what position to take with oil prices?

[BlahBlahYouToo]

Originally posted by: PlasmaBomb
This thread needs a poll...

added, but i'm sure lower prices is going to win a landslide victory.

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: BlahBlahYouToo

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: BlahBlahYouToo
at $1/gal, there would be zero progress made on alternative energy because there's no incentive. it would no doubt be more expensive so no one would buy it.

it has only been since katrina 2 years ago when gas/oil prices skyrocketed.
in the past 2 years we have more and more looking into wind, solar, hydrogen, nuclear, e85 than ever before (pulling that out of my ass but it seems right, i read various articles about it in NYT).

So essentially in your mind you wish harm on all of consumers and citizens, purely in the name of alternative energy?

no, i'm not saying that at all. i'm just arguing against nakedfrog's point.
there is no incentive of researching alternative energy if oil prices are low.

i don't know which position to take on it. i'm kind of ok with things the way they are now.
prices are far from low, but far from high as well. at the current levels, it is spurring a lot of research towards alt. energy.

That's just not true, oil companies know they can't sell us oil forever, so it's looking out for their own self-interest to research alternatives. Additionally, in a capitalistic market, there is money to be made in producing an alternative regardless of oil prices, it just has to be cheaper than oil.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: nakedfrog
That's just not true, oil companies know they can't sell us oil forever, so it's looking out for their own self-interest to research alternatives. Additionally, in a capitalistic market, there is money to be made in producing an alternative regardless of oil prices, it just has to be cheaper than oil.

Thanks for making the point clear. Hoping for higher gas prices for the sole sake of "greener" energy mean you want HIGHER energy costs as a whole which I can't think being a positive thing.

Oil stays high = alternatives stay just below high
Oil stays low = alternatives stay just below low

Which one is better?

 

[shoegazer]

Originally posted by: nakedfrog
People have been researching alternative sources, and will continue to do so regardless of gas prices. Meanwhile, high gas prices suck for everyone and raise the price of all goods, and benefit most of us in no way.

I'm for higher gas prices because I'm for a carbon tax. Gas is cheaper than it should be because the environmental costs of burning it are not factored into the price. This makes it more difficult for alternative energy sources to compete.

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: shoegazer

Originally posted by: nakedfrog
People have been researching alternative sources, and will continue to do so regardless of gas prices. Meanwhile, high gas prices suck for everyone and raise the price of all goods, and benefit most of us in no way.

I'm for higher gas prices because I'm for a carbon tax. Gas is cheaper than it should be because the environmental costs of burning it are not factored into the price. This makes it more difficult for alternative energy sources to compete.

That's scary.

 

[evident]

i'll settle w/ $2.50 gas. i've been trained like pavlov's dog to accept higher gas prices.

 

[dbk]

low

 

[ConstipatedVigilante]

High gas prices don't actually help anyone - alternative energy sources are going to be really damn expensive when they're first conceived anyway - I'd rather make a smooth transition.

 

[shoegazer]

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: shoegazer

Originally posted by: nakedfrog
People have been researching alternative sources, and will continue to do so regardless of gas prices. Meanwhile, high gas prices suck for everyone and raise the price of all goods, and benefit most of us in no way.

I'm for higher gas prices because I'm for a carbon tax. Gas is cheaper than it should be because the environmental costs of burning it are not factored into the price. This makes it more difficult for alternative energy sources to compete.

That's scary.

Care to explain why you find that scary?

Seems pretty logical to me. Burning gas leads to air pollution like smog as well as climate change. These problems are expensive to deal with. So, we should hold the people doing the polluting responsible for that damage. Hence, carbon tax.

 

[shoegazer]

Originally posted by: nakedfrog
That's scary.

Maybe you think that everyone should pay equally to deal with environmental damages? Personally, I think it falls on the people who actually DO the polluting.

 

[TehMac]

Originally posted by: shoegazer

Originally posted by: nakedfrog
People have been researching alternative sources, and will continue to do so regardless of gas prices. Meanwhile, high gas prices suck for everyone and raise the price of all goods, and benefit most of us in no way.

I'm for higher gas prices because I'm for a carbon tax. Gas is cheaper than it should be because the environmental costs of burning it are not factored into the price. This makes it more difficult for alternative energy sources to compete.

Wrong, the U.S. government does tax for externailities. Especially in L.A. And most states have something called Smog Checks.


Econ 101.

Originally posted by: shoegazer

Originally posted by: shoegazer

Originally posted by: nakedfrog
That's scary.

Care to explain why you find that scary?

Seems pretty logical to me. Burning gas leads to air pollution like smog as well as climate change. These problems are expensive to deal with. So, we should hold the people doing the polluting responsible for that damage. Hence, carbon tax.

Maybe you think that everyone should pay equally to deal with environmental damages? Personally, I think it falls on the people who actually DO the polluting.

Did you just quote yourself in response or are there two conflicting personalities at your computer?

 

[shoegazer]

Originally posted by: TehMac

Originally posted by: shoegazer

Originally posted by: nakedfrog
People have been researching alternative sources, and will continue to do so regardless of gas prices. Meanwhile, high gas prices suck for everyone and raise the price of all goods, and benefit most of us in no way.

