« All About Oil | Main | Blogs to Read »

March 15, 2005

Comments

Back in 1977, Jimmy Carter described the energy crisis as the "moral equivalent of war." This was roundly derided at the time by its quickly recognized acronym, MEOW. We ignored the problem, and what did we get? War.

Of course, the Bush administration's advice in the face of war is to "go shopping."

It's easy to see where their priorities lie.

You've never heard of Energy Star? Where have you been?

I do have to admit, though, that it'd never occurred to me that it was a government program. So, pretty low-profile in the making and implementation, but hardly low-profile in execution.

The Republican arguments re ANWR are BS. We are led by oil men who believe that they should be allowed to drill anywhere, and that is the sole justification for the ANWR drilling proposal. I am sure that if there was oil under the south lawn of the White House, Bush would have an oil derrick built there just to make this point (or better yet -- slant drill from the Capitol building so that Congress has their view spoiled; NIMBY probably still rules the day).

Re the four points:

1. "comprehensive energy strategy" -- they don't have one, although this phrase is itself largely pablum.

2. "promoting conservation" -- obviously drilling in ANWR has nothing to do with this, and they don't believe in it anyway -- see below.

3 and 4 (these are the same). "reducing dependence on foreign oil"; "increasing production at home" -- drilling in ANWR will not do that -- we can never reduce our dependence on foreign oil with greater production at home. Its not possible based on known reserves (including the crummy ones that are too expensive to recover at the moment). Any petroleum geologist will tell you this. A true policy of energy independence would only be possible based on non-petroleum power sources and conservation.

Guess who said this:

"Conservation may be a sign of personal virtue, but it is not a sufficient basis for a sound, comprehensive energy policy."

Cheney -- the architect of the Bush energy policy. So much for Republican lip service to conservation -- it is a fraudulent fig leaf.

The cornerstone of their energy policy is the preservation of OPEC so that their oil constituency can continue to enjoy piggybacking on price fixing, to the enormous profit of Texas and other oil states. If OPEC were to collapse and a true free market develop in oil (which would cause a large price drop), Texas would go bankrupt.

Actually, Eddie Spaghetti, you're getting duped just like most people. ANWR is the proverbial red flag and the enviros are blind, charging bulls. Meanwhile, in the American West, it's drilling galore! For eff's sake, they just sold off parcels right next to Dinosaur National Monument for low, low, prices. But ANWR is a better fundraiser.

just as there are Republicans who really believe in managing the nation's money sensible, there are also Republicans who really believe in conservation. maybe this will wake some of them up to the necessity of voting against the current leadership of their party.
I very much fault the Democrats for not providing better leadeship on environmental issues.
I love the arctic. I've been up to the Canadian arctic eight or nine times. If you ever get the chance, go. It is an awe-inspiring experience to be in a landscape so vast and lovely. It is like a cold blue Eden.

Yes, and the drilling goes right up to the boundaries of Canyonlands, too. Also many ranchers are losing their stock and we are losing our wildlife to poisonous gases from drilling done on both private and public land. Leases are being given for mineral rights on private land when the landowner only has legal ownership of the surface.

pratike: "ANWR is the proverbial red flag and the enviros are blind [...] bulls."

Thought bulls were color-blind - but waving a flag at a plain blind bull? You might want to, uhh, rein in that metaphor.

...rein in that metaphor or matador?

...rein in that metaphor or matador?

Oops, not worth saying twice. Apologies.

Actually, Eddie Spaghetti, you're getting duped just like most people.

You know, when Bush first campaigned on this issue, back in 2000, I assumed this very thing. "There's no freakin' way he thinks he'll get to drill in ANWR. This is just a red herring so he'll get to drill other places he wants to."

Now, however, I actually believe he wants to drill in ANWR too. At least I know the ego of his administration knows no bounds and will go after this just because they can.

It's not just ANWR...it's the idea that we draw the line somewhere and say we'll stop and reflect on our consumption habits (which totally dwarf those of the rest of the world by nearly every measure) before we're totally paved over with nothing left to protect.

OT...it was clever enough to bear repeating Mac.

I agree, Edward. They want to drill out of the pure satisfaction of screwing up an environmental icon. It'sthe same mentality as the burglar who shits on the floor prior to departure.

