Name the Countries that have Banned Off-shore Drilling

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Some errors in his analysis:

1) People figure variable but not fixed costs. Nonsense. People care about how much their cars cost; this factors into which car they buy,

2) "CAFE standards will raise the price of vehicles (fixed) while lowering the average cost per mile driven (variable)." Incorrect - CAFE effectively requires lower pricing on more efficient cars. That's basically how it works.

>"Higher MPG = more miles driven means no gas saved."

That would be true if people drove purely for fun. However, most people do most of their driving on fixed distance routes i.e. their commute, or shopping. Thus the above does not apply for _most_ driving, and the issue is their mileage on fixed routes - which DOES save gas.

If you need proof of this, take a look at how many people are worried about gas prices. "We'll just drive less" is not an option for many people, as the author implies.

I feel his implication was that CAFE standards (reduced gas per mile) encourages driving (which it did in the 70's) resulting in no gas saved over all.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

I still do not believe that gov imposed standards or medaling is a good thing in any respect though.

If the government doesn't force the change, we'll never change. Too many individuals abusing the public good, be it Al Gore's mansion/office, or the Excursions running all over Texas.

Look at what happened to Japan in the 30s when it's industrial needs greatly outstripped its oil supply. That's a possible future if we refuse to change on a national level.

[billvon 3,008]

>I feel his implication was that CAFE standards (reduced gas per mile)
>encourages driving (which it did in the 70's) resulting in no gas saved over
>all.

Yes, that was his implication, which is incorrect. Drivers do not drive based on how much gas they want to buy - they drive based on the distance between their home and their work, and between their home and retail stores. That effect dominates.

That's not to say that it doesn't affect driving at all. A recent EIA study showed that a 20% increase in CAFE requirements would result in a 3% increase in driving (optional driving, basically.) You still see a 17% savings.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

I still do not believe that gov imposed standards or medaling is a good thing in any respect though.

If the government doesn't force the change, we'll never change. Too many individuals abusing the public good, be it Al Gore's mansion/office, or the Excursions running all over Texas.

Look at what happened to Japan in the 30s when it's industrial needs greatly outstripped its oil supply. That's a possible future if we refuse to change on a national level.

Well, I dont agree. Market forces will cause change. And that kind of change is much more solid. And, as long as the gov has the propensity to chage the rules mid stream, companies will be reluctant to do anything. Too much risk

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>I feel his implication was that CAFE standards (reduced gas per mile)
>encourages driving (which it did in the 70's) resulting in no gas saved over
>all.

Yes, that was his implication, which is incorrect. Drivers do not drive based on how much gas they want to buy - they drive based on the distance between their home and their work, and between their home and retail stores. That effect dominates.

That's not to say that it doesn't affect driving at all. A recent EIA study showed that a 20% increase in CAFE requirements would result in a 3% increase in driving (optional driving, basically.) You still see a 17% savings.

That may be what a study says. It is not what happened (real world) when it was done before.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

And, as long as the gov has the propensity to change the rules mid stream, companies will be reluctant to do anything. Too much risk

Do you have any particular examples in mind?

The usual one that first came to the forefront of my squishy gray matter was pharmaceuticals. As long as a product has a substantial profit margin, companies seem to (1) change to accommodate &/or (2) try to finagle a way around the rules, e.g., making small changes in formulation to work around generic compositions. Things like vaccines that are needed for either public health reasons or national defense/military reasons – but don’t have the same profit as Viagra, Lipitor, etc – are the ones that pharmaceutical companies are reluctant to pursue, even when given tax dollars and Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) are adjusted to accommodate them.

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

And, as long as the gov has the propensity to change the rules mid stream, companies will be reluctant to do anything. Too much risk

Do you have any particular examples in mind?

The usual one that first came to the forefront of my squishy gray matter was pharmaceuticals. As long as a product has a substantial profit margin, companies seem to (1) change to accommodate &/or (2) try to finagle a way around the rules, e.g., making small changes in formulation to work around generic compositions. Things like vaccines that are needed for either public health reasons or national defense/military reasons – but don’t have the same profit as Viagra, Lipitor, etc – are the ones that pharmaceutical companies are reluctant to pursue, even when given tax dollars and Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) are adjusted to accommodate them.

VR/Marg

One that bit some companies here is Iowa was a law passed a few years back that allowed a scalled down type slot machine. Companies invested millions supplying these machines and when they started showing up people did not like them. So, they changed the law outlawing these machines. Many law suits and bankrupt companies is the result.

Energy companies (of any type) are very reluctant to make investment. Recall some posts on this thread that state coal fired plants will be put out of business by cabon taxes. Would you build a multi billion dollar plant under that cloud?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,008]

>It is not what happened (real world) when it was done before.

It is what happened. CAFE reduced gas used. Then cheap gas increased gas used, and the SUV loophole increased gas usage even more. (SUV's allow a manufacturer to get around CAFE laws.)

