John McCain's Fuzzy Math

[midwinter]

Today McCain announced that he'd cut the Federal tax on gasoline, saving each individual 20%! Awesome!

Except.


The U.S. Department of Energy's Energy Information Administration (EIA) reported on April 14 that the average price of regular gasoline nationwide was $3.389 per gallon, meaning that, on average, federal tax comprises 5.4 percent -- not 20 percent -- of the current total cost of regular gas.


So now we know that McCain doesn't know the difference between Sunnis and Shi'as. He thinks that a normal stroll in a market requires a couple of helicopters and a hundred marines. He doesn't know on whose side al Qaeda stands. Now he can't do math. At what point does his consistent non-sense become too much?

[Jubelum]

what sslarson said.

That's the anti-GOP trifecta... three middy threads in one day.
This is going to be a fun election season. Our Republic is so screwed.

Surely, midwinter, with your considerable skill in making an argument, you can come up with better than these gems you've tossed in today:

"How far is the NRCC willing to stoop to find candidates?" (Yea... demonstrable racists are so easy to elect these days)
"How far will this kind of speech be allowed to go?" (allowed to go? before what? by who?)
"At what point does his consistent non-sense become too much?" (too much for who? and as opposed to the trainload of shit each of these three has trailing behind them...?)

It sounds like the pre-commercial-break teaser for a low budget Fox reporter's investigative spot.

[midwinter]

Ummm...based on this (http://mediamatters.org/items/200804150003?f=h_latest) (Media Matters), it wasn't McCain that was having trouble with the math but Mika Brzezinski and Monica Novotny:



It's not clear that these are direct quotes from McCain but statements from the MSNBCLive folks.

And even there it sounds like an honest tele-prompter mistake...because, in the video, she says "that's about 20 percent of the cost"....when what might have been meant was "that's about 20 cents of the cost."

Seems like a non-news issue here.

I don't think it's a non-issue at all. Even if this percentage is not coming from the McCain camp, this kind of egregious misrepresentation of his plan is just another part of the pattern of the press fawning all over St. McCain, who can do no wrong.

[addabox]

I agree. I think it points to a pattern of vagueness, misstatement and outright untruth on McCain's part, and the media's willingness to cover for him.

Remember, the idea with Bush was that, although he might not be the sharpest tool in the shed, he was going to surround himself with seasoned hands and professionals, so all would be well.

Maybe you want to have a beer with the crazy old coot at the end of the bar with the colorful stories, but do you really want him as president?

[Jubelum]

outright untruth on McCain's part
I'd be interested in examples of this, not as a challenge, but to add to the file.

Remember, the idea with Bush was that, although he might not be the sharpest tool in the shed, he was going to surround himself with seasoned hands and professionals, so all would be well.

Yea. That went off real well. :no:

Maybe you want to have a beer with the crazy old coot at the end of the bar with the colorful stories, but do you really want him as president?

I'd have a beer with him and listen to his stories out of simple respect for his service and age, and that I try to do at least three nice things for the elderly every week. As long as we didn't talk politics. Maybe war stories. And he would have to buy.

[franksargent]

McCain Proposes Break in Gas Taxes (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5g6OTvvWxmdp5Q2IvjYry89Ikh1YwD90257VO0)

To help people weather the downturn immediately, McCain was calling for Congress to institute a "gas-tax holiday" by suspending the 18.4 cent federal gas tax and 24.4 cent diesel tax from Memorial Day to Labor Day. He also renewed his call for the United States to stop adding to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and thus lessen to some extent the worldwide demand for oil.

MSNBC can't do even basic fact checking! :rolleyes:

Meanwhile, our infrastructure is in the dumps, and McCain only wants to accelerate it, by cutting off tax revenues for road and bridge construction;

The head of the U.S. Dept. of Transportation stated on 15 August 2007 that about 60% of federal gas taxes are used for highway and bridge construction. The remaining 40% goes to other, unrelated uses.[2] However, revenues from other taxes is also used in federal transportation programs.

McCain really needs to be put out to pasture.

Heck, yesterday oil was $111+/barrel. At this rate by summertime, high demand will push gasoline over $4.00/gallon, knock of $0.184/gallon and you end up at $3.816/gallon. Woo Hoo, a discount of 4.6%. Now I'll be able to afford one extra Happy Meal™ at McDonald's per fill up. :rolleyes:

[addabox]

At any rate, does anyone think that 18¢ a gallon is going to do much to ease anyone's suffering?

Couple of bucks a fill-up and how much money from the deficit ridden federal coffers? All the while The Most Important War in the World goes on chewing up money like an unstoppable money-chewing-up thing?

John McCain: irresponsible panderer.

[addabox]

Also, given that the federal gas tax is generally earmarked for highway construction and infrastructure upkeep, and knowing as we do that America's transportation infrastructure is an alarming state of disrepair, we have to ask: why does John McCain hate bridges?

Sorry, why does John McCain hate safe bridges?

[Jubelum]

Sorry, why does John McCain hate safe bridges?

:lol: Classic.

Because the trolls that live under them are Democrat voters. ;)

[franksargent]

Also, given that the federal gas tax is generally earmarked for highway construction and infrastructure upkeep, and knowing as we do that America's transportation infrastructure is an alarming state of disrepair, we have to ask: why does John McCain hate bridges?

Sorry, why does John McCain hate safe bridges?

McCain Promises Unsafe Roads and Bridges for Extra Happy Meals™

[mydo]

I don't think it's a non-issue at all. Even if this percentage is not coming from the McCain camp, this kind of egregious misrepresentation of his plan is just another part of the pattern of the press fawning all over St. McCain, who can do no wrong.

:lol: When they had super love for Obama did you mind that? :lol:

[midwinter]

I think $8 a gallon would be just about right.

[Jubelum]

I think $8 a gallon would be just about right.

What would that accomplish?

[franksargent]

What I find interesting is that when gas prices go up (because of those Big Bad Evil Oil Companies :rolleyes:) there is great weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth over the terrible injustice this is to the American consumer (perpetrated, of course, by the Big Bad Evil Oil Companies who can raise prices at will :err:), but when someone recommends reducing the price by eliminating the 18 cent per gallon tax on same (or, heaven forbid the other 20-24 cents in taxes levies by the states), there is complaining again, but this time because it will cause more pollution or lead to worse roads.

So what does everyone want? Low gas prices or high gas prices? And, if so, which price? What is the "right" price?

First, remove the federal gas tax of $0.184/gallon using EIA data (circa 2007) (http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_cons_psup_dc_nus_mbblpd_a.htm) the private sector doesn't lose a penny, while the federal coffers lose ~$6.55 billion dollars/quarter (roughly what McCain is proposing), not exactly chicken feed mind you.

Second, remove the federal diesel tax of $0.244/gallon (from same EIA link), again the private sector doesn't lose a penny, while federal coffers lose ~$3.26 billion/quarter, again not exactly chicken feed.

So expecting record demand this summer means at least $10 billion in lost federal tax revenues. While the private sector gains all time high profit margins, as they've done for the last several consecutive years.

All to save us from what will be record summer fuel prices with, or without, McCain's extra Happy Meals™. Diesel is already $4+/gallon in April.