The US likes high OPEC prices? Huh?

I guess that means that US oil industry likes high oil prices. I'm not sure how this hooks up with Texas going bankrupt, though. Probably that would hinge on whether Texas is sinking a lot of money into exploration and recovery, which may be dmbeaster's point but certainly he/she hasn't substantiated such a point.

"What the administration has done to "promote" conservation is paltry and sad."

This is news? Can you name anything significant Bushco has done which has not involved big-time payback to their $upporters? How would Halliburton or Wall Street benefit from conservation? Then why bother. Why do anything for the envirofascists.

Dunno about others here, but stuff like "Bushco" causes me to instantly lose interest in whatever comes after it.

Slart, if I recall correctly the last time oil prices had a severe drop (in the late '80s) it was an economic disaster for Texas. Here is one possibly indicateve reference.

How would Halliburton or Wall Street benefit from conservation?

Actually, sadly, both could -- I linked not too long ago, in another conservation-oriented thread by Edward or Hilzoy, to an op-ed in Compliance Week magazine (a publication targeted at CFOs, IROs and other officers with share-related responsibilities) explaining how easily green upgrades to facilities and conservation-oriented strategies can translate directly into lower costs, higher profitability, and a higher share price.

But, so much of Wall Street being composed of path-of-least-reistance types, you can imagine how much they're champing at the bit to implement those kinds of changes.

I really don't know exactly what the story is on oil, but trying to connect it with prices (and by corollary trying to get your opponents to argue that oil prices are key) is wrong.

But what really bothers me is that the refusal to build in incentives to conserve and innovate is going to put the US in a similar situation that it has found itself in terms of electronics and automotive industries. (it doesn't bother me so much, because it might serve to reinflate the Japanese economy ;^)) Living here and travelling to Europe on occasion, there seems to be a lot more work going on in terms of making stuff that reduces energy consumption. The recent flap over trying to find a way to appropriately assess gas taxes on hybrids is a perfect example of being penny wise and pound foolish as is the approach to public transport (cf. Amtrak) in the US. Perhaps I am not seeing what is actually happening in terms of public opinion in the US, but I don't see much discussion of the options of biodiesel, except to portray the advocates as a bit nutty, or to suggest that if it were really such a good idea, why hasn't everyone adopted it already. Again, perhaps this is just me, and I would really welcome anything that contradicted that impression.

Slart, if I recall correctly the last time oil prices had a severe drop (in the late '80s) it was an economic disaster for Texas. Here is one possibly indicateve reference.

I remember it well, ral. I lived there. ISTR, though, that the reason for the disaster was that Texas was heavily invested in domestic extraction. My girlfriend at the time was in the oilfield recovery business, and things got bad in a hurry.

My girlfriend at the time was in the oilfield recovery business, and things got bad in a hurry.

Must…resist…

Mac, give in. Give to the dark side...

Damn. "Give in to the dark side..." The dark side doesn't need any donations, thank you very much.

Who knows? You might accidentally stumble over something true.

That last took 6 minutes to post...

I already give to the dark side...

I was on the job market in 1991, and was flown out for a job in Texas, in a city with lots of oil people. Property values were downright amazing, since everything in sight seemed to have gone bankrupt. It was like a city-wide fire sale.

Back on point: I can't think of anything worth speaking of that this administration has done for energy conservation. As people have already said, there's nothing about this that has to be a liberal issue. To my mind, it's obviously both an environmental priority and a national security issue, and why this administration doesn't treat it as such is just one more in a long series of mysteries about them.

Just out of curiosity, what if anything has been done on energy conservation, in any administration since the late '70s?

Just out of curiosity, what if anything has been done on energy conservation, in any administration since the late '70s?

Cardigans!

Just out of curiosity, what if anything has been done on energy conservation, in any administration since the late '70s?

I guess 9-11 didn't change everything.

Gore tried to make an issue of global warming, but he didn't make much headway. I can remember everyone laughing at "Light Bulb Johnson" because he want to cut down on White House power use.

One can advocate conservation without even mentioning GW. Hell, last time we had an energy crunch, global cooling was the name of the game.

