ideas for how to wean ourselves from it are not. When oil prices were high, a cacophony of voices put forward a broad range of policy initiatives; some, such as reinstating the 55 mph speed limit, were sound; others, such as investing in ethanol, misguided. President Obama has at his disposal an experienced team of economic and environmental advisers who are more than capable of culling the best ideas.

Meanwhile, the one measure that should and could be instituted immediately is a floor for the retail price of gas. If, for example, the minimum were $4 a gallon and the market price was $2, the government would pocket the difference and find itself with billions to spend on mass transit.

Consumers will gripe, but they'll soon find solace in the reliable, affordable buses and trains they'll ride when gas prices soar beyond reach. For low-income individuals who would truly suffer as a result of such a policy, a payroll tax offset or refundable tax credit can ease the burden.

It's tempting to place energy security toward the middle of the nation's long to-do list. But delay presents immense risks. If the next oil crunch hits us while we're still down, all the bailouts in the world won't save us.

Erica Etelson is a journalist and the founder of the Berkeley Oil Independence Task Force.

I like this idea. It's basically recognizing that we have to invest in alternative energy and encourages us to be more fuel efficient.

I would submit that it is government interference that has a more direct effect on exploration and investment by the oil companies. -- J.Q.

Government interference has a more direct effect on exploration and investment than the oil companies' revenue does? How so?

[kmcgraw5]

I like this idea. It's basically recognizing that we have to invest in alternative energy and encourages us to be more fuel efficient.



Government interference has a more direct effect on exploration and investment than the oil companies' revenue does? How so?

And so where would the difference between the cost of producing the gallon of gas and the $4 go? Somehow, I think you all would strenuously object to the idea that it would go into the coffers of the big, bad, evil, oil companies as pure profit. So the only other alternative would be to give it to the government, right, because it could do so many more good things with it than the oil companies. Just another attempt at creative taxation in the name of saving the planet...

[J.Q. Citizen]

Government interference has a more direct effect on exploration and investment than the oil companies' revenue does? How so?

That's a good question Jane. I'll have to research that and get back to you. All that I can think of off the top of my head is the fact that the government prohibits new exploration. I don't know, what do you think? Could that possibly affect exploration?

[J.Q. Citizen]

And so where would the difference between the cost of producing the gallon of gas and the $4 go? Somehow, I think you all would strenuously object to the idea that it would go into the coffers of the big, bad, evil, oil companies as pure profit. So the only other alternative would be to give it to the government, right, because it could do so many more good things with it than the oil companies. Just another attempt at creative taxation in the name of saving the planet...

You've gotta read the fine print Kevin.


If, for example, the minimum were $4 a gallon and the market price was $2, the government would pocket the difference and find itself with billions to spend on mass transit.

Of course, it's all about the government getting the money. But they're gonna hailp us with that money dontcha know.

[kmcgraw5]

You've gotta read the fine print Kevin.


Of course, it's all about the government getting the money. But they're gonna hailp us with that money dontcha know.

Thanks for pointing out my lack of due diligence, JQ. I humbly stand corrected... ;)

[kmcgraw5]

If, for example, the minimum were $4 a gallon and the market price was $2, the government would pocket the difference and find itself with billions to spend on mass transit.

Wow, that's brilliant! Why didn't I think of that! More trains and buses that no one wants to ride!!! :rolleyes:

[J.Q. Citizen]

Wow, that's brilliant! Why didn't I think of that! More trains and buses that no one wants to ride!!! :rolleyes:
Well, we can always walk from here to the Parker Road Station if things get too bad.

[JaneBlow]

That's a good question Jane. I'll have to research that and get back to you. All that I can think of off the top of my head is the fact that the government prohibits new exploration. I don't know, what do you think? Could that possibly affect exploration?


"I would submit that it is government interference that has a more direct effect on exploration and investment by the oil companies." -- J.Q.