Vote McCain, he's penny wise, and pound fuelish!

[midwinter]

What would that accomplish?

The following, I would hope:

- less demand for ridiculously large vehicles
- more demand for ridiculously fuel-efficient vehicles
- less driving, generally
- increased use of public transit
- implementation of public transit where it is not already available
- more. friggin'. trains.
- rethinking of zoning and suburban layout

That's for starters.

My point is that although we may whine and moan, the fact of the matter is that gas could cost $4 a gallon and people will still drive too much in vehicles that suck. But at $8, minimum, I'll bet that changes.

[Jubelum]

That's for starters.


Are you ready to pay the inflation in prices that would follow at the retail level?
And imagine how much this would hurt the poor... it would be a bit regressive, no?

[franksargent]

Are you ready to pay the inflation in prices that would follow at the retail level?
And imagine how much this would hurt the poor... it would be a bit regressive, no?

We could exempt diesel and gas for commercial users only. That's doable.

But just like the oil crises of 1973 and 1979, my thoughts are that some inflationary pressures are going to occur anyway, this summer regardless.

[Jubelum]

We could exempt diesel and gas for commercial users only. That's doable.

Exempt them from $8 a gallon? Interesting.

It would depend on how it got to $8 a gallon.

If the government raised the gas tax from 20 cents to $4.50 on non-commercial vehicles, after the complete cleaning out of Congress, we'd be right back where we started. Might be a good idea anyway.

If the market drove it to $8 a gallon, then what? I guess subsidies for the commercial trucking industry...?

[midwinter]

Are you ready to pay the inflation in prices that would follow at the retail level?
And imagine how much this would hurt the poor... it would be a bit regressive, no?

Everyone knows the poor don't drive anyway. ;)

The larger point is that NOTHING will change while gas is cheap. Nothing. When gas really, really hurts, when it becomes an extravagance and a luxury, then we'll see changes in the way we travel, the way we purchase, the way our burbs are designed...all kinds of things.

For instance, I live on the northern edge of the SLC metro area in one of the larger burbs. There are around 200K people in my immediate area. I live in a fairly affluent part of town (the old neighborhood the lawyers all lived in in the 60s). The nearest market to me is 3 miles. There were, 40 years ago, neighborhood markets all over the place in my area. We have excellent public transit, though, and we're getting rail service in a couple of weeks (praise be!), and there is talk of a trolly going on the major thoroughfares.

But we're the exception, largely, I suspect, because we stare at a big mountain every day and have routine discussions about water conservation, limits on building up on the hill, our shitty air quality (some of the worst in the nation) where, today, we couldn't see the 10K foot mountain up the highway from us AT ALL. It was completely covered by smog.

[hardeeharhar]

I think the gas tax is one of the most regressive ones out there.

That being said, we should start implementing taxation to pay for damages to economic goods that have been nearly intangible. Gas guzzler tax should go up, perhaps as a part of registration fees for cars. This added revenue should be earmarked solely for upkeep/maintenance of roads and increased funding for public transportation (perhaps even a national law that assists local governments with dealing with transit unions...)...

Since we clearly cannot trust law makers with a pile of cash no matter how much we support their politics. Specifically earmarked taxes should become the norm.

[SDW2001]

Everyone knows the poor don't drive anyway. ;)

The larger point is that NOTHING will change while gas is cheap. Nothing. When gas really, really hurts, when it becomes an extravagance and a luxury, then we'll see changes in the way we travel, the way we purchase, the way our burbs are designed...all kinds of things.

For instance, I live on the northern edge of the SLC metro area in one of the larger burbs. There are around 200K people in my immediate area. I live in a fairly affluent part of town (the old neighborhood the lawyers all lived in in the 60s). The nearest market to me is 3 miles. There were, 40 years ago, neighborhood markets all over the place in my area. We have excellent public transit, though, and we're getting rail service in a couple of weeks (praise be!), and there is talk of a trolly going on the major thoroughfares.

But we're the exception, largely, I suspect, because we stare at a big mountain every day and have routine discussions about water conservation, limits on building up on the hill, our shitty air quality (some of the worst in the nation) where, today, we couldn't see the 10K foot mountain up the highway from us AT ALL. It was completely covered by smog.

Here's the issue: There's no good reason for change. The price of oil is not being...pardon me...fueled ;) by low supply. It's being driven by geopolitical events, market instability, etc. There is plenty of oil on the market. What you see at the pump is due to two factors primarily: 1) Lack of refining capacity here in the US and 2) The price of crude, which itself is based on market speculation. My two cents is that after all of this craziness with the price of oil, we're going to see a crash..and not Peak Oil style. It will be just the opposite. The market will eventually figure out that there is too much supply in the system for oil to cost $110+ a barrel. I think that within the next few years you might see prices go to $40-50 a barrel, and quite quickly. We might even see "gas wars" here again. Or maybe I'm on crack...who knows.

[franksargent]

Here's the issue: There's no good reason for change. The price of oil is not being...pardon me...fueled ;) by low supply. It's being driven by geopolitical events, market instability, etc. There is plenty of oil on the market. What you see at the pump is due to two factors primarily: 1) Lack of refining capacity here in the US and 2) The price of crude, which itself is based on market speculation. My two cents is that after all of this craziness with the price of oil, we're going to see a crash..and not Peak Oil style. It will be just the opposite. The market will eventually figure out that there is too much supply in the system for oil to cost $110+ a barrel. I think that within the next few years you might see prices go to $40-50 a barrel, and quite quickly. We might even see "gas wars" here again. Or maybe I'm on crack...who knows.

How can you possibly think that oil will drop to 30% - 40% of it's current price? OPEC won't increase supply, demand is ever increasing, these prices aren't limited to the USA, there global. More people, more vehicles, more demand.

And if we do something really stupid, like bomb, bomb, bomb, Iran, then expect gas rationing to become a reality.

World Crude Oil Prices (http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_pri_wco_k_w.htm)

All Countries Spot Price FOB Weighted by Estimated Export Volume (Dollars per Barrel) (http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/hist/wtotworldw.htm)

That second link suggests we'd need to return to 2003-4 crude oil prices. That second link also suggests a possible causal link of crude oil prices and our continued involvement in Iraq. It's actually kind of scary.

[Frank777]

The following, I would hope:

- less demand for ridiculously large vehicles
- more demand for ridiculously fuel-efficient vehicles
- less driving, generally
- increased use of public transit
- implementation of public transit where it is not already available
- more. friggin'. trains.
- rethinking of zoning and suburban layout

That's for starters.

All of that is happening now.

The problem here is that North America has become a drive through, 24-hour, fix-it-now, instant gratification society that demands "instant" political solutions to problems that have festered for decades, even centuries.

When the Conservatives here in Canada brought in a system of phased efforts to clean up the air, they were ridiculed here because the planning went to the year 2050. Most of the ridicule came from the Liberals, who were in office for 13 years with no plan and their reign saw the air get progressively worse.

The problems you cite above have been built up over the last hundred years. It's going to take a few decades to resolve the issues completely. Hiking gas taxes and putting millions of people out of work is a very poor quick-fix solution that will not fix the problem in the long run.