I'm for higher gas prices because I'm for a carbon tax. Gas is cheaper than it should be because the environmental costs of burning it are not factored into the price. This makes it more difficult for alternative energy sources to compete.

Wrong, the U.S. government does tax for externailities. Especially in L.A. And most states have something called Smog Checks.


Econ 101.

Originally posted by: shoegazer

Originally posted by: shoegazer

Originally posted by: nakedfrog
That's scary.

Care to explain why you find that scary?

Seems pretty logical to me. Burning gas leads to air pollution like smog as well as climate change. These problems are expensive to deal with. So, we should hold the people doing the polluting responsible for that damage. Hence, carbon tax.

Maybe you think that everyone should pay equally to deal with environmental damages? Personally, I think it falls on the people who actually DO the polluting.

Did you just quote yourself in response or are there two conflicting personalities at your computer?

Thanks for pointing that out. I meant to quote nakedfrog again, I'll fix it.

Back to the discussion. Few places do tax gas for the exclusive purpose of remediation of environmental damages. LA is an outlier on this. And, I don't know of any gas taxes for the purpose of mitigating global warming. Not to mention, smog checks only apply to cars while many other gas burning engines are not monitored and often have no catalytic converters at all.

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: shoegazer

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: shoegazer

Originally posted by: nakedfrog
People have been researching alternative sources, and will continue to do so regardless of gas prices. Meanwhile, high gas prices suck for everyone and raise the price of all goods, and benefit most of us in no way.

I'm for higher gas prices because I'm for a carbon tax. Gas is cheaper than it should be because the environmental costs of burning it are not factored into the price. This makes it more difficult for alternative energy sources to compete.

That's scary.

Care to explain why you find that scary?

Seems pretty logical to me. Burning gas leads to air pollution like smog as well as climate change. These problems are expensive to deal with. So, we should hold the people doing the polluting responsible for that damage. Hence, carbon tax.

It's scary because you like gas prices to be high because it conforms to your way of thinking, damage to the economy be damned.

 

[shoegazer]

Originally posted by: nakedfrog
It's scary because you like gas prices to be high because it conforms to your way of thinking, damage to the economy be damned.

My way of thinking is basic responsibility. You pollute, you pay. Also, climate change from CO2 and other air pollution from burning gas most certainly DO affect the economy.

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: shoegazer

Originally posted by: nakedfrog
It's scary because you like gas prices to be high because it conforms to your way of thinking, damage to the economy be damned.

My way of thinking is basic responsibility. You pollute, you pay. Also, climate change from CO2 and other air pollution from burning gas most certainly DO affect the economy.

I've not seen anything to convince me we're solely responsible for global warming... but I don't agree with punitive measures that won't do anything to address it, only make green extremists feel better.

 

[shoegazer]

Originally posted by: nakedfrog
I've not seen anything to convince me we're solely responsible for global warming... but I don't agree with punitive measures that won't do anything to address it, only make green extremists feel better.

Must we turn this into a debate on global warming? The consensus of scientists who actually study it is that it's predominately manmade. Some politicians might argue otherwise, but it's the scientists who are the experts and who hold positions that stress objectivity.

You don't think punitive measures will make a difference? If you happened to pay attention this past summer you might have noticed that gas prices were reaching record levels, consumption was dropping accordingly, and interest in renewable energy and more fuel efficient vehicles was piqued. If we actually put that money from the gas tax towards building up nuclear, solar, and wind power facilities we could make a lot of progess.

 

[0roo0roo]

let the market decide.
raising prices artificially like in europe does squat.
its not like their roads are filled with ev's.

 

[scruffypup]

Originally posted by: shoegazer

Originally posted by: nakedfrog
I've not seen anything to convince me we're solely responsible for global warming... but I don't agree with punitive measures that won't do anything to address it, only make green extremists feel better.

Must we turn this into a debate on global warming? The consensus of scientists who actually study it is that it's predominately manmade. Some politicians might argue otherwise, but it's the scientists who are the experts and who hold positions that stress objectivity.

You don't think punitive measures will make a difference? If you happened to pay attention this past summer you might have noticed that gas prices were reaching record levels, consumption was dropping accordingly, and interest in renewable energy and more fuel efficient vehicles was piqued. If we actually put that money from the gas tax towards building up nuclear, solar, and wind power facilities we could make a lot of progess.

It is not the consensus of scientists that say this is manmade, or that there is even evidence of global warming. There are just about as many scientists that are on the flip side of this as there are that say we are in global warming and it is entirely man made.

The global temperatures have not risen since the start of this century. In many places ice is increasing. The data some scientists are going on is a very small sampling overall in comparison to the history of the Earth and what effects the Earth's climate is way too complex to attribute the so called global warming to a small data set. There is an ever increasing group of scientists that believe we are in for a cooling period over the next decade or two. There is also very good reason to believe that sun activity (sunspots and such) have more effect than anything we do and the sun has been experiencing a decline in sunspots recently (even spotless for a change).

