High Gas Prices? Blame the Tree Huggers!

uscitizen said:
Yep if we dropped the speed limit to 55 we would likely save more oil than we would get out of ANWAR.
Click to expand...


This is about the most stupid statement I have ever seen posted here. I will have to check, there are some pretty stupid contenders, but I believe you may have the title for now.

The reason we eliminated the 55 mph speed limit, is still valid! THINK! It wasn't because gas got cheap as shit, it was because transportation companies couldn't remain in business. Shipping of goods became more expensive, and it was creating inflation. Not to mention, about 98% of Americans never obeyed the 55 mph speed limits to begin with. It caused all kinds of other problems as well, accidents and fatalities did not decrease as anticipated, the dramatic change in speeds and the human element not being considered, resulted in an offset to any benefits from decreasing the speed limit.

From a 'gas consumption' point of view, rate of acceleration has more to do with use of gas than operational speed. While less gas is consumed at 55, it doesn't automatically calculate to a net gas savings, that is dependent on a variety of other factors, and varies between individual drivers and conditions. Even in assuming that every trucker and driving American obeyed the 55 mph speed limit, it would decrease our dependence on foreign oil slightly. We would still need to import more than we produce, which means we would be not only paying $5 a gallon for gas, but also getting there slower.

The 55 mph speed limit idea is typical knee-jerk reactionary democrat liberal thinking. It makes us all feel good, while completely ignoring the ramifications and the fact that it doesn't solve the problem. If we all put little blue bins outside our house, we can keep this whole delusional world spinning a little longer too! God love these people, they really do think they make a difference.

As I have stated, I am in favor of an aggressive conservation campaign, spend my tax money developing an alternative fuel vehicle and infrastructure, and you can start doing it right away, set a 10-year plan into motion! I'm all for that! Let's work together to CONSERVE as much as possible through new technologies, and the goal of freedom from fossil fuels. But at the same time, let's not forget our simple economic principles, and our immediate problems.

Hate the oil companies all you like, haul them up to Capitol Hill and lecture them about the profits they are making, but they are business people, beholden to their stockholders to make a profit. The price of gas at the pump, has little to do with the percentage of profits they are making in handling the fuel needs of America. Attacking their profits will not lower the price of gas at the pump, because it is not related to their profits. As long as we remain dependent on the world market for record high oil, we will have the problem of high gas prices, it is as simple as that because it is a 'supply and demand' issue. Drilling for our own domestic oil is the only solution for this, regardless of what you may want to believe.

ANWR is the Alaska National Wildlife Reserve. It is located in Northern Alaska, where maybe .00005% of Americans will ever even dream about going to or want to go to. It is beautiful, it is pristine wilderness, and it is certainly a special place to preserve as a natural habitat for many animals. If we were having a debate about turning it into a sewer, nuclear waste dump, or destroying it to build a Super-Walmart, I might be opposed to it. The footprint of any oil operations would be barely noticeable, and we have already proven that the oil industry can operate in harmony with nature.

China and Russia can and are, drilling for oil in the Gulf of Mexico. They have their straw dipped into our oil reserves, while we refuse to touch it. Apparently Russians and Chinese understand 'Supply and Demand' better than Liberal tree huggers.
 
Dixie said:
This is about the most stupid statement I have ever seen posted here. I will have to check, there are some pretty stupid contenders, but I believe you may have the title for now.

The reason we eliminated the 55 mph speed limit, is still valid! THINK! It wasn't because gas got cheap as shit, it was because transportation companies couldn't remain in business. Shipping of goods became more expensive, and it was creating inflation. Not to mention, about 98% of Americans never obeyed the 55 mph speed limits to begin with. It caused all kinds of other problems as well, accidents and fatalities did not decrease as anticipated, the dramatic change in speeds and the human element not being considered, resulted in an offset to any benefits from decreasing the speed limit.

From a 'gas consumption' point of view, rate of acceleration has more to do with use of gas than operational speed. While less gas is consumed at 55, it doesn't automatically calculate to a net gas savings, that is dependent on a variety of other factors, and varies between individual drivers and conditions. Even in assuming that every trucker and driving American obeyed the 55 mph speed limit, it would decrease our dependence on foreign oil slightly. We would still need to import more than we produce, which means we would be not only paying $5 a gallon for gas, but also getting there slower.