If there were no government regulation on exploration, the price of oil (or more specifically the oil companies' revenue) would still determine the investment in new exploration. Nothing has a "more direct" effect on exploration and investment than the price of oil.

[J.Q. Citizen]

[Nothing has a "more direct" effect on exploration and investment than the price of oil.

And, while it can be argued that the various governments of the world have a direct effect on the price of oil they do it by affecting the available supply.

So, I would submit that the supply, both actual and perceived, of available oil is what affects the price and that therefore, my original point is correct.

[JaneBlow]

And, while it can be argued that the various governments of the world have a direct effect on the price of oil they do it by affecting the available supply.

So, I would submit that the supply, both actual and perceived, of available oil is what affects the price and that therefore, my original point is correct.

Nice try, but if government affects the price and price affects the investment, than government still doesn't affect the investment more directly than the price.

Whatever, it was an honest question and I think you made your point about government needing to let the oil companies explore wherever they want.

Personally, I support the idea presented in the article. It's basically a gas tax to be used strictly for the purpose of breaking our oil addiction. I like it.

[J.Q. Citizen]

Nice try, but if government affects the price and price affects the investment, than government still doesn't affect the investment more directly than the price.

Whatever, it was an honest question and I think you made your point about government needing to let the oil companies explore wherever they want.

So, I made my point but I'm wrong? Not sure I understood that. My point was that it is supply that is the biggest factor in price and if the oil companies were allowed, by the government, to explore and develop all of our promising reserves, our supply would increase dramatically. Add some nuclear plants on top of that and I think we're well on our way towards sustaining ourselves until such a time as the private sector can develop more in the way of competitive renewable energy technologies.

Personally, I support the idea presented in the article. It's basically a gas tax to be used strictly for the purpose of breaking our oil addiction. I like it.
Of course you do Jane. You appear to support anything that allows the government to control our behavior. Just out of curiosity, what do you propose to do about plastic once we've cured our "addiction" to oil?

[JaneBlow]

Just out of curiosity, what do you propose to do about plastic once we've cured our "addiction" to oil?

I think humans will have to continue learning to live without destroying the planet for as long as we inhabit the Earth. I don't expect we will master it any time soon, but we can keep trying.

[J.Q. Citizen]

I think humans will have to continue learning to live without destroying the planet for as long as we inhabit the Earth. I don't expect we will master it any time soon, but we can keep trying.
Then it should be a personal choice and based on sound science. I do not believe that government shoving it down our throat and attempting to control our behavior is the proper way to accomplish that. I believe that we should be good stewards of the planet and I believe that many people are recognizing that but there is a significant difference between understanding that and buying into the man-made global warming hysteria that will ultimately be a business killer.

[JaneBlow]

Then it should be a personal choice and based on sound science. I do not believe that government shoving it down our throat and attempting to control our behavior is the proper way to accomplish that. I believe that we should be good stewards of the planet and I believe that many people are recognizing that but there is a significant difference between understanding that and buying into the man-made global warming hysteria that will ultimately be a business killer.

It's sweet that you have faith in big business to do the right thing by the planet. Keep the faith. Meanwhile, we will take action to make sure they do the right thing. You can thank us later.

[J.Q. Citizen]

It's sweet that you have faith in big business to do the right thing by the planet. Keep the faith. Meanwhile, we will take action to make sure they do the right thing. You can thank us later.

I have faith that when there is a large enough demand for alternative and renewable energies then we will see innovations in new technologies and improvements in existing technologies the likes of which would never happen simply due to a government mandate. And, if such inane programs as Cap and Trade are implemented then we will see both business and the economy tank so badly that we'll all be lucky if we don't find ourselves "flushing the toilet" by scooping up dirt with a shovel to cover the hole while our significant other stands guard over our makeshift shack with whatever weapons the government has seen fit to allow us to keep. On the plus side, paper money should be in such abundance that we shouldn't lack for toilet paper.

But, I'm absolutely positive throughout all of that, we'll all be thanking Jane for helping to make sure that the government forced us to do the right thing.