[midwinter]

Here's the issue: There's no good reason for change. The price of oil is not being...pardon me...fueled ;) by low supply. It's being driven by geopolitical events, market instability, etc. There is plenty of oil on the market. What you see at the pump is due to two factors primarily: 1) Lack of refining capacity here in the US and 2) The price of crude, which itself is based on market speculation. My two cents is that after all of this craziness with the price of oil, we're going to see a crash..and not Peak Oil style. It will be just the opposite. The market will eventually figure out that there is too much supply in the system for oil to cost $110+ a barrel. I think that within the next few years you might see prices go to $40-50 a barrel, and quite quickly. We might even see "gas wars" here again. Or maybe I'm on crack...who knows.


Do you read my posts and then just fire off some kind of instant winger talking-points button? My point, SDW2001, is that MY AIR SUCKS. A lot. How bad, you ask? So bad that a recent study by the University of Utah revealed that we all might as well be smoking.

[Jubelum]

MY AIR SUCKS.

Local problem... local solution?

[midwinter]

Local problem... local solution?

We're trying. But all the good GOP Mormons here HAAAAAAAAAAATED Rocky Anderson for it.

[Jubelum]

That second link also suggests a possible causal link of crude oil prices and our continued involvement in Iraq. It's actually kind of scary.

I thought this was a war for oil? Where's my oil?

*coughindiaandchinacough*

[Jubelum]

We're trying. But all the good GOP Mormons here HAAAAAAAAAAATED Rocky Anderson for it.

I would assume the Mormons share the heathens air... but won't get into cleaning it up?

[franksargent]

I thought this was a war for oil? Where's my oil?

*coughindiaandchinacough*

Yeah, I don't want to read too much into crude oil prices, China and India, are definitely pushing the demand curve, IMHO.

[midwinter]

I would assume the Mormons share the heathens air... but won't get into cleaning it up?

Not so much. Libertarians, all, so they don't like the idea of big gummit telling business what to do, but they don't like the idea of folks just dumping crap into the rivers, and they don't like the idea of paying for cleanup with taxes, but they don't want to go clean it up.

MOstly, they just didn't like Rocky, as he was unabashedly a librulwhohatesamurka™.

[spindler]

The following, I would hope:

- less demand for ridiculously large vehicles
- more demand for ridiculously fuel-efficient vehicles
- less driving, generally
- increased use of public transit
- implementation of public transit where it is not already available
- more. friggin'. trains.
- rethinking of zoning and suburban layout

That's for starters.

My point is that although we may whine and moan, the fact of the matter is that gas could cost $4 a gallon and people will still drive too much in vehicles that suck. But at $8, minimum, I'll bet that changes.

Midwinter, there is a difference between being a conscious member of society, and veering off into social control. I agree we need expensive gas so people will work on the problem of global warming. But the things you are suggesting are absurd. Public transportation is just not practical. I don't want to spend 45 minutes on a trip that would take 15 minutes to drive. Time is limited. You have to walk to the station, hope a route goes the way you are going, wait for it, etc. It is just not feasible. After working 8 hours in the day there isn't one minute to waste, let alone thirty.

Why do you hope that people will drive less, other than the pollution factor, and maybe that there is a risk of accidents while driving? And why would you care if there is a market a mile away, rather than a Walmart three miles away? The centralization of the Walmart and lack of duplication really saves resources, rather than having loads of small deliveries everywhere.

There are practical reasons to want things to be a certain way, but just because you like them a certain way is not really a good enough reason. People can drive all day if they like to, as long as the drawbacks of it are under control.

[mydo]

I take the bus every day and what would be a 15 minute drive does take 40 minutes by bus. I'm only going 3.5 miles. I have to walk to the stop, have to get there a little early even though bus is always late, stop to pick everyone, take a route that is longer, walk from the bus stop to my office.

I do it because I only own one car and don't want to buy and maintain another if I can avoid it. Public transportation does suck. Don't buy into the "wow you can drink your coffee and read the news paper" nonsence.

[Jubelum]

Don't buy into the "wow you can drink your coffee and read the news paper" nonsence.

Reminds me of the Vegas Monorail. Sold to me as the way to conveniently travel in quiet, spacious, enviro-friendly style. After the second day of a five day trip I went back to sharing a taxi with others who were going my way. That damn thing was a overcrowded no-room-to-breathe nightmare, with constant loud marketing over the in-car system, and a 10-20 minute wait to board each way. And just wait until it goes into McCarran. Yuck.

I wish the whole country had systems as great as the DC Metro. That thing rocks.
Just not practical in many places. Certainly not here in central Texas.

[midwinter]

Midwinter, there is a difference between being a conscious member of society, and veering off into social control.

It is entirely possible you have misunderstood my political orientation.

But the things you are suggesting are absurd. Public transportation is just not practical.

Sure it is. It works fine for millions of people in London every single day. It works fine for millions in New York.

I don't want to spend 45 minutes on a trip that would take 15 minutes to drive.

"I don't want" does not equal "impractical."

Time is limited. You have to walk to the station, hope a route goes the way you are going, wait for it, etc. It is just not feasible.

This kind of confuses me. You seem to be suggesting that the "bus" is this radical, bizarre, solution that will just never work.

After working 8 hours in the day there isn't one minute to waste, let alone thirty.

There are always lots of minutes to waste.

Why do you hope that people will drive less, other than the pollution factor, and maybe that there is a risk of accidents while driving?

Those reasons totally suck. I love pollution. And accidents. And massive roads cutting all over the place.

And why would you care if there is a market a mile away, rather than a Walmart three miles away? The centralization of the Walmart and lack of duplication really saves resources, rather than having loads of small deliveries everywhere.

That would be the case if Wal-Mart weren't evil. What WM gains in centralization is loses in its horrible business practices. My town actually fought off a Wal-Mart a couple of years ago, and we got a wonderful downtown recreation center/dining/gym/fat cats/indoor SKYDIVING!! PLACE/ climbing wall/ Gold's Gym, and a rejuvenated downtown that will be services by our light rail.

In terms of markets...I'd like a little mom and pop shop within a 10 minutes walk. That would be nice.

There are practical reasons to want things to be a certain way, but just because you like them a certain way is not really a good enough reason. People can drive all day if they like to, as long as the drawbacks of it are under control.

And they are clearly not.

[midwinter]

I take the bus every day and what would be a 15 minute drive does take 40 minutes by bus. I'm only going 3.5 miles. I have to walk to the stop, have to get there a little early even though bus is always late, stop to pick everyone, take a route that is longer, walk from the bus stop to my office.

I do it because I only own one car and don't want to buy and maintain another if I can avoid it. Public transportation does suck. Don't buy into the "wow you can drink your coffee and read the news paper" nonsence.

3.5 miles? Dude. GET A BIKE. You can even drink your coffee and read your paper on it.

[Fellowship]

Reminds me of the Vegas Monorail. Sold to me as the way to conveniently travel in quiet, spacious, enviro-friendly style. After the second day of a five day trip I went back to sharing a taxi with others who were going my way. That damn thing was a overcrowded no-room-to-breathe nightmare, with constant loud marketing over the in-car system, and a 10-20 minute wait to board each way. And just wait until it goes into McCarran. Yuck.

