Ooops... Global Warming Data...

[KingCondanomation]

I never saw any supply disruption, remember that those same goods are food and for a lot of food (produce, dairy, meats, frozen) they stand to lose far more in decline in value from waiting around and selling food with shorter expiry dates than they would from fuel cost increases.

QUOTE]

The trucker does not care if the farmer's entire crop goes bad. When fuel prices spike, he is FORCED to shut his truck down. When the price of diesel fuel burned on the trip is greater than the money paid to haul the goods, the shelf life of the product is not an issue.

It takes days to ship food by truck, there were no spikes in fuel that sudden and dramatic apart from hurricanes where that would happen.
You are talking about independent truckers here (rather than those who are employed by the food firm as would be the case for meats, frozen, etc...).
Most independent truckers would take the loss that rare time around as those who didn't would likely not get hired again by the producer who they forced to lose money.

And again, I do all grocery shopping for my family, I cannot remember a single person complaining about shelves being empty.

 

[Onceler]

Well in parts of Africa they use no fossil fuel to produce their food and rely solely on solar energy.
Of course what you call the "good old days" they often call famine.

Fossil fuels are fine for helping production of food, people use them because they are the cheapest option in comparison to what they yield in food.

Let's not move away from what has worked for so long on it's own with the producers and consumers deciding what has lead to better value for their money on food compared to the state.

"If we were directed from Washington when to sow and when to reap, we would soon want for bread." – Thomas Jefferson

I don't even know what you're talking about. You must be one of about ten people left who is arguing for continued dependence on fossil fuels. Very few agree with you anymore, whatever their reasons - national security, the environment, AND the economy; yes, the economy, Dano, because it makes economic sense to keep $600 billion IN the U.S., instead of giving it to foreign countries.

As for individual choice being an acceptable alternative here, you couldn't be more wrong. People will continue to buy the cheapest thing as long as they can; I doubt many will even connect food shortages to their own fuel use until we get to a very extreme point in the process. The idea here is to make domestic alternatives cheaper & more viable, via investment in R & D.

And that's just what we're going to do, and there isn't a damned thing you can do about it now.

 

[KingCondanomation]

The problem is, when the price of the diesel makes the espenses greater than what the trucker is paid to haul the goods, it doesn't matter whether the product will spoil.

Then truckers are paid more usually quickly as producers don't want to lose all value of what they produced.
Look either way, the market solves it.

And many, many people are driving less already. But when the price of fuel spikes, its not the sunday drive that has to be cut out. People end up choosing between eating or buying gas for their cars. People have trouble getting to work.

False dilemna. People have more options, work from home, carpool, walk, bike, do local food growing, transit, motorbike, etc...
The poorest people I find do not have vehicles to begin with so anyone who has a vehicle is hardly facing such a life or death choice.

Hardship CAN happen, but the state will only ever make it worse.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

I never argued it wasn't bad or a negative, I just said it was neglible, and by that I mean neglible to most of us.
It is neglible for most. If you don't believe me ask anyone in a rural area or small town what their top 10 concerns are locally, virtually no one will list smog as a problem. In the suburbs hardly anyone and only in certain cities is it not neglible enough of a problem to be recognized as one or at least one in which people would want to start choosing higher cost greener choices over fossil fuels for that specific reason.

Dano...

1) it matters not what their 'top ten concerns' are... being 'concerned' does not change the fact that pollution is bad for you.

2) pollution is NOT just smog. It is air pollution, ground pollution and water pollution. You don't have to SEE it for it to be there.

3) Costs are coming down for alt energy, the break even on solar for industrial/commercial use is down to about a year. When you factor in ALL costs, such as added healthcare due to use of fossil fuels, then the costs are actually LOWER than using fossil fuels.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

The POINT is that you are getting off them by using the means I listed, completely in some cases and others gradually.
I'd like to see some numbers to back up your 75% electricity claim, with hydroelectric and nuclear I seriously doubt it's that high.

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/energy_in_brief/electricity.cfm

The largest source by far is coal, which is used to produce almost HALF of our electric needs.

Nat Gas adds another 21%

So he was close, total fossil fuel production is about 73%.