On the other hand, the government's dumping over a billion a year into conservation and alternative energy funding. I also notice that the funding request for uranium enrichment jumped about 20%. Addressing energy conservation solely through legislation is...well, my opinion of Congress is that they in general don't know much outside of politics. It's possible that DOE is just chock-full of stooges, but I'm thinking the chances of DOE being a more intelligent source of action are rather higher even if so.

So Eddie have you ever been to ANWR?
The drilling footprint is how big?
And why are you against it?

I will sit back and wait for your answer.

"possible that DOE is just chock-full of stooges"

Yes. Yes it is. I've been to their meetings so I know whereof I speak. Not "stooges" so much as "career bureaucrats who have learned that doing nothing is the safest route, even if doing nothing violates the clear orders of Congress, led by stooges."

Figures. Well, not much has changed since the DOE days of the '80s, except for perhaps the corruption. What do do now? I'd certainly want to see DOE split into two (or perhaps three) distinct chunks, at least one of which is purged and replenished with competents or scrapped in favor of some sort of advisory board. One staffed by scientists and engineers obtained from academia, mainly. Perhaps augmented by good people from industries in which no conflict of interest might present itself.

Perhaps augmented by good people from industries in which no conflict of interest might present itself.

Maybe I have missed something here but I know of no reputable geologist and/or petroleum engineer who isn't current on the subject (energy), yet not some how involved in the energy business.

We seem to be able to pull individuals from Wall Street and the major banks and place them in the Department of the Treasury. I see no reason why the energy industry itself couldn't provide the similar human resources to the effort.

Katherine: Not "stooges" so much as "career bureaucrats who have learned that doing nothing is the safest route, even if doing nothing violates the clear orders of Congress, led by stooges."

The cardinal rule of survival in any bureaucracy, public or private.

I shudder to contemplate that we probably will eventually have to reprocess plutonium on a large scale (unless the dream of fusion comes true). Think about it -- nuclear reactors are run by utility companies. I have considerable experience with telephone companies, and a passing acquaintance with electric utilities. The mind boggles.

"breaking our national oath with regard to protecting ANWR is pure grade-A horseshit"

I'm pretty sure that comment is horseshit. I am certain I never signed on to that. Maybe, you should say that breaking Edward's oath or something like that...

dmbeater,

"We are led by oil men who believe that they should be allowed to drill anywhere, and that is the sole justification for the ANWR drilling proposal."

That's pretty funny... I guess it has nothing to do with the actual oil there. Brilliant! Let's get our talking points straight... with BushCo it's all about the oil!

I use "Bushco" because "Bush administration" is a long type for a hunt-and-pecker. I mean nothing pejorative by it, but if it is so interpreted, I am open to suggestions as long as they remain under seven letters.

I also think it should be a qualification for President that he have a short name, preferably one syllable. Frist. Rice. Clinton. Although it would discriminate against many of Polish or Cambodian descent.

So Eddie have you ever been to ANWR?
The drilling footprint is how big?
And why are you against it?

I will sit back and wait for your answer.

That is the most severe sense of deja vu I've had on the blogosphere in a long time. Timmy, I've answered all those questions again and again and again, but the short answer are

1. No, and I'd rather you not go there either
2. Supposedly about 2000 acres (but clearly more than enough to break the spirit of the commitment)
3. I've written about this many times, but the best one, I suppose, was this time.

I'll sit back myself now and wait for your ambiguous historical riddles. ;-)

I am certain I never signed on to that.

You didn't have to personally, smlook, your elected representatives did it for you. By the way, that's perhaps the lamest dismissal of this issue I've ever read. You're slipping.

Edward, thank you for not calling them rhetorical questions.

I do remember the site which you published and do I enjoy your rhetoric. :)

But when ANWR was established the "spirit" of the Act realized the potential carveout. I just thought you would want to know.

Eddie, sorry I couldn't come up with riddles but the facts will just have to do. Frankly, the State can accomplish the same objective just off of the shoreline.

Lily, I'll bet I want to see large parts of the Mojave or the Sonoran paved with acres of mirrors and speared with a 3,280 foot chimney as much as you want to see an oil rig in the arctic.