I wish the whole country had systems as great as the DC Metro. That thing rocks.
Just not practical in many places. Certainly not here in central Texas.

The best public transportation is in Paris France.

As for cars in America we need to figure out ways to go with lighter cars over time. We need to get CNG into cars. CNG is still a fossil fuel which is not the best but it burns much cleaner and with oil and fuel prices where they are I can't see why CNG is off in the distance when it should be part of the solution as we speak.

It is right under American soil.

Did I mention that part?

Fellows

[hardeeharhar]

3.5 miles? Dude. GET A BIKE. You can even drink your coffee and read your paper on it.
3.5 miles is definitely bikeable if the roads are friendly... if not . . .

[mydo]

I used to bike to work 12.5 miles. So I know what a joy and a hassle it can be. These days I have to wear a shirt and tie so I'd have to do a quick change and back when I come and go to work. Not to mention the fact that there have been some high profile hits in my area (cyclists hit by cars). So I take the bus.

That fact still stands. Public trans' is slow and inefficient.

[mydo]

In your town.

The only time it's faster is during rush hour grid lock. In any town.

[Flounder]

The only time it's faster is during rush hour grid lock. In any town.

When considering the time it would take to park and then get to my building (whether I had to drive up 6 flights of a ramp in my building, or park in a lot several block away), versus being dropped off about 100 yards from my building, the bus usually takes me a little less time than it would if I drove. That's in any kind of traffic.

[Frank777]

These are the precise kinds of issues that will be worked out as cities are rebuilt around urban standard that we forgot.

Big cities became unfriendly places to raise families, and the rise of suburbia came without much thought about travelling in anything but an automobile.

Bike lanes will be separated from traffic and built overhead (http://www.cbc.ca/toronto/features/freewheeling/velocity.html), and more companies will include showers and lockers as part of regular business.

It will just take time. Our current lifestyle wasn't built in a day.

[addabox]

These are the precise kinds of issues that will be worked out as cities are rebuilt around urban standard that we forgot.

Big cities became unfriendly places to raise families, and the rise of suburbia came without much thought about travelling in anything but an automobile.

Bike lanes will be separated from traffic and built overhead (http://www.cbc.ca/toronto/features/freewheeling/velocity.html), and more companies will include showers and lockers as part of regular business.

It will just take time. Our current lifestyle wasn't built in a day.

I think that is largely Midwinter's point-- allowing gasoline costs to rise will do much to hasten the infrastructure response that makes less car travel possible.

The trouble with the pure "free market" solution is that our current system may become untenable relatively quickly, and the disruption caused by woefully unprepared urban and suburban transit systems and planning may be far worse than the economic near term impacts of rising fuel prices.

I mean, the economies of Europe seem to somehow soldier on, with more than double than we pay at the pump. They also have far better mass transit, higher rates of bike use, a broad selection of tiny, fuel efficient cars, as well as a much broader and more sophisticated selection of high mileage diesel vehicles.

Personally, I think we need a sense of national mission to make sweeping changes in how our cities are zoned and what kind of transit infrastructure is provided. But as long as gas prices remain the lowest in the industrialized west, there is little sense of urgency beyond the kind of background grumbling that goes with any kind of inflation.

[SDW2001]

How can you possibly think that oil will drop to 30% - 40% of it's current price? OPEC won't increase supply, demand is ever increasing, these prices aren't limited to the USA, there global. More people, more vehicles, more demand.

And if we do something really stupid, like bomb, bomb, bomb, Iran, then expect gas rationing to become a reality.

World Crude Oil Prices (http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_pri_wco_k_w.htm)

All Countries Spot Price FOB Weighted by Estimated Export Volume (Dollars per Barrel) (http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/hist/wtotworldw.htm)

That second link suggests we'd need to return to 2003-4 crude oil prices. That second link also suggests a possible causal link of crude oil prices and our continued involvement in Iraq. It's actually kind of scary.

Because it has nothing to do with supply relative to demand. It has to do with geopolitical tensions and refining capacity here in the US. There is more than enough supply. That's simply not where the bottleneck is.


Do you read my posts and then just fire off some kind of instant winger talking-points button? My point, SDW2001, is that MY AIR SUCKS. A lot. How bad, you ask? So bad that a recent study by the University of Utah revealed that we all might as well be smoking.

Other than the last sentence, you didn't address air quality, correct? I was focusing more on the changes you felt were necessary...I didn't realize your central point was air quality. Clearly that's another matter.

[Frank777]

I mean, the economies of Europe seem to somehow soldier on, with more than double than we pay at the pump. They also have far better mass transit, higher rates of bike use, a broad selection of tiny, fuel efficient cars, as well as a much broader and more sophisticated selection of high mileage diesel vehicles.

One of the things that strike North American visitors to Europe is how 'old' everything is. ;)
They've had thousands of years to deal with these issues.

North America is simply coming of age here, and I seriously doubt that governments will be in a better position to tackle these issues if thousands of taxpayers are thrown out of work by pricing gasoline out of reach overnight. We may even move backwards.

One of the fastest ways to curb the growth of suburbia is making urban areas more attractive to families.

Here in Toronto, there's been a rise in the number of homeless on the streets. Politicians talk about red light districts and "safe-injection sites" for drug users. Sexually explicit magazines are handed out on the streets and the union-controlled, politically correct school system is a continuous mess.

Who wants to raise their kids in an environment like that?

[Jubelum]

I mean, the economies of Europe seem to somehow soldier on, with more than double than we pay at the pump. They also have far better mass transit, higher rates of bike use, a broad selection of tiny, fuel efficient cars, as well as a much broader and more sophisticated selection of high mileage diesel vehicles.

One thing is that, for the same 12 hour trip, you can either go from one end of Texas to the other, or go from Berlin to Paris, crossing two national borders, and still have three hours left over for lunch and a movie. Things are not only "older" they are also "closer". It's going to be a hard sell to get people to want to take all-day trips in a Ford Festiva or Toyota Yaris. I did Austin-Little Rock in a Festiva once. Miserable. And had to pay to have my gear shipped there, because there was no room in the car.

Mass transit and bicycle lanes may work in some places here in the states, and we should seriously look at those options where it is feasible.

My wife and I are considering a VW Golf or Jetta. Awesome fuel economy, and extremely reliable. Fuel economy numbers like that should be making Detroit nervous... and they are. A fellow bitter Church-goer is a car dealer, and he's predicting insane rebates and incentives for SUVs this fall. Sales for half-ton and larger trucks and SUVs are in the toilet. The market works.

[Denton]

As for cars in America we need to figure out ways to go with lighter cars over time. We need to get CNG into cars. CNG is still a fossil fuel which is not the best but it burns much cleaner and with oil and fuel prices where they are I can't see why CNG is off in the distance when it should be part of the solution as we speak.

Screw that. We need to begin implementing the technologies that will herald the inevitable hydrogen age. Although not a fuel source, hydrogen will serve as an excellent chemical fuel "currency" for powering airplanes and cars alike. We will "purchase" hydrogen with nuclear (hydro, thermal, wind, solar, etc. to lesser extents) power-plants through electrolysis: the same plants that we will use to "purchase" our electricity "currency". This energy system will produce no CO2 and will be able to power all of the technologies that we have today, and many that are currently unimaginable (like the internet was unimaginable to those who were first using electricity).