 

[Onceler]

"False dilemna. People have more options, work from home, carpool, walk, bike, do local food growing, transit, motorbike, etc...
The poorest people I find do not have vehicles to begin with so anyone who has a vehicle is hardly facing such a life or death choice."

Are you really suggesting that someone who simply can't afford gas anymore can just "choose" to work from home? Or that they just leave their job, and grow their own food?

Get in touch w/ me when you want to re-join the discussion on the planet earth.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

No, biofuels are not the only route.

In fact, I think they are a more disastorous route.


Almost everything we do with fossil fuel can be done with electricity. And the electricity can be generated by solar panels, wind turbines, nuclear power plants and hyro-electric facilities.

The only one of those that pollutes would be the nuclear plants, and while they produce pollution that is VERY dangerous, they produce relatively small amounts. (compared to coal plants ect)


The problem is that we are unwilling to live thru ANY inconvenience while we switch.

Most americans expect to continue doing as they have done, and paying low prices for gas until one day they wake up and its all changed over by government magic.

I disagree that biofuels are a bad route to take in general. Specifically grain based biofuels are most certainly a bad idea. But cellulosic methods, especially algae based are very promising and can be a great benefit to us.

Just fyi.... algae ....

1) Takes pollutants out of the air (which means we can put algae plants near coal electric plants/breweries etc... to try and reduce pollutants)

2) Uses about 1% of the amount of water that grain does to produce the same amount of fuel

3) Can put algae plants on almost any type of land

4) No waste... after the oil is extracted the remainder is a high soy protein source that can be used as feed for livestock.

5) Algae based biofuel currently provides almost 100% of the fuel used by the Air Force.

 

[KingCondanomation]

I don't even know what you're talking about. You must be one of about ten people left who is arguing for continued dependence on fossil fuels.

I'm not arguing for against it, just for people's freedom to make their own choice on it.

Very few agree with you anymore, whatever their reasons - national security, the environment, AND the economy; yes, the economy, Dano, because it makes economic sense to keep $600 billion IN the U.S., instead of giving it to foreign countries.[/QUOTE]
One could make the same argument over clothing production. Free trade means that it does go both ways with other countries buying our goods and services.
You are just arguing an ancient failed philosophy of restrictions on trade, no serious modern day economist agrees with you there.

As for individual choice being an acceptable alternative here, you couldn't be more wrong. People will continue to buy the cheapest thing as long as they can;

Really? Why don't people buy cheaper American cars over Japanese and German then?
They don't because they have freely chosen that the value they get back is worth the higher cost. When it comes to fuel they determined the increase in value from other sources than fossil fuels is not worth the extra cost.
You have no trust or respect for people's intelligence to determine what is best for themselves.

I doubt many will even connect food shortages to their own fuel use until we get to a very extreme point in the process. The idea here is to make domestic alternatives cheaper & more viable, via investment in R & D.

Private investment in R & D exists and has for awhile, there are limits to the results they can get and if they get there so be it but no one should be forced to help one way or the other. Certainly from what we've seen with the bailout money it's that when government tries to help out it ends up helping the failures and not those who can succeed. Why would you have so much faith in it to be different for other government spending means?

And that's just what we're going to do, and there isn't a damned thing you can do about it now.

I can only read that and remember all those times when you used to tell me that government isn't really using force. At the end of the day, all that line says, is you will force people like it or not. Despicable and wrong.

 

[Cancel3]

Then truckers are paid more usually quickly as producers don't want to lose all value of what they produced.
Look either way, the market solves it.


False dilemna. People have more options, work from home, carpool, walk, bike, do local food growing, transit, motorbike, etc...
The poorest people I find do not have vehicles to begin with so anyone who has a vehicle is hardly facing such a life or death choice.

Hardship CAN happen, but the state will only ever make it worse.

If you are within walking or biking distance, thats a great idea. But there are a LOT of people for whom that is not an option.

The poorest are not what is the issue. They will be living on tax dollars anyway.

It is those who have to get to work and are already on a tight budget that get screwed.

Here is an example of what it can do to the budget.

Right now I have seen plenty of gas stations selling gas in the $1.82 to $1.88 range for regular unleaded. Most of those same stations saw prices as high at $3.65 this year.