LJ, I don't talk about things like biodiesel because as an energy source it doesn't scale to anywhere near the amounts needed to replace oil. Very little does. Den Beste wrote at the bottom of this post about a couple that might.

No matter what you think of this or any other adminsitration, in the end it comes down to the fact that too many people commute too many miles in any vehicle, no matter its MPG; too many products must be trucked around the country from widespread distribution facilities; and too many people travel every day on airplanes. Heck, in 12/04 the US alone burned something like 67 Million gallons of jet fuel every singe day.

67 Million gallons. Each. Day.

Oops. Sorry Lily. That link should this.

LJ, I don't talk about things like biodiesel because as an energy source it doesn't scale to anywhere near the amounts needed to replace oil.

The point, I think, is not to replace oil but to supplement it and thus make ourselves less dependent on producers of oil. I agree with you that transportation habits also need to be changed, but all of these changes are deal with the infrastructure, so taking individuals to task for not walking the walk is a bit misguided. (not saying that you are, just saying)

I'm pretty sure that there won't be a single solution, but a wide range of things that, when done in concert, _could_ effect a change. It is easy to shoot down these solutions because each individually aren't all that powerful, and it leads supporters to engage in extravagant rhetoric to defend that solution that they like, which then encourages the media to treat them as obsessed. I just chose biodiesel as a single example because an friend from Oz is quite interested in it. I"m a bit struck by Hilzoy's anecdote in an earlier thread about having to convince the salesman that she wanted a more ecologically friendly device even though it might cost her more.

LJ, I get that. And personally, I think that its great that there are some folks willing to go to restaurants and pump fryer grease into their vehicles. I really do. I mean, how cool is that?

But the popcorn kernel stuck in my teeth is that we use 378M gallons of gas a day. What percentage of that has to be replaced for it to be feasible to put in place a delivery system for biodiesel, or hydrogen, or even electricity? And how do we put in place infrastructures for all three to supplement oil? And how do we produce it all? Gasoline is just too dang efficient for our own good ;)

I don't say that we can't because I want your friend to be treated cruelly. I say we can't so that maybe people will start to realize that we have to do more than conserve to make a dent in the problem. We have to change behaviors. And I realize that'll suck. Noone wants to live in a smaller house that happens to be closer to work. Noone wants to add $50K to the cost of their house to install solar panels. Noone wants to forgoe out of season fruits and vegetables. But, I believe that those are some of the behaviors that have to change in order to have a real affect on this issue.

And since I don't see us willing to do that, I just pray that our scientists can come up with "something that changes everything".

Noone wants to live in a smaller house that happens to be closer to work.

I do, actually. OK, it's an apartment, but the principle is the same.

Noone wants to live in a smaller house that happens to be closer to work.

Easy for you to say, given that you live in the City and walk to work. ;)

(Of course, I'm a perfect example of what you're talking about, given that I currently commute just over 100 miles each day and would sooner slit my wrists than move to one of the affordable municipalities closer to work. There were many reasons to hate the dot-com boom, but at least back then I could find work in the City...)

Me too. And my husband is going to wait outside in the freezing cold for the El next winter rather than drive to work. It's not so much a grim sense of duty to the environment as it's growing up New York City (or in my case growing up on Long Island and looking longingly at New York City)--it gets in the blood.

I do not understand the east coast. But for those of you living there, please do not consider moving anywhere else.

I say we can't so that maybe people will start to realize that we have to do more than conserve to make a dent in the problem. We have to change behaviors. And I realize that'll suck. Noone wants to live in a smaller house that happens to be closer to work. Noone wants to add $50K to the cost of their house to install solar panels. Noone wants to forgoe out of season fruits and vegetables.

Maybe this is just fuzzy headed we can save the earth talk, but I do think that a small shift in basic habits of a large number of people, (supported by trendiness/social ostracism) can make a difference. And when economies of scale kick in, prices drop radically.

The thing is that most Americans in living memory have never really experienced mass transit that worked (in large part because it was undermined by automotive interests) which I think underlines the points you make about commuting and transport of produce. Also, in typically woolly minded fashion, I think that mandating some points could also generate remarkable synergies. In Tokyo, all newly constructed buildings have to have 20% of their roofs occupied by greenery. Not only does this deal with the problem of heat islands, buidings with such roofs cost less to heat and cool as well as reducing the problems of runoff and drainage.