Humanity will stop using coal and crude oil, not because we are in any danger of "running out", but because the consequences of continually increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere will (at some point) be catastrophic to the civilizations that we have spent ten thousand years building. There is time, but the transition will take the better part of 50 years (as did the transition to electricity from town-gas and horse-feed), so we should begin soon.

[Denton]

The market works.

And what will make it "work" faster is if the government announced that they will artificially inflate the price of all fuels that produce greenhouse gases by 10% each year indefinitely (above what it would otherwise have been -- for instance, if the current rate of tax on a gallon of gas is 20% then raising that to 32% would increase the selling price by 10% above what it would otherwise have been). Any tax-surpluses will lead to tax-cuts in other areas. The relatively slow rate of increase would allow time for technologies and practices to adjust to the changing conditions.

[Jubelum]

And what will make it "work" faster is if the government announced that they will artificially inflate the price of all fuels that produce greenhouse gases by 10% each year indefinitely (above what it would otherwise have been -- for instance, if the current rate of tax on a gallon of gas is 20% then raising that to 32% would increase the selling price by 10% above what it would otherwise have been). Any tax-surpluses will lead to tax-cuts in other areas. The relatively slow rate of increase would allow time for technologies and practices to adjust to the changing conditions.

Yea, that'll play well on Main Street. Political suicide.

This is what a constant droning about "crisis" creates- ridiculous things like 10% compounding tax increases. And you are living in la-la land if you think that any surpluses will lead to tax cuts in other areas. Forget about it. :lol:

What exactly do you plan to do with India and China?

[Denton]

Yea, that'll play well on Main Street. Political suicide.

This is what a constant droning about "crisis" creates- ridiculous things like 10% compounding tax increases. And you are living in la-la land if you think that any surpluses will lead to tax cuts in other areas. Forget about it. :lol:

What exactly do you plan to do with India and China?

I'll replace "will" with "should." I still think this is a good idea. All we need is one person with "balls" and the ability to sell others on their vision.

For instance, by pushing up prices in this way, companies like GM and Ford (and others that one may not think of immediately like General Electric), will be forced to develop technologies that their customers demand. This will stimulate the build-up of expertise in areas that the rest of the world will soon be in need of, at which point, the US would be leaders in providing this expertise. I'm not politician, but do you not think that this is an angle that someone more capable than I would be able to develop?

As for India and China, if we are world-leaders in high-efficiency energy use (and even the use of alternate energy systems), they will beg us for expertise that will help them shave decades off of their development: American jobs!

[Jubelum]

I'll replace "will" with "should." I still think this is a good idea. All we need is one person with "balls" and the ability to sell others on their vision.

For instance, by pushing up prices in this way, companies like GM and Ford (and others that one may not think of immediately like General Electric), will be forced to develop technologies that their customers demand. This will stimulate the build-up of expertise in areas that the rest of the world will soon be in need of, at which point, the US would be leaders in providing this expertise. I'm not politician, but do you not think that this is an angle that someone more capable than I would be able to develop?

As for India and China, if we are world-leaders in high-efficiency energy use (and even the use of alternate energy systems), they will beg us for expertise that will help them shave decades off of their development: American jobs!

You know, that is a very interesting plan. I may not agree with it, but it is something innovative.

[vinea]

Add in the belief that we have crossed the peak worldwide oil production (or will very soon) and are on the downward slope. I'm inclined to agree with hubbert's peak models based on what happened in the US.

The forecasts are dire if we've peaked already as some think as the economic models say that we need a 10-20 year lead time in deploying alternate energy in order to avoid serious economic harm. Some energy experts say that part of the problem is identification of the peak is hard until 1-2 years before peak and the drop off isn't gradual.

The UK peaked in 2000. They went from an oil exported to an oil importer in five years...in 2005 they produced 1.65M barrels per day but used 1.7M. They produced 2.9M in 1999...thier peak year.

Estimates range from 3% per year decline (Cheney) to 8% per year decline (based on US and North Sea historical behavior). 8% would cut production in half in a mere decade.

It ain't looking too grand for my kids whether you use the pessimistic estimates (peaks soon) or optimistic (peeks in a couple decades).

You know, history may judge Cheney and Bush more kindly than we think. Of course they will likely note that they really screwed the pooch on implementation. The bad part, of course, we may be in a weaker position vis a vis China in competition for oil than we might have otherwise been without the Iraq debacle.

Thinking about it...McCain doesn't have the vision for the next decade. I dunno that anyone does but he's not our guy.

[Denton]

Add in the belief that we have crossed the peak worldwide oil production (or will very soon) and are on the downward slope. I'm inclined to agree with hubbert's peak models based on what happened in the US.

The problem is that as the price of oil goes higher, more of the oil resources (that which is in the ground) will be added to oil reserves (that which is accessible given market prices). The funny thing is, that we have had approximately 40 years of oil remaining in reserves for the past 100 years. The reason is that the reserves keep getting bigger due to higher prices allowing for more costly exploitation. While there is little reason to think that this won't continue for the next 100 years, what will happen is that the remaining reserves will be less ubiquitously distributed around the world. This will increasingly cause more conflict among nations unless we "kick our oil habit."

If you don't think that rising CO2 levels is enough reason to cut fossil fuels from our energy system, how about rising costs in human lives (American lives -- let's be clear, we only care about ourselves; though strictly speaking, I'm not American) fighting wars over oil that is increasingly concentrated in areas that we would prefer we controlled?

[Jubelum]

The funny thing is, that we have had approximately 40 years of oil remaining in reserves for the past 100 years. The reason is that the reserves keep getting bigger due to higher prices allowing for more costly exploitation. While there is little reason to think that this won't continue for the next 100 years, what will happen is that the remaining reserves will be less ubiquitously distributed around the world.


As a friend of mine who works for Schlumberger told me ten years ago... "It's not finding oil... it's finding oil that we can get to in an economical way." The wars in the 21st Century will be fought over food, energy, water, and religion... and little else. Wars simply for the sake of territory are soooo 20th Century.

It's time to open ANWR... because we probably won't see oil out of any field there until 5-7 years, at the earliest, after the first bit hits the ground. And some good news came in from North Dakota/Saskatchewan this week regarding the pool there being much larger than previously thought. Simply fighting US oil exploration is not going to save the planet, reduce usage, or reduce pollution. That oil is going to be drilled, pumped, refined, and burned. Period. It just means that countries like Mexico will claim the Gulf of Mexico reserves, and Russia will have the reserves in the Arctic.

We need oil. And we're going to need oil for the foreseeable future, at market prices, until alternative energy can catch up and get established. Don't think that energy companies (those eeevil OIL COMPANIES) aren't already considering the day when either A) there is no more oil or B) no one wants oil anymore, because people are getting energy from other sources. You bet energy companies are looking for new ways to have energy to sell us that is not hydrocarbon based.

[Denton]

The wars in the 21st Century will be fought over food, energy, water, and religion... and little else. Wars simply for the sake of territory are soooo 20th Century.