If you drive 40 miles a day (not outrageous at all), and your vehicles gets 20 miles per gallon, the difference between $1.88 and $3.65 a gallon translates to a $76.70 increase per month in what you spend in gas. That is before any increase in groceries or heating oil costs.

Put that situation in a rural area where driving 30 miles one way to work is not unusual and you have tapped their budget for an extra $115.

 

[KingCondanomation]

"False dilemna. People have more options, work from home, carpool, walk, bike, do local food growing, transit, motorbike, etc...
The poorest people I find do not have vehicles to begin with so anyone who has a vehicle is hardly facing such a life or death choice."

Are you really suggesting that someone who simply can't afford gas anymore can just "choose" to work from home? Or that they just leave their job, and grow their own food?

Get in touch w/ me when you want to re-join the discussion on the planet earth.

These are not absolutes, they are options, some apply to some people. The point being that enough options are there to give more than enough leeway in avoiding that false dilemna.
Hell you want me to make it easier, fine, instead of buying a big screen tv or smokes they spend the money on food AND fuel instead.
I am tired of dealing with these ridiculous hypothetical ultimatums.

 

[Onceler]

Wow...could you include MORE strawmen next time?

"One could make the same argument over clothing production. Free trade means that it does go both ways with other countries buying our goods and services."

Clothing production? You're comparing clothing production, with energy?

Stick to the topic. Energy IS a national security issue, as well as an environmental issue. The fact that keeping it domestic helps our economy only adds to my argument.

"Really? Why don't people buy cheaper American cars over Japanese and German then?"

Again, I was talking about ENERGY, Dano. People want their lightbulbs to light up. They will generally pay the cheapest price to accomplish that.

"I can only read that and remember all those times when you used to tell me that government isn't really using force. At the end of the day, all that line says, is you will force people like it or not. Despicable and wrong."

No one is forcing anyone to buy a certain kind of car, or pay for a certain kind of energy. The gov't has a right to look at a budget, and make a value assessment that a $150 billion investment will pay off trillions in the long run, thus benefitting everyone.

As usual, you have no conception whatsoever of return on investment.

 

[KingCondanomation]

Wow...could you include MORE strawmen next time?

"One could make the same argument over clothing production. Free trade means that it does go both ways with other countries buying our goods and services."

Clothing production? You're comparing clothing production, with energy?

Stick to the topic. Energy IS a national security issue, as well as an environmental issue. The fact that keeping it domestic helps our economy only adds to my argument.

I've already demonstrated to you this is false long ago. Countries like Iran, Yemen and Syria that we have trouble with, we do NOT buy oil from. Countries that we DO buy oil from like Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Oman, etc... we are on good relations with.

Free trade makes for better neighbors, not worse, which is logical as people who benefit financially with a relationship with each other are less likely to end up in conflict as they have more to lose.

"Really? Why don't people buy cheaper American cars over Japanese and German then?"
Again, I was talking about ENERGY, Dano. People want their lightbulbs to light up. They will generally pay the cheapest price to accomplish that.

You made it sound like people buy cheapest of anything. Whatever, you only end up reiterating my point anyway that when it comes to energy people would rather pay less because there is little value in paying more.

"I can only read that and remember all those times when you used to tell me that government isn't really using force. At the end of the day, all that line says, is you will force people like it or not. Despicable and wrong."
No one is forcing anyone to buy a certain kind of car, or pay for a certain kind of energy. The gov't has a right to look at a budget, and make a value assessment that a $150 billion investment will pay off trillions in the long run, thus benefitting everyone.
As usual, you have no conception whatsoever of return on investment.

You are going to FORCE people to pay for that investment, trying to ease your concience by listing other things that they will not be forced into doing isn't going to change that.
If there is such a great return on investment throw your own money freely into those industries then, you won't because we both know it's not certain. And again with government, you will only end up rewarding the failures, political paybacks, pork for certain areas and other very inefficient ways of "investing".

 

[uscitizen]

I've already demonstrated to you this is false long ago. Countries like Iran, Yemen and Syria that we have trouble with, we do NOT buy oil from. Countries that we DO buy oil from like Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Oman, etc... we are on good relations with.