[Shannon Benjamin]

I have faith that when there is a large enough demand for alternative and renewable energies then we will see innovations in new technologies and improvements in existing technologies the likes of which would never happen simply due to a government mandate. And, if such inane programs as Cap and Trade are implemented then we will see both business and the economy tank so badly that we'll all be lucky if we don't find ourselves "flushing the toilet" by scooping up dirt with a shovel to cover the hole while our significant other stands guard over our makeshift shack with whatever weapons the government has seen fit to allow us to keep. On the plus side, paper money should be in such abundance that we shouldn't lack for toilet paper.

But, I'm absolutely positive throughout all of that, we'll all be thanking Jane for helping to make sure that the government forced us to do the right thing.

That's funny! I was just reading an article today that was basically chastising those of us who have been buying "luxury" toilet paper (the really, really soft kind). I guess we should be willing to sacrifice and shave off a layer of skin each time in the name of preservation.:D

[JaneBlow]

I have faith that when there is a large enough demand for alternative and renewable energies then we will see innovations in new technologies and improvements in existing technologies the likes of which would never happen simply due to a government mandate. And, if such inane programs as Cap and Trade are implemented then we will see both business and the economy tank so badly that we'll all be lucky if we don't find ourselves "flushing the toilet" by scooping up dirt with a shovel to cover the hole while our significant other stands guard over our makeshift shack with whatever weapons the government has seen fit to allow us to keep. On the plus side, paper money should be in such abundance that we shouldn't lack for toilet paper.

But, I'm absolutely positive throughout all of that, we'll all be thanking Jane for helping to make sure that the government forced us to do the right thing.

I appreciate your passion for defending the free market, even in the face of overwhelming evidence that, left untethered, it is not working for the benefit of the average person or the planet. I am just as passionate about letting the evidence speak for itself and the fact that this time we elected a President who promises to do something about it.

[J.Q. Citizen]

I appreciate your passion for defending the free market, even in the face of overwhelming evidence that, left untethered, it is not working for the benefit of the average person or the planet. I am just as passionate about letting the evidence speak for itself and the fact that this time we elected a President who promises to do something about it.

And I respect that you have the right to support someone who has so little disregard for fundamental freedom and liberties. I respect your right to believe evidence that I consider substantially less than overwhelming when it comes to man-made global warming or climate change or whatever term they are using these days to cover their...donkey whenever the actual weather doesn't cooperate with the dire predictions. I even respect your right to completely misunderstand the nature of the free market and to either intentionally, or through ignorance, malign and misrepresent its role in the current economic situation. I didn't even realize until just now that you blame the free market for what you believe is the destruction of the planet but I respect your right to hold that belief and I appreciate the passion you exhibit in expressing that belief.

[billspiz]

lots of respect being shown I see!!..Well Jane its looks like we can continue to move forward with a government who is making the strides to help us get out of the muck we are in knowing we have the respect of our GOP brethren.

I find it amazing that after 30 days we already have this talk about government taking over our liberties!..

I guess we can expect this kind of respect for at least the next 3 years and 11 months!...I need to revisit this new definition of respect and determine if an argumentative and patronizing tone comes with it..

[JaneBlow]

lots of respect being shown I see!!..Well Jane its looks like we can continue to move forward with a government who is making the strides to help us get out of the muck we are in knowing we have the respect of our GOP brethren.

I find it amazing that after 30 days we already have this talk about government taking over our liberties!..

I guess we can expect this kind of respect for at least the next 3 years and 11 months!...I need to revisit this new definition of respect and determine if an argumentative and patronizing tone comes with it..

Unfortunately, J.Q. respects my right to express my opinion, not my opinions. I remain hopeful, though. After all, I too was once a dedicated conservative who thought liberals were idiots. I'm ashamed to say I voted for Bush twice. I only endure this punishment -- banging my head against the brick wall of the conservative arguments -- because I feel somewhat guilty for helping get us into this mess in the first place.

