Gas prices

[PassedOut]

that's not what i'm saying at all... i'm trying to find out if anyone thinks that the earth has undergone these types of changes time and time again in the past, with or without humans, and will do so in the future, with or without humans

Everyone knows the earth has undergone cyclic changes in the past.

 

Few, though, consider that a reason to flood the atmosphere with billions of tons of heat-trapping gasses per year, when we know for a fact that doing so will cause tremendous calamities for our children and grandchildren.

[Al_U_Card]

And what if they kept the high gas prices but instead of generating multi-billion dollar profits for the oil companies, they earmarked that money for the development of alternate energy sources and cleaner more efficient vehicles? Nothing like $5/gal gas to make you switch to a hybrid (and make it economical).

[Al_U_Card]

that's not what i'm saying at all... i'm trying to find out if anyone thinks that the earth has undergone these types of changes time and time again in the past, with or without humans, and will do so in the future, with or without humans

Everyone knows the earth has undergone cyclic changes in the past.

 

Few, though, consider that a reason to flood the atmosphere with billions of tons of heat-trapping gasses per year, when we know for a fact that doing so will cause tremendous calamities for our children and grandchildren.

Or save them from the next ice age? Or provoke the next ice age?

 

The speculation notwithstanding, it never hurts to do something sensible. Our tendency is to be profligate and selfish. The only way to beat our own nature is to make things that appeal to our enlightened self-interest....THAT is the challenge.

[Finch]

And what if they kept the high gas prices but instead of generating multi-billion dollar profits for the oil companies, they earmarked that money for the development of alternate energy sources and cleaner more efficient vehicles? Nothing like $5/gal gas to make you switch to a hybrid (and make it economical).

If you think that the oil companies make "multi-billion dollar profits" as a consequence of high gas prices, you don't understand the economics of the oil industry.

[P_Marlowe]

<snip>

[jdonn]

that's not what i'm saying at all... i'm trying to find out if anyone thinks that the earth has undergone these types of changes time and time again in the past, with or without humans, and will do so in the future, with or without humans

I realize as usual you are asking questions instead of committing to a statement. That does not make it any less obvious what the conclusion is that you hope the answerer reaches...

 

The argument that seems to be up if you want to respond is "it doesn't matter what the answer to your question is." Thoughts about the topic?

[PassedOut]

More great news today: Waxman topples Dingell for key panel chair

 

Dingell has been the top Democrat on the panel for 28 years and is an old-school supporter of the auto industry. Waxman has complained that the committee has been too slow to address environmental issues like global warming.

Even though I now live in Michigan and Dingell has worked hard to protect Michigan industries (as all representatives do for their districts), I'm pleased that the new US congress will work toward broader goals.

[jdonn]

More great news today: Waxman topples Dingell for key panel chair

 

Dingell has been the top Democrat on the panel for 28 years and is an old-school supporter of the auto industry. Waxman has complained that the committee has been too slow to address environmental issues like global warming.

Even though I now live in Michigan and Dingell has worked hard to protect Michigan industries (as all representatives do for their districts), I'm pleased that the new US congress will work toward broader goals.

Always nice to see the funniest looking dude in congress make something of himself.

[Al_U_Card]

And what if they kept the high gas prices but instead of generating multi-billion dollar profits for the oil companies, they earmarked that money for the development of alternate energy sources and cleaner more efficient vehicles?  Nothing like $5/gal gas to make you switch to a hybrid (and make it economical).

If you think that the oil companies make "multi-billion dollar profits" as a consequence of high gas prices, you don't understand the economics of the oil industry.

Gee Frances, high prices: big profits....now where would I get a silly idea like that?

[luke warm]

that's not what i'm saying at all... i'm trying to find out if anyone thinks that the earth has undergone these types of changes time and time again in the past, with or without humans, and will do so in the future, with or without humans

I realize as usual you are asking questions instead of committing to a statement. That does not make it any less obvious what the conclusion is that you hope the answerer reaches...

 

The argument that seems to be up if you want to respond is "it doesn't matter what the answer to your question is." Thoughts about the topic?

huh?