These sorts of things are doable if one accepts that government regulation has a role to play, but for some, they would rather eat brass tacks than admit that.

Easy for you to say, given that you live in the City and walk to work ;)

It's worse Josh, I just changed jobs and work out of my home now ;P

LJ, I think that we need some decent size shifts in dang near everyone just to keep energy usage at current levels. I don't think what you suggest is fuzzy headed at all. The math just doesn't work out. And unfortunately, I don't think that mass transit is necessarily the answer; even if you could get more people to ride it. Maybe a more regular BART rider than I can say, but when I ride BART at rush hour in the commute direction, its packed, and the bridges and highways are still a mess.

I think that mandating some points could also generate remarkable synergies.

Dude, I'm the wacko who thinks that the only real way to get at this is through fuel rationing and mandating solar panels on all new construction.

Noone wants to live in a smaller house that happens to be closer to work.

Ha! I would love to a) own a house b) closer to work. However, doing so would cost me c) about three times what I pay for housing now, as well as d) a down payment and other cash-in-hand that I don't have. I couldn't afford to do it even if I gave up a car.

I looked at the opportunities recently to move into a new condo -- not a house, but a mixed-used high-rise condo -- a block away from my office, and about five minutes from work for my wife. It would have cost us more than $450,000 for the same 1,100 sq. ft. 2-br apartment we have now. Eff that. I don't make that much money.

Drilling in the west vs. ANWR drilling:

I agree that drilling on federal lands in the West has gone up significantly under Bush (Wyoming in particular), and gets less attention than ANWR, but there is a significant political difference.

ANWR is a wildlife refuge, unlike the BLM lands being drilled throughout much of the west these days. Although the impact on wild lands is equal, the ANWR drilling reflects a political choice that lands already set aside as a refuge are not off limits to drilling.

OPEC, oil prices and Texas:

Yea, I was overheated, but as observed above by others, the US oil industry benefits enormously from OPEC. If I have oil in my backyard, the existence of OPEC practically doubles the value of the resource. This is due solely to a business cartel that would normally be entirely illegal if accomplished by US businessmen.

When oil prices dipped in the 80s, Texas practically did go bankrupt. So much of its economy is pegged to the oil business and the price of oil. Many banrtupcies followed, which rippled into finance (Continental Illinois Bank, one of the top ten banks in the US, being one of them) and real estate. Houston in particular suffered from a huge commerical real estate collapse, with office buildings standing vacant.

But when ANWR was established the "spirit" of the Act realized the potential carveout. I just thought you would want to know.

Well aware of the significance of 1002, Timmy. What isn't clear to many people about it though, is that any development requires approval of Congress, not just the President (and I believe that's important, knowing that at any given point in time the President may or may not be in bed with the oil industry). In other words, we the people, through our elected representatives, say whether or not there's enough of an energy crisis that our commitment to protecting the environment should stand second to our relentless ability to consume unchecked.

I'm not an idiot about it (I know the day may come when we have to drill there). Right now, though, it's a contest of priorities. As long as there are Hummer-driving morons sucking up immoral amounts of fuel to help compensate for shortages of this or that nature, we are not at the place where we actually need to violate the commitment. It's a matter of discipline and intergrity, and I really wish we had a president who cared about one or the other of those.

If I have oil in my backyard, the existence of OPEC practically doubles the value of the resource.

The value of the resource only becomes interesting when it exceeds the cost of extracting it. If it costs more to extract it than it's worth, a hundred billion dollar resource is going to remain unused.

What happened in Texas happened not because it was an oil-based economy, but because the economy was heavily invested in oil recovery and exploration. I repeat, if Texas is not currently invested heavily in domestic exploitation, a slip in oil prices is (and I'm going to have to remind everyone that IANAE, here) going to have little effect.

And the US oil industry only benefits from OPEC to a certain extent when OPEC forces the price of oil up past the breakeven point for extraction into a range where the profit margin justifies the effort.

There are simple things that could and should be done.