Free trade makes for better neighbors, not worse, which is logical as people who benefit financially with a relationship with each other are less likely to end up in conflict as they have more to lose.


You made it sound like people buy cheapest of anything. Whatever, you only end up reiterating my point anyway that when it comes to energy people would rather pay less because there is little value in paying more.


You are going to FORCE people to pay for that investment, trying to ease your concience by listing other things that they will not be forced into doing isn't going to change that.
If there is such a great return on investment throw your own money freely into those industries then, you won't because we both know it's not certain. And again with government, you will only end up rewarding the failures, political paybacks, pork for certain areas and other very inefficient ways of "investing".

Dano we would not have that 7.1% hydro power now if we had not "forced" people to pay for dam construction about 50 years ago or so.

 

[Onceler]

"I've already demonstrated to you this is false long ago. Countries like Iran, Yemen and Syria that we have trouble with, we do NOT buy oil from. Countries that we DO buy oil from like Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Oman, etc... we are on good relations with"

You are stubborn as a mule. NO ONE disagrees that this is a national security issue anymore. NO ONE. We've got people in the military, we've got hardline conservatives. It's a no brainer: $600 billion, much of it getting funnelled into the Middle East, that COULD BE SPENT IN AMERICA, creating new jobs here instead of funding terrorist efforts & who knows what else.

"You made it sound like people buy cheapest of anything. Whatever, you only end up reiterating my point anyway that when it comes to energy people would rather pay less because there is little value in paying more"

People don't have to pay more for wind, solar, etc. much longer, IF we make those sources a top national priority.

"You are going to FORCE people to pay for that investment, trying to ease your concience by listing other things that they will not be forced into doing isn't going to change that"

It's idiotic to try to make a case for a $150 billion 10-year commitment as being some kind of forced labor on the taxpayer, particularly when the taxpayer will yield a huge return on investment on a variety of levels: new jobs, more American revenue, better productivity, less need for Middle Eastern presence, etc. etc. etc.

You CANNOT see the forest for the trees on this one.

 

[Cancel3]

"You are going to FORCE people to pay for that investment, trying to ease your concience by listing other things that they will not be forced into doing isn't going to change that."

We are going to force people into investing (thru their tax dollars) in getting us off the oil teat. That is best for the long term for the US. Its got nothing to do with concience, its got to do with the future.

Oil is a limited commodity. The byproducts and pollutions caused by the processing and use of oil are huge.

Its time to retire oil as the major source of energy we use.

 

[Damocles]

I've already demonstrated to you this is false long ago. Countries like Iran, Yemen and Syria that we have trouble with, we do NOT buy oil from. Countries that we DO buy oil from like Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Oman, etc... we are on good relations with.

Free trade makes for better neighbors, not worse, which is logical as people who benefit financially with a relationship with each other are less likely to end up in conflict as they have more to lose.


You made it sound like people buy cheapest of anything. Whatever, you only end up reiterating my point anyway that when it comes to energy people would rather pay less because there is little value in paying more.


You are going to FORCE people to pay for that investment, trying to ease your concience by listing other things that they will not be forced into doing isn't going to change that.
If there is such a great return on investment throw your own money freely into those industries then, you won't because we both know it's not certain. And again with government, you will only end up rewarding the failures, political paybacks, pork for certain areas and other very inefficient ways of "investing".

You should know that fungible items like oil, it just doesn't matter who you purchase from as it raises or lowers the value on the market and they make money regardless of who purchases it.

Items that are fungible are priced by the market that we pay into, regardless of the source of the oil. That market has a limited supply and the entire supply will be purchased, the price is negotiated by the rarity on the entire market, together. Therefore, because we buy oil on the market, we cause the prices per barrel to increase and thus we increase the earnings of nations who do supply terrorists. In order for us to insure that nobody made money off of the US for oil, would be to take ourselves out of the market entirely by purchasing an entirely different commodity.

 

[KingCondanomation]

"I've already demonstrated to you this is false long ago. Countries like Iran, Yemen and Syria that we have trouble with, we do NOT buy oil from. Countries that we DO buy oil from like Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Oman, etc... we are on good relations with"

You are stubborn as a mule. NO ONE disagrees that this is a national security issue anymore. NO ONE. We've got people in the military, we've got hardline conservatives. It's a no brainer: $600 billion, much of it getting funnelled into the Middle East, that COULD BE SPENT IN AMERICA, creating new jobs here instead of funding terrorist efforts & who knows what else.