Quite. So what's the solution: less damned people! And let's see if we can sell that to congress! :no: By "conquering" the problems that have kept human populations throughout history in check (mainly war and disease), we have created a situation where, if we don't take steps to control population sizes ourselves, we will destroy our only home: the world is simply too small for a billion kings (and is certainly too small for seven billion, if the developing world wants to join the West). James Lovelock (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Lovelock) believes that we will emerge from the 21st century with a human population of less than two billion one way or another! I sometimes wonder if he might be right.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: sometimes I pray for a pandemic to wipe out a significant number of us. But everyone wants a quick-fix...

[Jubelum]

Quite. So what's the solution: less damned people! And let's see if we can sell that to congress! :no: By "conquering" the problems that have kept human populations throughout history in check (mainly war and disease), we have created a situation where, if we don't take steps to control population sizes ourselves, we will destroy our only home: the world is simply too small for a billion kings (and is certainly too small for seven billion, if the developing world wants to join the West). James Lovelock (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Lovelock) believes that we will emerge from the 21st century with a human population of less than two billion one way or another! I sometimes wonder if he might be right.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: sometimes I pray for a pandemic to wipe out a significant number of us. But everyone wants a quick-fix...

That reminds me, I need to pick up some plastic sheets and duct tape tomorrow. Can't be too careful with Denton on the loose. ;)

Some months back I was reading a passage about how China would really be improved as a country if they lost, say, 300 million people. There really are only a few efficient ways to get to that number... plague, war, or famine. (three Horsemen down, eh?)

I think the global population is going to level off in the next few decades for one reason: industrialization. Industrialized countries are doing well to replace their populations... so much so that Pootie Poo gave the Russians a day off to "do it for the motherland." In most cases, birth rates fall as countries industrialize. Some interesting info here (http://news.mongabay.com/2005/0502-rhett_butler.html) and here (http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/09/03/news/birth.php) and a bunch of statistical internals here (http://www.childtrendsdatabank.org/indicators/79BirthRates.cfm).

[vinea]

It's time to open ANWR... because we probably won't see oil out of any field there until 5-7 years, at the earliest, after the first bit hits the ground.

I'm more inclined to keep it as a strategic reserve that exists in our own territory. Getting the Gulf of Mexico oil is just fine since it is potentially in contention.

Yes, the wars in the 21st century may well be oil driven. It is possible that Cheney/Bush had the foresight to blunder his way into Iraq for this reason but if he were that preceint he shouldn't have tried to do it on a shoestring.

Not that I'm a conspiracist but one wonders sometimes if that energy task force they keep secret didn't report some dire predictions they don't want the public to be aware of. In 2002 it was confirmed by the Saudis (accidently) that Ghawar was not doing as well as folks think. What if one of these guys had the real skinny in 2001?

Hmmm...fly and see the world now. You may not be able to afford to in a decade. Hopefully we'll still be eating.

[@_@ Artman]

Not that I'm a conspiracist but one wonders sometimes if that energy task force they keep secret didn't report some dire predictions they don't want the public to be aware of.

During the Ford administration there was a report written up...

U.S., Congress, Committee on International Relations, Special Subcommittee on Investigations, Oil Fields as Military Objectives: A Feasibility Study (http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/Petroleum/fields.htm), Report Prepared by the Congressional Research Service, 94th Cong., 1st sess., August 21, 1975, (Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 1975), Parts I and II, pp. 1-39.

it shows that the use of military force or intervention was thought of for decades. But some could contend that even the First World War was a quest for oil too.

Read this report, it is very prescient to our current motivations and clearly a blueprint for other reports such as the Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century (http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf) (PDF) written and endorsed by the members of the New American Century.

Also recall who were advisers to Ford at the time that report was circulated in 1975...

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2006/12/30/us/30roots600.1.jpg

This quest for oil has been going on for years, on both sides of the party fence. It seems though that the neo-conservatives will take any option to grasp every barrel of oil left. At whatever the cost.

Another view of all this can be seen in Robert Newman's The History of Oil (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5267640865741878159).

[vinea]

This quest for oil has been going on for years, on both sides of the party fence. It seems though that the neo-conservatives will take any option to grasp every barrel of oil left. At whatever the cost.


Push comes to shove so will the liberals and everyone else. It beats starving.

[@_@ Artman]

Push comes to shove so will the liberals and everyone else. It beats starving.

I don't know why either party will not come to the conclusion that there are many, many, many energy alternatives and that a country such as ours (or what it used to be) can be the leaders in new discoveries, innovations, engineering and good old know-how to make us the world power that we are (or again, used to be). It beats rioting. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_food_crises_2007-08)

[Jubelum]

I don't know why either party will not come to the conclusion that there are many, many, many energy alternatives and that country such as ours (or what it used to be) can be the leaders in new discoveries, innovations, engineering and good old know-how to make us the world power that we are (or again, used to be). It beats starving.

Step one is to get off of corn-based ethanol ASAP. Corn was a mistake. Switchgrass is a much better ethanol base, and does not shoot food prices through the roof like the corn ethanol system does. Switchgrass is hearty, does not require even half of the irrigation (protecting our freshwater resources) and can be planted almost anywhere. The gallons per acre yield is about 20x that of corn.

I'm in favour of biofuel... but corn-based ethanol is not where the future is.

[vinea]

Step one is to get off of corn-based ethanol ASAP. Corn was a mistake. Switchgrass is a much better ethanol base, and does not shoot food prices through the roof like the corn ethanol system does. Switchgrass is hearty, does not require even half of the irrigation (protecting our freshwater resources) and can be planted almost anywhere. The gallons per acre yield is about 20x that of corn.

I'm in favour of biofuel... but corn-based ethanol is not where the future is.

Agreed.

[tonton]

It is possible that Cheney/Bush had the foresight to blunder his way into Iraq for this reason...
You mean this might have been a War for Oil™? What a novel idea!
but if he were that preceint he shouldn't have tried to do it on a shoestring.
And a War for Oil™ that was executed poorly by the Bush administration? What an epiphany! :)

[vinea]

I don't know why either party will not come to the conclusion that there are many, many, many energy alternatives and that a country such as ours (or what it used to be) can be the leaders in new discoveries, innovations, engineering and good old know-how to make us the world power that we are (or again, used to be). It beats rioting. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_food_crises_2007-08)

Oh, I believe that we will be seeing some innovation but lets get real here. Transitions take time and the energy density of fossil fuels is very high and very hard to replace. Even assuming we take personal transportation out of the picture our fuel usage will remain very high.

Rioting in the third world is a prelude to what can happen here in time. So, faced with food shortages and rioting in the US vs grabbing oil from somewhere else, what do you think the USG will choose? Or perhaps has already choosen.

I think I changed my mind. We shouldn't be leaving Iraq anytime soon. We may not have the will to win today, but we likely will have the desire to eat in the future.

[@_@ Artman]

I think I changed my mind. We shouldn't be leaving Iraq anytime soon. We may not have the will to win today, but we likely will have the desire to eat in the future.

Then vote McCain. He promises to be in Iraq for decades. He's willing to continue an occupation whether we have the billions of tax money from us (just print more money!) or not. He's willing for us to lose even more lives when he sticks it to Iran. That's not progress, that's heading us into the abyss.