The 55 mph speed limit idea is typical knee-jerk reactionary democrat liberal thinking. It makes us all feel good, while completely ignoring the ramifications and the fact that it doesn't solve the problem. If we all put little blue bins outside our house, we can keep this whole delusional world spinning a little longer too! God love these people, they really do think they make a difference.

As I have stated, I am in favor of an aggressive conservation campaign, spend my tax money developing an alternative fuel vehicle and infrastructure, and you can start doing it right away, set a 10-year plan into motion! I'm all for that! Let's work together to CONSERVE as much as possible through new technologies, and the goal of freedom from fossil fuels. But at the same time, let's not forget our simple economic principles, and our immediate problems.

Hate the oil companies all you like, haul them up to Capitol Hill and lecture them about the profits they are making, but they are business people, beholden to their stockholders to make a profit. The price of gas at the pump, has little to do with the percentage of profits they are making in handling the fuel needs of America. Attacking their profits will not lower the price of gas at the pump, because it is not related to their profits. As long as we remain dependent on the world market for record high oil, we will have the problem of high gas prices, it is as simple as that because it is a 'supply and demand' issue. Drilling for our own domestic oil is the only solution for this, regardless of what you may want to believe.

ANWR is the Alaska National Wildlife Reserve. It is located in Northern Alaska, where maybe .00005% of Americans will ever even dream about going to or want to go to. It is beautiful, it is pristine wilderness, and it is certainly a special place to preserve as a natural habitat for many animals. If we were having a debate about turning it into a sewer, nuclear waste dump, or destroying it to build a Super-Walmart, I might be opposed to it. The footprint of any oil operations would be barely noticeable, and we have already proven that the oil industry can operate in harmony with nature.

China and Russia can and are, drilling for oil in the Gulf of Mexico. They have their straw dipped into our oil reserves, while we refuse to touch it. Apparently Russians and Chinese understand 'Supply and Demand' better than Liberal tree huggers.
Click to expand...



And the moron-a-thon continues unabated!
 
Most vehicles are optimized for best mileage around 55-60 mph.

It might take longer but transport companies would burn less fuel so would save money on that aspect.

Upon reflection I think 60 would be the best speed limit.
 
uscitizen said:
Most vehicles are optimized for best mileage around 55-60 mph.

It might take longer but transport companies would burn less fuel so would save money on that aspect.

Upon reflection I think 60 would be the best speed limit.
Click to expand...

Limiting the speed of vehicles on federal highways will not decrease the price of gas one single penny. The problem of US dependence on foreign oil is not related to the artificial 'efficiency' of driving 55, or 60, or 70.

What you are doing is ignoring the problem and focusing on some insignificant idea we've already tried before, and had miserable results with. Transport companies did not "save money" they spent more money and made less because it took longer to deliver their goods, they had far more fines to pay, and drivers were harder to find. It cost them so much, the price had to be passed on to the consumers, which meant that it actually cost us more to try and implement a lower national speed limit. It's a dumb idea that didn't work then and won't work now, especially not to help lower the price of gas at the pump.
 
if dropping the price of gas is the only reason for not dropping the speed limit,
Then it equates to not drilling in ANWAR.
 
no one can pin point why cost is what it is.
From basic economics increase in supply lowers price. Both would increase supply
 
uscitizen said:
Most vehicles are optimized for best mileage around 55-60 mph.

It might take longer but transport companies would burn less fuel so would save money on that aspect.

Upon reflection I think 60 would be the best speed limit.
Click to expand...

You're right. Our fleet but 60 mph governors on our Semi's to save on fuel cost.
 
Topspin said:
no one can pin point why cost is what it is.
From basic economics increase in supply lowers price. Both would increase supply
Click to expand...

That's assuming domestic supply would increase. What happens if they just sell that surplus supply to the Chinese? That's where I don't trust the oil companies. I don't think you can increase supply in this manner, with certainty, unless you nationalize domestic oil production. I don't think that will happen any time soon.
 