LOL, sounds like Hoover passing Smoot Hawley, "we just need to increase tariffs on imports and we will keep all that money in America and create jobs!" The only difference is you rely on government investment instead of tariffs, it will end the same as it is based on the same terribly bad economics that stopping free trade can benefit a people.
I could create some clothing manufacturing jobs by "investing" in the domestic clothing manufacturing technologies and keep that clothing money in the US! Of course it will still cost more and cost more in taxes and result in other (mainly clothing producing) countries not buying as much from us in other goods and services.

People don't have to pay more for wind, solar, etc. much longer, IF we make those sources a top national priority.

The differences in cost to produce power from solar and wind is not just off like a few percent like say ethanol. It costs more in multiples like 900% more, you are never going to come close to reducing that to be equal EVER.
Don't you think we would have seen some nation that ALREADY invested in this show those kind of results were it true?
You don't know what you are talking about.

It's idiotic to try to make a case for a $150 billion 10-year commitment as being some kind of forced labor on the taxpayer, particularly when the taxpayer will yield a huge return on investment on a variety of levels: new jobs, more American revenue, better productivity, less need for Middle Eastern presence, etc. etc. etc.

Cute calling a state forced taxpayer investment a "commitment". We don't need to be in the middle east regardless. Is Switzerland there, do they pay more for oil because they are not?
The argument is fallacious.
As for the rest, we have heard it all before, you are arguing against free trade, the entire 20th century shows you are wrong.

 

[KingCondanomation]

"You are going to FORCE people to pay for that investment, trying to ease your concience by listing other things that they will not be forced into doing isn't going to change that."

We are going to force people into investing (thru their tax dollars) in getting us off the oil teat. That is best for the long term for the US. Its got nothing to do with concience, its got to do with the future.

Why not just invest your own dollars, why do you need a middle man like government to pay to do that? Why do you need control over my family's dollars? Leave me alone.

I thought you were supposed to be a Libertarian, no Libertarian beleives government can spend money better than you can.

Oil is a limited commodity. The byproducts and pollutions caused by the processing and use of oil are huge.

Groan, gone over this already, they are minor except in a few cities (ie: LA, Houston). Yes it is limited and when it starts to run out, price will gradually increase and people will gradually move to other source and options, we already saw this during the last price spike.

Its time to retire oil as the major source of energy we use.

GO AHEAD, leave the rest of us out of it.

 

[KingCondanomation]

You should know that fungible items like oil, it just doesn't matter who you purchase from as it raises or lowers the value on the market and they make money regardless of who purchases it.

Items that are fungible are priced by the market that we pay into, regardless of the source of the oil. That market has a limited supply and the entire supply will be purchased, the price is negotiated by the rarity on the entire market, together. Therefore, because we buy oil on the market, we cause the prices per barrel to increase and thus we increase the earnings of nations who do supply terrorists. In order for us to insure that nobody made money off of the US for oil, would be to take ourselves out of the market entirely by purchasing an entirely different commodity.

That's a fair point. But I would counter by using the left's correct argument that there would be no terrorism had we not supported Israel and gone into the middle east. Stop those 2 policies and the terrorism will ebb to nothing.
Let's go after the root of the problem.

 

[Onceler]

You're a sad case, man - really sad. You have to mischaracterize everything I say in order to somehow prove yourself "right."

It's nothing like Smoot-Hawley, or tariffs, or anything of the sort. I'm talking about accelerated investment in R & D for domestic alternative sources, so that they can start to become more available & attractive to the consumer on a mass-scale. That's it. And if you don't think they can or will be, you have very little faith in the ingenuity & determination of the same people who sent men to the moon.

We're gonna run out of gas in this century, Dano. It has to happen sometime. I know, I know..."let it run it's course." Let's pollute the crap out of everything for a few more decades, until we all of a sudden find out we HAVE to switch, then the "individual" will make the decision to simply transform our society from an oil dependent one to one that uses domestic sources.

That'll be real smooth. You're a smart guy...