[vinea]

You mean this might have been a War for Oil™? What a novel idea!

Yah, except this may not have simply been a ploy to make money for Haliburton.

[Jubelum]

Then vote McCain. He promises to be in Iraq for decades. He's willing to continue an occupation whether we have the billions of tax money from us (just print more money!) or not. He's willing for us to lose even more lives when he sticks it to Iran. That's not progress, that's heading us into the abyss.

Then vote for... any of the three..

We're not (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/04/obama-advisor-60000-troop_n_95026.html) leaving Iraq (Obama).
A key adviser to Senator Obama's campaign is recommending in a confidential paper that America keep between 60,000 and 80,000 troops in Iraq as of late 2010, a plan at odds with the public pledge of the Illinois senator to withdraw combat forces from Iraq within 16 months of taking office.

The paper, obtained by The New York Sun, was written by Colin Kahl for the center-left Center for a New American Security. In "Stay on Success: A Policy of Conditional Engagement," Mr. Kahl writes that through negotiations with the Iraqi government "the U.S. should aim to transition to a sustainable over-watch posture (of perhaps 60,000-80,000 forces) by the end of 2010

Nope (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/15/washington/15clinton.html) (Clinton).
She said in the interview that there were “remaining vital national security interests in Iraq” that would require a continuing deployment of American troops.

Not at all. (http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2004/040323-enduring-bases.htm) (Permanent bases)

There may be a reduction in force, but the last American troop leaving Iraqi soil is years away. Decades, I'd say.

[@_@ Artman]

Then vote for... any of the three..

I was specifically answering vinea's comment.

We're not (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/04/obama-advisor-60000-troop_n_95026.html) leaving Iraq (Obama).

Oh snap! :rolleyes:

Scan the rest of Obama's policy and you won't see any mention of an invasion of Iran or another "Surge™". His trump card will be (hopefully, depending whom he would choose for Sect. of State) the use of true face to face talks with all sides. If that brings about reconciliation and peace, then there's a good chance that 60 grand won't be needed.* He won't be keeping the whole "Axis of Evil™" list left over from this administration either.

McCain I believe will. "Two down, one to go..."

* We're talking about a fluctuating mass of misdirection on this administration's part and also the Iraqi government's part. Six months down the road and all of this will have changed again - good or bad. So Obama and Billary will be shifting their positions on this as time goes by, not McCain (ie Iran).

[franksargent]

Because it has nothing to do with supply relative to demand. It has to do with geopolitical tensions and refining capacity here in the US. There is more than enough supply. That's simply not where the bottleneck is..

Care to provide a link (or two) to support your conjecture/speculation. This reply is an attempt to link crude oil pricing and U.S. gasoline and diesel pricing, and the basic logic of supply and demand economics (world and U.S. prices go up for increased global demand relative to a fixed global supply).

Here are two EIA links;

World Crude Oil Prices (http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_pri_wco_k_w.htm)
Weekly U.S. Retail Gasoline and Diesel Prices (http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_pri_gnd_dcus_nus_w.htm)

You can also find U.S. oil refinery capacity there if you want to attempt to support your apparently spurious claims. :\

Anyway, the two links above have Excel spreadsheets with weekly data for U.S. retail prices for gasoline and diesel, and similar data for world crude oil prices. These data sets are updated each week.

The data is complete, on a weekly basis, from 1997 onward. Which is kind of cool, since one can do linear regressions on, A) Diesel versus Crude Oil prices (R = 0.987 :wow:), B) Gasoline versus Crude Oil prices (R = 0.974 :wow:), C) Diesel versus Gasoline prices (R = 0.982 :wow:), and D) timeline plot of Gasoline/Diesel/Crude Oil prices.

Note R = correlation coefficient, when R = 0 there is no statistical relationship, likewise when R = 1 there is an exact statistical relationship.

And since gasoline and diesel fuels are produced from crude oil we can say without exception that for R ~ 1, that there is a direct causative relationship between U.S. gasoline and diesel retail pricing and World crude oil pricing, in other words causation leads to correlation, these relationships are not spurious.

There is also additional information contained in these data sets, but are beyond the scope of this reply.

Note, today crude oil prices topped $115/barrel. :no:

[Jubelum]

To add some perspective... (http://www.imf.org/external/np/pp/eng/2005/092105o.htm) it's not ALL refining, it's not ALL demand... it's not ALL futures speculators. It's everything.

[franksargent]

To add some perspective... (http://www.imf.org/external/np/pp/eng/2005/092105o.htm) it's not ALL refining, it's not ALL demand... it's not ALL futures speculators. It's everything.

It will take me a little while to read your IMF link, but it looks like a good one. :) Oops, this link is dates September 21, 2005 (almost 31 months old now).

As you should know me by now, I'm a wikioholic, so here's a wiki link;

Oil price increases since 2003 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_price_increases_since_2003)

It will take me a little while to read through that one also, but I quickly found these two quotes.

An important contributor to price increases has been the slow down in oil supply growth, which has continued since oil production surpassed new discoveries in 1980.

The price increased to $115.07/barrel on April 16, 2008 due to the increasing weakness of the US dollar.

Oops, I kind of forgot the weakening U.S. petrodollar.

Another good link from the European Central Bank comparing the Euro exchange rates USD (http://www.ecb.eu/stats/exchange/eurofxref/html/eurofxref-graph-usd.en.html).

[SDW2001]

Care to provide a link (or two) to support your conjecture/speculation. This reply is an attempt to link crude oil pricing and U.S. gasoline and diesel pricing, and the basic logic of supply and demand economics (world and U.S. prices go up for increased global demand relative to a fixed global supply).

Here are two EIA links;

World Crude Oil Prices (http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_pri_wco_k_w.htm)
Weekly U.S. Retail Gasoline and Diesel Prices (http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_pri_gnd_dcus_nus_w.htm)

You can also find U.S. oil refinery capacity there if you want to attempt to support your apparently spurious claims. :\

Anyway, the two links above have Excel spreadsheets with weekly data for U.S. retail prices for gasoline and diesel, and similar data for world crude oil prices. These data sets are updated each week.

The data is complete, on a weekly basis, from 1997 onward. Which is kind of cool, since one can do linear regressions on, A) Diesel versus Crude Oil prices (R = 0.987 :wow:), B) Gasoline versus Crude Oil prices (R = 0.974 :wow:), C) Diesel versus Gasoline prices (R = 0.982 :wow:), and D) timeline plot of Gasoline/Diesel/Crude Oil prices.

Note R = correlation coefficient, when R = 0 there is no statistical relationship, likewise when R = 1 there is an exact statistical relationship.

And since gasoline and diesel fuels are produced from crude oil we can say without exception that for R ~ 1, that there is a direct causative relationship between U.S. gasoline and diesel retail pricing and World crude oil pricing, in other words causation leads to correlation, these relationships are not spurious.

There is also additional information contained in these data sets, but are beyond the scope of this reply.

Note, today crude oil prices topped $115/barrel. :no:

Pardon me, but can you read? Proving that the price is going up does not thereby prove why the price is going up. The rising price has not curtailed demand...but there is also no supply shortage either. The run-up is due to the free oil market, which has skyrocketed based on global tensions and speculation. Problem is..there's no "real" reason for it, at least not to this level.