First off, remove the SUV loophole on Cafe standards. Make all passenger vehicles subject to the same mileage standards and then start raising them again. All the nonsense about how it would produce unsafe vehicles is a lie. Over the last twenty years the auto manufacturers have used advances in engine design to boost power. They could have used the same advances to boost mileage instead. I had a 1984 car that put out 150 hp. My car now puts out 210 hp and gets better mileage. If they had put that extra 60 hp into fuel efficiency it would even be better.

We blew it on gas taxes. After September 11, the President had a perfect opportunity to demand real sacrifices from the American people, instead he told us to go shopping. What he should have said is that we were attacked because for too many years we supported oppressive regimes in the middle east in order to maintain our unhealthy addiction to oil. That addiction has to stop and to do it he was going to raise gas taxes by a dollar a gallon and use the proceeds to fund a massive government-private effort to develop alternative energy sources that would free us from our dependence on foreign oil by the end of the decade. He would have recalled Kennedy's goal to reach the moon when the U.S. couldn't even get a rocket off the launching pad and would have inspired the nation. Today gas would probably be $2.50 a gallon instead of $2.00 but most of that cost would be staying here instead of funding terrorists in Iraq.

Slartibartfast:

And the US oil industry only benefits from OPEC to a certain extent when OPEC forces the price of oil up past the breakeven point for extraction...

So the fact that OPEC artificially fixes high prices only has this impact? Please.

There are still large reserves in the US with low extraction costs -- certainly well below the current prices, as reflected by the fact that the US oil industry is busy extracting and selling it at a profit. Those reserves sitting in the ground are much more valuable due to OPEC inflating oil prices -- the US oil industry receives a direct and huge benefit from OPEC. Is this even debatable?

Can anyone think of any aspect of US policy that has ever attempted to undermine OPEC in any way?

Ha! I would love to a) own a house b) closer to work.

To everyone: when I said "house" I should have said "dwelling".

It would have cost us more than $450,000 for the same 1,100 sq. ft. 2-br apartment we have now.

Like I said, no one wants to down-size and I didn't say anything about owning*. BTW, in SF you'd have to beat off a horde of hundreds of buyers (including, probably, Josh and I) to buy that place.

They could have used the same advances to boost mileage instead.

Man, would I like to believe this. Honestly, do you have some cites I could read? I'm under the assumption that efficiency and power, while inter-related are different things. It makes sense at some level, but like everything else, it can't be that easy. Or could it? Otherwise, couldn't you design an aftermarket chip that leaned out the fuel mixture taking that 210hp car down to, say, 180hp and increasing the fuel mileage? Are those available?

*You could argue that the mortgage interest deduction is part of the problem, allowing people to purchase larger dwellings, farther from their places of employment instead of smaller ones in a city.

You know, another point is availability. SF instituted a law that buildings could only be 11 stories tall or they required a variance obtainable only by a vote by the whole city! So, there aren't a lot of buildings going up. That keeps property values nice and high, but makes it tough to buy or even rent here. No wonder people move to Tracy and commute.

Affordable housing makes its claim as well. Recently, the SF city council got into a fight over a developer who wanted to use the SRO rules to build market-rate apartments, 350 sqare foot studios for $750-$1000/month (I know, it's criminal, but it's SF). The affordable housing folks screamed foul, and I thought so too, until the developer reminded us that most of our friends are living 2-4 to a place, using dining rooms as bedrooms etc. and in the process crowding families out of bigger apartments. The developer wanted to create small units so that more singles could live alone, allowing families better access to 2 and 3 br apartments.

*You could argue that the mortgage interest deduction is part of the problem, allowing people to purchase larger dwellings, farther from their places of employment instead of smaller ones in a city

You could indeed -- as well as subsidizing homeownership (more likely to be a single-family dwelling) over rental (more likely to be an apartment).

"Can anyone think of any aspect of US policy that has ever attempted to undermine OPEC in any way?"

The US policy towards OPEC has been to try to undermine it every chance we get. We are always encouraging countries to produce more than their allotment under the cartel agreement such as to destroy the cartel's ability to set prices. The US hates the existance of OPEC.

So the fact that OPEC artificially fixes high prices only has this impact? Please.

Do attempt to reserve your scorn for those things I've actually said, thanks very much.