I don't suppose that the precipitous drop in the value of the US dollar ($1. Cdn = $1.10 US, for instance) has anything to do with the increase either? It seems that several factors, including market hysteria as pointed out last week, are contributing to the soaring price of gas.

I read today that the Saudis are having a meeting with other OPEC producers, ostensibly to find ways to halt the price increases. Ostensibly.

This situation works in their favor, of course. As their supplies presumably are reaching a point of decline, and they have no other natural resources, the ME countries must be feeling the edges of a sort of panic.
 
it won't
but adding billions of barrells from anwr or saving billions from going 55 increases total supply all other things being equal.
 
Mottleydude said:
That's assuming domestic supply would increase. What happens if they just sell that surplus supply to the Chinese? That's where I don't trust the oil companies. I don't think you can increase supply in this manner, with certainty, unless you nationalize domestic oil production. I don't think that will happen any time soon.
Click to expand...

Well, this is where good old Capitalism comes into play. If supply of domestic oil is plentiful, someone will want to sell it cheaply to make more money, and someone will buy it cheaper and refine it into cheaper gas to be competitive and make a buck. So, while some might initially be a little greedy and pocket the extra profits, others would be looking for ways to capitalize in a free market economy, and the price of gas would eventually begin to decline.

Supply and demand works this way, and it does so with every consumer commodity across the board, the fact we are discussing oil, makes no difference in the economic dynamics, the principles of supply and demand still work, just as they always have and always will.

it won't
but adding billions of barrells from anwr or saving billions from going 55 increases total supply all other things being equal.
Click to expand...

Supply is not increased by conservation, ostensibly, demand is reduced, but the amount of reduction in demand from something like implementing a 55 mph speed limit, is really inconsequential to the overall problem. Decreasing demand is fine, and we have technological ways to do this... for instance, the new Chevy Tahoe hybrid gets about as good of gas mileage as the 1980 Toyota Corolla. As we go forward, more and more of this technology will come available to the public, and we will start to see an actual decrease in our demands for crude oil. I am all in favor of conservation efforts and becoming more efficient, because it is in-line with addressing the fundamental problem of supply and demand. Increase supply and decrease demand at the same time, and we can eliminate our dependence on foreign oil.

Let me take this moment to re-emphasize "eliminate dependence on foreign oil" because I think it just passes over a lot of pinheads without much thought. It is a nice little phrase we have all heard and I am not sure we all understand. Saudi Arabia is completely independent of foreign oil, and gasoline sells for $0.79 a gallon there. Do you get the point? Our biggest problem is supply, and fortunately for us, it is also the easiest to fix. We have an ample supply of domestic oil, we just need to go get it and refine it.
 
yeah in theory. However dropping the speedlimit would have an immediate impact on oil consumption and drilling ANWAR would only have a psycological impact for at least 6 years or so ?

I am not saying not to drill ANWAR, just that it is a political tool sold to fools.
 
uscitizen said:
yeah in theory. However dropping the speedlimit would have an immediate impact on oil consumption and drilling ANWAR would only have a psycological impact for at least 6 years or so ?

I am not saying not to drill ANWAR, just that it is a political tool sold to fools.
Click to expand...


No, not in theory, in practice, over and over again with every consumer good we have, we know and understand the principles of supply and demand in economics. Increase the supply and the price will go down, it is really as simple as that. Continue to increase demand while supply is cut by OPEC, and the price will continue to go up, again, simple as that.

Reducing the speed limit will have little or no effect on the price of gasoline, because it fails to address the main problem, supply of domestic oil. It's a failed idea, even as a conservative effort, because when we did it before, it really didn't save that much in overall costs. This is where you need to be saying 'in theory' because 'in theory' operating vehicles at 55 does conserve gas, but in practicality, no one observes the speed limit and various other factors come into play, fatalities increase due to wide-ranging traveling speeds, more fines are paid by companies, it takes longer and is more expensive to transport goods. In theory, it is a great idea, but it doesn't work, and it didn't work before, which is why we got rid of it.
 
Dixie how about the demand aspect ? If demand goes down or stays flat should not prices either drop or stay flat ?

You just adressed 1/2 of supply and demand.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top