As for refining capacity, that is one of the major issues:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6019739/

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/analysis_publications/oil_market_basics/ref_image_crude_runs.htm

[Frank777]

Putting all the Democratic and Republican Fuzzy Math aside, at what gasoline price does a Hybrid engine pay for itself within the first year?

Today gas prices hit $1.20 a litre in Toronto, and it is widely expected to reach $1.50 during the summer.

I'm just wondering where the tipping point is.

[Northgate]

Pardon me, but can you read? Proving that the price is going up does not thereby prove why the price is going up. The rising price has not curtailed demand...but there is also no supply shortage either. The run-up is due to the free oil market, which has skyrocketed based on global tensions and speculation. Problem is..there's no "real" reason for it, at least not to this level.

As for refining capacity, that is one of the major issues:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6019739/

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/analysis_publications/oil_market_basics/ref_image_crude_runs.htm

And who, pray tell, is responsible for these "global tensions"?

[vinea]

Putting all the Democratic and Republican Fuzzy Math aside, at what gasoline price does a Hybrid engine pay for itself within the first year?

Today gas prices hit $1.20 a litre in Toronto, and it is widely expected to reach $1.50 during the summer.

I'm just wondering where the tipping point is.

It depends on your assumptions. Here's some you can agree or disagree with:

Honda Civic Sedan LX is roughly equivalent to the Honda Civic Hybrid.

LX is $18,395 (using Honda's own estimate of "comparably equipped price")
Hybrid is $23,235

Call it 12,000 miles per year

LX is 25/36MPG
Hybrid is 40/45MPG

Call it 50% Highway and 50% City

6000/25 = 240 gallons
6000/36 = 167 gallons

407 gallons for the LX

6000/40 = 150 gallons
6000/45 = 133 gallons

283 gallons for the hybrid.

$4840 cost difference
124 gallon difference

$39/gallon to make up the difference in one year using these assumptions.

Assuming that gas is $4 a gallon, then the cost delta between hybrid and non-hybrid needs to be around $500 to break even in a year.

Left for the student: Converting all this to metric

Not considered: Tax credit since it probably doesn't exist in Canada but I didn't check. It is currently $1050.

Note: The Prius is probably a better deal than the Civic. It has a lot more upscale features that you don't usually find in a $25K car and gets slightly better mileage.

The cost delta for a comparably equipped Camry Hybrid vs Camry is a bit harder to figure out option wise but a heck of a lot closer than $4K. Maybe even as low as $1000. Which would be a two year payback. Likewise if you think that the Civic Hybrid is really more equivalent to a Civic EX-L then the cost delta is a lot lower than $4K.

[franksargent]

Pardon me, but can you read? Proving that the price is going up does not thereby prove why the price is going up. The rising price has not curtailed demand...but there is also no supply shortage either. The run-up is due to the free oil market, which has skyrocketed based on global tensions and speculation. Problem is..there's no "real" reason for it, at least not to this level.

As for refining capacity, that is one of the major issues:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6019739/

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/analysis_publications/oil_market_basics/ref_image_crude_runs.htm

Posting old links does not support your case about refinery capacity! :no::\

Your first link is dated November 22, 2004, while your second link similarly stops with 2004.

So using 3-4 year old data just doesn't cut it, to put it in crude :D words.

I did suggest you go to the EIA website to support your U.S. refineries capacity argument. Did you? No, of course not, which is what I expected. :no::\

So, let me show you some facts from the EIA website;

EIA U.S. Weekly Inputs, Utilization & Production (http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_pnp_wiup_dcu_nus_w.htm)

There you will find an Excel spreadsheet, with guess what, actual weekly data which happens to be continuous from November 2, 1990 through April 11, 2008.

From that data set there are some periods of interest (all data for the above time period);

June 24, 1994 - Minimum refineries capacity of ~15.0 million barrels/day, while on that date gross crude oil inputs were ~14.1 million barrels/day (detrended for seasonal fluctuations).
August 28, 1998 - Utilization peaks at 100.5% of total refineries capacities.
April 5, 2002 - Refineries capacities reaches temporary peak (11.79% above 1994 minimum).
April 2, 2004 - Refineries capacities reaches temporary valley (11.34% above 1994 minimum).

In other words a two year plateau in refineries capacities occurred during this interval, which is approximately the time period of your two links.

April 11, 2008 - Refineries capacities are 16.93% above June 24, 1994 minimum refineries capacities, or ~17.6 million barrels/day, while on that date gross crude oil inputs were ~15.5 million barrels/day (detrended for seasonal fluctuations) or in other words, 10.16% above June 24, 1994.

Or more simply, 10.16% increase in U.S. crude oil inputs is less than 16.93 increase in U.S. refineries capacities.

So refining capacity is not the issue here, contrary to what you may think. :wow:

As to your geopolitical argument? D'oh! When has this not been so since we became a major net importer of crude oil? 1973 oil crisis, 1979 oil crisis, ...

I'll post this link again, since you apparently missed it the first time;

Oil price increases since 2003 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_price_increases_since_2003)

Oil prices rose to $116.10 a barrel on April 18, 2008.

Here's another good one;

OPEC economics and current quotas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OPEC#Economics)

So, in closing, the weakening U.S. dollar, coupled with ever increasing global demand, coupled with a fixed global supply (relative to increasing global demand), are the major reasons oil prices have increased, and it is very unlikely that oil prices will decrease significantly in the near term (if ever) in light of the apparent current U.S. recession.

And then?

[@_@ Artman]

http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/afp/20070301/capt.sge.bsy43.010307143446.photo00.photo.default-512x341.jpg

Age and Health Questions Hound McCain (http://www.redorbit.com/news/health/873422/age_and_health_questions_hound_mccain/index.html?source=r_health#)

John McCain, 70 and scarred, cannot deny his age. So he jokes about it. "I'm older than dirt, more scars than Frankenstein, but I learned a few things along the way," quips the Republican presidential candidate, who tries to play down the ravages of time for the wisdom acquired over seven decades.

His body is battered from torture in Vietnam. The scar along his left cheek is a reminder of a different battle, with skin cancer. Yet, McCain packs his work days so tight that aides grouse. And the man who could be the oldest first-term president hiked the Grand Canyon from "rim to rim" last summer.

Despite McCain's high-energy lifestyle, getting older begets questions about health. The four-term Arizona senator no doubt will have to prove to voters that he is physically and mentally up to the demanding job of president.

But I am a blasted tree; the bolt has entered my soul; and I felt then that I should survive to exhibit what I shall soon cease to be--a miserable spectacle of wrecked humanity, pitiable to others and intolerable to myself. - Frankenstein, Mary Shelley

[Flounder]

In fairness to McCain, I really don't think his age should be an issue. He's 70 and in good health. There's no particular reason to think he wouldn't make it.

[midwinter]

In fairness to McCain, I really don't think his age should be an issue. He's 70 and in good health. There's no particular reason to think he wouldn't make it.

I don't think that death is the concern.

[franksargent]

I don't think that death is the concern.

http://www.fontriver.com/i/previews/dementia.png
http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/d/L/mccain_shining.jpg