Is this even debatable?

Depends on the antecedent. If you're arguing against the laws of supply and demand, yes. If not, no.

I'm under the assumption that efficiency and power, while inter-related are different things. It makes sense at some level, but like everything else, it can't be that easy. Or could it? Otherwise, couldn't you design an aftermarket chip that leaned out the fuel mixture taking that 210hp car down to, say, 180hp and increasing the fuel mileage? Are those available?

No, its not that easy but it is simple physics. An engine burns fuel and produces horsepower and torque. When you design an engine (and all the electronic and mechanical controls that go into a modern engine) you can optimize the design to maximize horsepower and torque (power) or efficiency (mileage). So no, you just can't change a chip and get better mileage. You could however, design a 180 hp engine that would get much better mileage than a 210 hp engine for the same price.

When cars were first invented engines were low power and inefficient (20 hp or so). Over the years automobile manufacturers in this country increased power in automobiles generally by building bigger and more powerful engines until the late sixties there were some extremely powerful engines that approached 400 hp but got really lousy mileage (less than 10 mpg). Insurance rates were the first thing that restrained horsepower but then the energy crisis of the early '70s really killed them. With CAFE standards and high fuel costs, horsepower ratings and engine displacements plunged and fuel economy soared. For ten years or so (the mid '70s through the mid '80s) the auto industry managed to slowly build both engine power back up and increase fuel economy simultaneously. But as CAFE standards lagged, fuel prices stabilized and actually began to fall, and the industry discovered the SUV loophole, they threw fuel economy out of their engine design considerations. So now you have the situation of Chrysler reintroducing the Hemi, an extremely powerful, but inefficient, engine design.

Slart: Did not mean to come off as scornful, but I still don't see your point.

So no, you just can't change a chip and get better mileage.

That's not entirely true. Close enough, though. Think fuel mixture ratio. You can squeeze a few extra ponies out by combining richer mixture with some other things. But there's a narrow range in that tradeoff.

You want mileage, think small, light car with a small engine. The heavier your car, the more fuel you're going to have to burn getting it up to speed in any reasonable time. If it helps, think of speed as energy. The amount of energy you have to put into a car to get it up to a given speed is (VERY loosely speaking, here; there are other things that generally vary with car weight, like engine size) a linear function of its weight, and with conventional design you lose all that energy when you brake, requiring even more fuel burned to get back up to speed. In short, it takes twice as much energy to get a two-ton car to highway speed as it would take for a one-ton car. If you're in traffic, you're in a losing struggle with that multiplier.

Sebastian: Seems your example is pretty thin gruel, and has never had any impact except when it is in OPECs self-interest to increase production. For example, they are doing so now -- I think their historical analysis is that they also do not want prices too high as it destabilizes Western economies that have to be functioning to support the demand. They could reverse course and decide that because world demand is so great, it would support $70 a barrel in a year or so, and they should cut back again on production.

If we were serious about combating OPEC, I am sure stronger measures could be adopted. For example, making it something we got in return for rescuing Kuwait and Saudia Arabia in the 90s, or forbidding Iraq to participate now?

Our official policy is that Iraq participates in OPEC, although OPEC has currently exempted it from production quotas during the reconstruction process.

I agree that the US hates OPEC, but I do not agree that the US petroleum industry hates OPEC, nor that Bush and crew hate it. I think they rather like it.

"decide that because world demand is so great, it would support $70 a barrel in"

I like DeLong and Setser and Kash, but they are very careful cautious dudes, and it is hard to get speculation and preiction out of them.

Now Stirling Newberry is not so cautious, and not so qualified, and he speculates that because China needs high growth, the world will be able to handle $80 a barrel and $1 trillion US account deficits without sliding into recession, tho Japan and the EU will struggle and suffer.

For what it is worth.

The Lord of Mordor has won.

Seriously, there's little left this president can do to disgust me further. What a piece of work.

What isn't clear to many people about it though, is that any development requires approval of Congress

Edward, not for nothing, Congressional approval is why we are still talking about this issue which should be very clear to everyone. When the President has 51 votes in the Senate sometime this summer, the drilling will commence in the winter of 06.