And what if they kept the high gas prices but instead of generating multi-billion dollar profits for the oil companies, they earmarked that money for the development of alternate energy sources and cleaner more efficient vehicles?  Nothing like $5/gal gas to make you switch to a hybrid (and make it economical).

If you think that the oil companies make "multi-billion dollar profits" as a consequence of high gas prices, you don't understand the economics of the oil industry.

Gee Frances, high prices: big profits....now where would I get a silly idea like that?

if you sell lemons nationwide (at a, let's say, 8% profit margin) to retailers who have lemonade refineries and who in turn sell this lemonade to neighborhood lemonade stands, do you make more or less money if the lemonade stands have a price war, resulting in lower prices per cup? how about if the stands raise their price? now let's say that there are people who speculate on the future price of lemons, leading LPAC (a lemon producing conglomerate made up of several southern states who can slow or speed up the number of lemons that hit the market) to raise the price they charge for a barrel of lemons... you in turn raise the price of the lemons you sell to the lemonade refineries to maintain your 8% profit margin, the refineries raise the price of their lemonade to the neighborhood lemonade stands... has the price increase of the stands caused you to make more money?

[jdonn]

that's not what i'm saying at all... i'm trying to find out if anyone thinks that the earth has undergone these types of changes time and time again in the past, with or without humans, and will do so in the future, with or without humans

I realize as usual you are asking questions instead of committing to a statement. That does not make it any less obvious what the conclusion is that you hope the answerer reaches...

 

The argument that seems to be up if you want to respond is "it doesn't matter what the answer to your question is." Thoughts about the topic?

huh?

Let me clarify.

 

The answer to the question you asked does not particularly matter. What do you think about that?

[awm]

If you think that the oil companies make "multi-billion dollar profits" as a consequence of high gas prices, you don't understand the economics of the oil industry.

Well, the oil prices were high until recently, and the oil companies have been turning in record profits. There is some question of what causes what here of course. My impression is the following:

 

(1) Oil prices have to be high because of supply and demand. If oil prices were low, then we would simply run out of oil (because we cannot produce it fast enough to meet the demand).

 

(2) Gas prices are mostly a function of oil prices.

 

(3) It's not the case that the oil companies are gauging people for profit. They are forced to charge more or less what they charge since otherwise they could not fill their orders. Increasing the price reduces the number of oil purchases to a level where they can be filled.

 

(4) OPEC periodically updates the price of oil and tries to get oil-producers to produce more or less. But this is mostly a matter of supply and demand.

 

(5) On the other hand, the high price of oil (due to large demand) does mean more money for somebody in the supply chain. Generally a lot of this money does go to the oil companies.

 

So the oil companies are making record profits because the oil prices are high. But the oil prices are high because of supply and demand, not because "oil companies are evil."

 

The upshot of this is that it will be quite difficult to force oil prices down except by either increasing the supply or decreasing the demand, as these prices are being driven by the market and not by speculation or greed. While there is some potential to "drill for more oil" and thus increase the supply, our planet's untapped oil reserves are really not that plentiful. For example, if the US opened up all of its territory for oil exploration and drilling, it would only increase the country's supply by a few percentage points. So the real solution is to reduce demand. This means getting people to buy more fuel-efficient cars or use public transit, and also reducing the reliance of non-transportation power generation on oil (more solar, wind, nuclear, etc).

 

On the other hand, raising taxes on oil company profits might not increase the price of oil (since this price is driven by supply and demand and not by the oil company's production costs). So the net effect would be more money for the government at the expense of oil companies (and their shareholders) and not at the expense of consumers.

[jdonn]

(2) Gas prices are mostly a function of oil prices.

I heard on CNN a few months ago, right when the price of gas was at it's highest, that gas prices are about 50% a function of oil prices. I sort of assumed they were just simplifying, but amazingly after that I started keeping track and it was an amazingly accurate statement. Whenever the price of oil would go down by X%, the price of gas would go down by .5X%, I was actually astounded how well that held.

 

On the other hand, raising taxes on oil company profits might not increase the price of oil (since this price is driven by supply and demand and not by the oil company's production costs). So the net effect would be more money for the government at the expense of oil companies (and their shareholders) and not at the expense of consumers.