[J.Q. Citizen]

lots of respect being shown I see!!..Well Jane its looks like we can continue to move forward with a government who is making the strides to help us get out of the muck we are in knowing we have the respect of our GOP brethren.

I find it amazing that after 30 days we already have this talk about government taking over our liberties!..

I guess we can expect this kind of respect for at least the next 3 years and 11 months!...I need to revisit this new definition of respect and determine if an argumentative and patronizing tone comes with it..

After 30 days, we have a president that has proposed more in spending than this country has spent since the day of its inception until his inauguration. He has actually been talking about infringing upon our liberties since the beginning of his campaign but I have to admit...I don't think many of us ever really believed he meant it...at least not to this degree.

I'm not sure what you mean by an argumentative or patronizing tone. I was sincere that I believe in Jane's rights to voice her opinion. Absolutely sincere. If, by "argumentative", you mean that I disagree with the opinions...you're absolutely right. If, however, you are talking about some of the overall "tones" in general in that some of them could be construed as "possibly disparaging or derogatory or...less than sincere, maybe even sarcastic". I'm sure you'd be right. I would admit to some of it and I would surely hope that some of you with which I have been debating would admit to it too. You've done it Bill and so has Jane but you're not alone. I don't begrudge a little emotion and frustration seeping to the surface at times. We're all big boys and girls and I would imagine, or at least hope, fairly thick skinned. I have every right and every intention of making my voice heard and my opinions known and I expect others to do the same. I typically try to respond in kind to whatever tone is directed towards me but I'm sure that occasionally something will set me off a bit and I may be a little more harsh in a given response. I believe that overall I have been very civil as has most everyone here. If someone can or ever does point out where I have genuinely stepped over a line, I will sincerely apologize but otherwise I make no apologies. I believe I have and always will stay within the bounds of McKinneyNews.net TOS agreement and I fully intend to make use of this public forum to give full voice to my opinion. And while it is not my intent to ever hurt someone's feelings, I am not going to worry about whether or not I ruffle someone's feathers. It's just possible that it may be what they need...or possibly deserve. We live in what I believe are the most significant times of my entire life. I believe we are at a crossroads. A crossroads the likes of which this country has not known or faced since that momentous decision to break with England. And in the face of something that significant, you better believe that some passions are going to be ignited. You better believe that I'm not going to beat around the bush being overly polite and politically correct when what is called for and needed is forthright, direct, honest and even blunt dialog.

[J.Q. Citizen]

Unfortunately, J.Q. respects my right to express my opinion, not my opinions. I remain hopeful, though. After all, I too was once a dedicated conservative who thought liberals were idiots. I'm ashamed to say I voted for Bush twice. I only endure this punishment -- banging my head against the brick wall of the conservative arguments -- because I feel somewhat guilty for helping get us into this mess in the first place.

I suppose that I'm taking the risk of appearing argumentative to remind you that you told me, or at least implied, that you were never actually a dedicated conservative but rather, simply voted Republican because that was what you'd been taught or felt was expected of you by your parents. I'm glad that you recognize that I respect your right to express your opinion but I'm not sure what you mean by I don't respect your opinion. I disagree with your opinions, I think that's clear. Is that the same thing as not respecting them?

Personally, I don't think of most rank and file liberals as idiots. Misguided, yes. Unrealistically idealistic, frequently. Ill-informed as to the foundations of this country and the intentions of the founding fathers, absolutely. But, in all honesty, not idiots. There are idiots on both sides and, unfortunately, I don't believe there's a cure. So yes, there are some seriously ideological debates to be had. But, I do not feel that these debates are punishment or that I am banging my head against a brick wall. On the contrary, I am eternally optimistic that there is the possibility that one of these days some little thing I say will strike a chord with at least one person that will help them to realize that regardless of what they may have been brought up to believe or think they believe...the way they actually live their life is very closely aligned to the conservative philosophy.