When the President has 51 votes in the Senate sometime this summer, the drilling will commence in the winter of 06.

Oh joy.

When does the the random crippling of puppies and blinding of orphans commence? ;-p

The pleasure certain people are taking in this (see Red State) would be understandable if those of us opposed to the drilling were actually challenging something more personal than their overdeveloped sense of entitlement, but given that once they've then exhausted all that oil on Hummers, they'll just move on to the next reserve they can consume, never having to stop and think about what's being lost, I have less the my usual amount of empathy for their position.

I am sure stronger measures could be adopted. For example, making it something we got in return for rescuing Kuwait and Saudia Arabia in the 90s, or forbidding Iraq to participate now?

Wait a minute, didn't we just restore Iraq's sovereignty 9 months or so ago? How the heck did they lose it again already?

What is being lost, Edward?

What is being lost, Edward?

An ideal, a promise to future generations that we'll leave some quarters of what was once a vastly pristine land undeveloped for them to see what that means, a sense of pride that comes from making a noble sacrifice, a link to the past, a symbol of humility, a right to brag, etc., etc., etc.

What is being gained?

A license to continue to consume unchecked, unhindered, unconcerned. A precedent whereby other promises can now be more easily broken. A short-term stopgap measure to a long-term, growing need. An avenue toward weakening other environmental standards and practices. A foot in the door for industry to gain even more control over our government, and by extension our lives.

In short, a very special place in hell.

Sorry you asked?

Edward, even with the drilling ANWR will remain untouched and pristine. And it will be very difficult for anyone to see Edward, as it is a Wilderness Area.

Some people seem chronically incapable the kind of long-term thinking required to understand and appreciate the Democratic position on preserving places like ANWR, and for those people I like to make an analogy.

You have an expensive car that gets terrible gas mileage. You need to get to work, and you have expensive hobbies, some of which require you to drive long distances. You use more and more gas, to the point where one month you can't afford to pay your bills. Do you:

A) Bicycle or use public transit to reduce the cost of your commute,
B) Cut down on your expensive hobbies,
C) Bite the bullet and trade in your gas guzzler for a hybrid/fuel-efficient vehicle, or
D) Sell the diamond earrings your grandmother left you as an heirloom in order to cover your bills for the next few months.

If you picked D), you probably support drilling in the ANWR, and may wish to apply for a job in the Bush administration writing Republican energy policy. If you picked some combination of A through C, the congratulations: you are a part of the solution, and the Democratic party welcomes you.

Catsy, I picked B but how do I tell my children they are all going to the state university next year. Can you help?

Catsy, I picked B but how do I tell my children they are all going to the state university next year. Can you help?

No, but if your concern is whether or not your kids can afford to go to college, you're certainly voting for the wrong party.

Edward, even with the drilling ANWR will remain untouched and pristine. And it will be very difficult for anyone to see Edward, as it is a Wilderness Area.

I don't think those words mean what you think they mean, Timmy. Untouched? Pristine?

I know Norton's busy selling her fairy tale about ice roads and lone oil workers in magical machines, but the reality of the situations is 1) Bush has a history of letting industry not use the green technology the Interior Department is busy touting and 2) because of global warming, the period each year where such technology is usable in Alaska has decreased from about 200 days each year to 100 days each year, and that trend is showing no signs of reversing itself. Therefore, it's highly unlikely the industry would be able to financially use that technology even if they wanted to, which I see no reason to believe they do.

"An ideal, a promise to future generations that we'll leave some quarters of what was once a vastly pristine land undeveloped for them to see what that means, a sense of pride that comes from making a noble sacrifice, a link to the past, a symbol of humility, a right to brag, etc., etc., etc."

Yeah, but what's the reason for applying all this nobility to a frozen tundra? Seriously, what is there on that giant ice cube that's so valuable? How noble is the sacrifice of keeping a wasteland uninhabited and unused?

see my response to you on the other thread Ken.

re: The question about the Bush administrations affection for OPEC. The Bush administration was pleased to announce that Iraq was being allowed to rejoin OPEC not long after the invasion. They felt that Iraq's membership was a positive good. Too lazy to google, but there should be mention in many MSM sites.

The comments to this entry are closed.