Obviously the way to do that would be to raise the gas tax. Of course it's hard to think of a potentially less popular policy proposal than that right now.

[awm]

Obviously the way to do that would be to raise the gas tax. Of course it's hard to think of a potentially less popular policy proposal than that right now.

Charging a "windfall profits tax" on oil companies would:

 

(1) Be more popular. Most people think of oil companies as "the bad guys."

 

(2) Be more direct, if the goal is to siphon off oil company riches rather than increase the gas price. It is possible that very little of this tax would end up being taken out of consumers' pockets, because the gas price is driven mostly by supply/demand and not production costs.

 

(3) Scale automatically -- if at some future time oil companies are not really doing very well, then the tax would be reduced. The gas tax is more of a fixed charge which the oil companies would be forced to pass on to consumers if their profit margins were to decline.

 

Of course, there is something to be said for increasing the gas price to encourage fuel economy, but this is a different goal than trying to recoup some of the massive oil company profits to invest them in alternative fuels.

[blackshoe]

Charging a "windfall profits tax" on oil companies would:

 

(1) Be more popular. Most people think of oil companies as "the bad guys."

Sure. After all, the oil companies are the ones who go and get the oil and refine it to produce the gasoline that we all crave so we can drive around wherever and whenever we want. So they must be bad guys.

 

(2) Be more direct, if the goal is to siphon off oil company riches rather than increase the gas price.

 

There is a quite probably untrue story about Willie Sutton, a rather infamous American bank robber of the 1920s. Asked why he robbed banks, he allegedly replied "that's where the money is". If we set a goal to "siphon off oil company riches" are we any better than Willie?

 

(3) Scale automatically -- if at some future time oil companies are not really doing very well, then the tax would be reduced. The gas tax is more of a fixed charge which the oil companies would be forced to pass on to consumers if their profit margins were to decline.

 

Why am I thinking of Morton's Fork here?

 

Of course, there is something to be said for increasing the gas price to encourage fuel economy, but this is a different goal than trying to recoup some of the massive oil company profits to invest them in alternative fuels.

 

Oil company executives aren't stupid. If they see alternative fuels in the handwriting on the wall, they'll invest in them themselves. Perhaps they already have.

 

I'm not saying that the oil companies don't make a lot of profit, just that I wonder at what point profit becomes "obscene" and subject therefor to confiscation - and who decides and what gives them the right to do so.

[Al_U_Card]

The dinosaurs must die!

 

The changes to the eco(nomic)system have been gradual but severe. The final comet-strike of a financial meltdown has been the potential coup de grace. The new methods and means will rise to survive and diversify in the new conditions. All efforts to support and maintain the dinosaurial dynasty will only serve to deplete and destroy the potential creativity and functionality of that which is to follow. The only question to ask ourselves is "Are we dinosaurs or are we dynamos?"

 

Welcome to the new ®evolution.

[luke warm]

that's not what i'm saying at all... i'm trying to find out if anyone thinks that the earth has undergone these types of changes time and time again in the past, with or without humans, and will do so in the future, with or without humans

I realize as usual you are asking questions instead of committing to a statement. That does not make it any less obvious what the conclusion is that you hope the answerer reaches...

 

The argument that seems to be up if you want to respond is "it doesn't matter what the answer to your question is." Thoughts about the topic?

huh?

Let me clarify.

 

The answer to the question you asked does not particularly matter. What do you think about that?

if you'd said that it doesn't particularly matter to you, i'd think you were right, but just being an obamba supporter doesn't necessarily mean that you know what matters to everyone - probably it does, but not necessarily

If you think that the oil companies make "multi-billion dollar profits" as a consequence of high gas prices, you don't understand the economics of the oil industry.

Well, the oil prices were high until recently, and the oil companies have been turning in record profits. There is some question of what causes what here of course. ~~

on this record profits thing, am i correct that you mean in number of dollars (and not percent)?

[jdonn]

if you'd said that it doesn't particularly matter to you, i'd think you were right, but just being an obamba supporter doesn't necessarily mean that you know what matters to everyone - probably it does, but not necessarily

Are you really going to make me find one of your posts calling out someone else on his ad hominem attacks and shove it in your face, or can we just agree that you are being a conceited hypocritical ahole for no reason at all and leave it at that?