So, you argument is moot, because it is certain politicians and the media hype that really have caused the average American to believe there is global warming and it is all manmade.

Now as far as pollution in general from someone who suffers from mild asthma and having a son who suffers far more, living in a large city (Phoenix) with poor air quality (dust is a big factor too), I am all for having cleaner alternatives for health reasons of the citizens,... maybe this pollution is a reason why asthma rates on average have increased,... though there is no clear evidence to that.

Higher gas rates do not help the economy, they marginally accelerate alternatives and typically the taxes if you were to tax it higher would go to road maintenance and other services rather than cleaner vehicles or alternative energy sources,... I don't see that changing.

 

[shoegazer]

Originally posted by: scruffypup
It is not the consensus of scientists that say this is manmade, or that there is even evidence of global warming. There are just about as many scientists that are on the flip side of this as there are that say we are in global warming and it is entirely man made.

Yes, it most certainly IS the consensus of scientists who are studying it. A study of published papers on climate change (published in the journal Science) found the following: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/...ent/full/306/5702/1686

"The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue" [p. 3 in (5)]. Others agree. The American Meteorological Society (6), the American Geophysical Union (7), and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling (8).
The drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities for comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not likely that they would diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies' members. Nevertheless, they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords "climate change" (9).
The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.

Might they be wrong? Sure, it's always a possibility. But, these are the experts. If you're not going to get involved and do original scientific research yourself, then you really have little business trusting someone else.

 

[Fingolfin269]

I want $.89/gallon regular gasoline again.

 

[TheSlamma]

I'd like it lower.. but with dumb Americans it's a license to buy a guzzling SUV.. then what happens.. it goes up again.

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: shoegazer
You don't think punitive measures will make a difference? If you happened to pay attention this past summer you might have noticed that gas prices were reaching record levels, consumption was dropping accordingly, and interest in renewable energy and more fuel efficient vehicles was piqued. If we actually put that money from the gas tax towards building up nuclear, solar, and wind power facilities we could make a lot of progess.

We're already working on all those items, throwing more money at it won't make it happen faster. No need to punish every sector of the economy just because you want to. By the way, that would also raise prices on goods and services for people who don't even buy gas. Nice and fair.

 

[mect]

Originally posted by: shoegazer

Originally posted by: scruffypup
It is not the consensus of scientists that say this is manmade, or that there is even evidence of global warming. There are just about as many scientists that are on the flip side of this as there are that say we are in global warming and it is entirely man made.

Yes, it most certainly IS the consensus of scientists who are studying it. A study of published papers on climate change (published in the journal Science) found the following: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/...ent/full/306/5702/1686

"The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue" [p. 3 in (5)]. Others agree. The American Meteorological Society (6), the American Geophysical Union (7), and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling (8).
The drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities for comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not likely that they would diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies' members. Nevertheless, they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords "climate change" (9).
The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.

Might they be wrong? Sure, it's always a possibility. But, these are the experts. If you're not going to get involved and do original scientific research yourself, then you really have little business trusting someone else.

Did you notice the article linked directly under yours?
"In her essay "The scientific consensus on climate change" (3 Dec. 2004, p. 1686), N. Oreskes asserts that the consensus reflected in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) appears to reflect, well, a consensus. Although Oreskes found unanimity in the 928 articles with key words "global climate change," we should not be surprised if a broader review were to find conclusions at odds with the IPCC consensus, as "consensus" does not mean uniformity of perspective. In the discussion motivated by Oreskes' Essay, I have seen one claim made that there are more than 11,000 articles on "climate change" in the ISI database and suggestions that about 10% somehow contradict the IPCC consensus position."

But then this scientist makes the more valid point, what does it matter if there is consensus. The larger problem is that there is no consensus on policy, and that is what matters. For example, lets say we know with 99% certainty that CO2 is contributing to global warming, that is still essentially useless because we still don't know how much we would need to cut emissions to have a significant impact. For example, if researchers predict that we could have a significant environmental impact by cutting CO2 emissions by 10%, the policies would be very different than if we need to cut emissions by 1000%. So basically, even if there is a scientific consensus, which is debatable, it is not worth ruining our lifestyle when we have no idea what the impact will be.

 

[BlahBlahYouToo]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
let the market decide.
raising prices artificially like in europe does squat.
its not like their roads are filled with ev's.

not true. look at all our SUV's vs their micro cars and diesels.
and it's NOT because of the size of their roads.

they may not be hybrid/plugins, but they're hell of a lot more efficient than our hummers and escalades.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: BlahBlahYouToo

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
let the market decide.
raising prices artificially like in europe does squat.
its not like their roads are filled with ev's.

not true. look at all our SUV's vs their micro cars and diesels.
and it's NOT because of the size of their roads.

they may not be hybrid/plugins, but they're hell of a lot more efficient than our hummers and escalades.

I'll take freedom and choice thank you, not what view you wish to force upon others by artificially inflating or taxing energy. Your kind of thinking is downright scary.