[PassedOut]

Let me clarify.

 

The answer to the question you asked does not particularly matter. What do you think about that?

if you'd said that it doesn't particularly matter to you, i'd think you were right, but just being an obamba supporter doesn't necessarily mean that you know what matters to everyone - probably it does, but not necessarily

It seems to me that your question about the past cyclical changes in the earth's climate "does not matter" because it has no logical connection to the question of how to deal with the man-made global warming crisis that we face today.

 

No doubt it's true that global warming "matters" to some folks more than others, in the sense that some folks are more concerned than others about what happens to future generations. But that is a different point entirely. And so is whether or not the past climate cycles of the earth "matter" to a particular person or not.

[luke warm]

if you'd said that it doesn't particularly matter to you, i'd think you were right, but just being an obamba supporter doesn't necessarily mean that you know what matters to everyone - probably it does, but not necessarily

Are you really going to make me find one of your posts calling out someone else on his ad hominem attacks and shove it in your face, or can we just agree that you are being a conceited hypocritical ahole for no reason at all and leave it at that?

what are you talking about? if you see an ad hominem remark in that, point it out and i'll apologize

Let me clarify.

 

The answer to the question you asked does not particularly matter. What do you think about that?

if you'd said that it doesn't particularly matter to you, i'd think you were right, but just being an obamba supporter doesn't necessarily mean that you know what matters to everyone - probably it does, but not necessarily

It seems to me that your question about the past cyclical changes in the earth's climate "does not matter" because it has no logical connection to the question of how to deal with the man-made global warming crisis that we face today.

 

No doubt it's true that global warming "matters" to some folks more than others, in the sense that some folks are more concerned than others about what happens to future generations. But that is a different point entirely.

it "does not matter" in the sense that the earth will go through record cold or record heat, advancing or receding icecaps, regardless of what we do... let's say for the sake of argument that thru our actions we cause co2 in the atmosphere to drop by 5%... do you personally think that would mean that global warming wouldn't occur?

[PassedOut]

it "does not matter" in the sense that the earth will go through record cold or record heat, advancing or receding icecaps, regardless of what we do... let's say for the sake of argument that thru our actions we cause co2 in the atmosphere to drop by 5%... do you personally think that would mean that global warming wouldn't occur?

Surely you are not contending that the billions of tons of heat-trapping gases that man releases into the atmosphere do not affect the earth's climate. Is it your point that we are doomed anyway, so we might as well accelerate the process by continuing as we are?

[luke warm]

no, it's my point that we don't affect the process

[hrothgar]

no, it's my point that we don't affect the process

Analogously: Some day, we're all going to die, so go play in traffic...

 

I agree completely that there are macro level processes that we as a species probably don't impact all that much (as of yet). If some massive asteroid slams into the earth, all our carbon burning ain't gonna matter jack *****. In a similar vein, a massive number of volcanic eruptions could swamp the amount of carbon that gets emitted by humans.

 

However, this doesn't mean that our actions have no impact at the micro level...

 

Moreover, its entirely possible that a human actions could cause the planet to pass some kind of tipping point: There are a LOT of feedback loops build into the climate models. Its very difficult to predict what will happen if the carbon sinks in Siberia and Canada start to dump massive amounts of C02 into the atmosphere...

[PassedOut]

no, it's my point that we don't affect the process

Thanks for the clarification.

 

Assuming that you do accept that human activities pour billions of tons of heat-trapping gasses into the atmosphere each year, I'm curious as to what mechanism you believe counteracts that to the point where "we don't affect the process" at all.

 

And why isn't that mechanism well-publicized to relieve the concerns of folks like me? (You could get the ball rolling yourself by explaining it here.)

 

As a conservative myself, I don't believe it moral to risk the futures of my children and grandchildren by relying upon an unsubstantiated mechanism.

[luke warm]

first of all i need to know your view on water vapor as a greenhouse gas, and on whether or not it should be used in the "greenhouse effects" calculations... i think it's an important issue

 

as an aside, about a year and a half ago we had this thread on the issue and i showed where it is only proponents of manmade GW who admit to lying, and admit they *should* lie about the issue... why do you think that is?