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>It is not what happened (real world) when it was done before.

It is what happened. CAFE reduced gas used. Then cheap gas increased gas used, and the SUV loophole increased gas usage even more. (SUV's allow a manufacturer to get around CAFE laws.)

the over all use of gas increased. Why, because more miles were driven. Net result? Gas usage/demand increased.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>And you want the gov to put rules into place that agree with your eco
>religion.

An insult in the first line! A good start.

>I want the free market to take care of it.

As Marg pointed out, you've had that since Reagan. How's that working for you? Energy prices must be very low due to the magic of the free market, eh?

>Gov restrictions are not free market. They are the minority pushing their
>beliefs on the rest of us.

Actually you are in the minority here.

Poll 6/15/08 WaPo: Do you think the government should (offer tax breaks for companies to develop alternative energy sources,) or should it (leave it to the marketplace to develop alternative energy sources, without tax breaks)?

Offer tax breaks 63
Leave it to free market 32
No opinion 4

So why are you trying to impose your minority opinions on the majority of the country?

>Free market my man. Something you do not seem to agree with

I disagree with monopolies, fraud, criminal behavior, cleverly hidden costs and market manipulation, if that's what you mean. I favor enough government control to prevent those things.

>It is the liberal way. Never worked, never will

Well, the "bury your head in the sand and just keep drilling" way has failed pretty conclusively. Now the country needs some of those liberal environmentalists you despise to pull it out of its deep, oil filled hole by developing alternatives. It's going to be a good few decades to be an environmental/alternate energy scientist.

Hmmm

Zogby: 60% Favor Domestic Oil Drilling


http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/Zogby_Domestic_oil/2008/06/18/105555.html

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

>It is not what happened (real world) when it was done before.

It is what happened. CAFE reduced gas used. Then cheap gas increased gas used, and the SUV loophole increased gas usage even more. (SUV's allow a manufacturer to get around CAFE laws.)

the over all use of gas increased. Why, because more miles were driven. Net result? Gas usage/demand increased.

Time for a citation, I'd say.

Quote

More than any changes in driving habits, it was that switch to more efficient cars that drove the reduction in gasoline demand that followed, said University of Michigan economist Lutz Kilian. Indeed, by 1983, U.S. traffic volume had rebounded above its 1978 peak, but gasoline demand was 11% lower.

Read the article for more detail that contradicts your assertion. It suggests it took until the 90s for the reversal to happen.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121366865872779845.html?mod=yahoo_free

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Zogby: 60% Favor Domestic Oil Drilling

Of course people like that idea, for the same reason that they like 300B deficits,and taking lines of credit from their house to go to Tahiti. It gives them what they want now, and probably doesn't become a problem before they're dead.

You keep talking about market forces working - when do they ever work on a scarce resource? Ever?

How do we (mis)manage wildlife stocks? Either by exploiting it to nothing, or when those involved (hunters/fisherman) agree to a plan and have the government mandate it for all. Hunters of deer/ducks voluntarily accept the idea, but it still requires the force of the government to keep down the poachers. Otherwise it fails.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Zogby: 60% Favor Domestic Oil Drilling

Of course people like that idea, for the same reason that they like 300B deficits,and taking lines of credit from their house to go to Tahiti. It gives them what they want now, and probably doesn't become a problem before they're dead.

You keep talking about market forces working - when do they ever work on a scarce resource? Ever?

How do we (mis)manage wildlife stocks? Either by exploiting it to nothing, or when those involved (hunters/fisherman) agree to a plan and have the government mandate it for all. Hunters of deer/ducks voluntarily accept the idea, but it still requires the force of the government to keep down the poachers. Otherwise it fails.

What is mis managed and what is not is a subjective measurement in many instances. So, what is failure and what is not is no different. (not directly referencing your example here)

In any event, your reply misses the point of my post

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

>It is not what happened (real world) when it was done before.

It is what happened. CAFE reduced gas used. Then cheap gas increased gas used, and the SUV loophole increased gas usage even more. (SUV's allow a manufacturer to get around CAFE laws.)

the over all use of gas increased. Why, because more miles were driven. Net result? Gas usage/demand increased.

Time for a citation, I'd say.

Quote

More than any changes in driving habits, it was that switch to more efficient cars that drove the reduction in gasoline demand that followed, said University of Michigan economist Lutz Kilian. Indeed, by 1983, U.S. traffic volume had rebounded above its 1978 peak, but gasoline demand was 11% lower.

Read the article for more detail that contradicts your assertion. It suggests it took until the 90s for the reversal to happen.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121366865872779845.html?mod=yahoo_free

I will look. Thanks

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

In any event, your reply misses the point of my post

What was your point? People still want to take the easy way out?

[billvon 3,008]

>the over all use of gas increased.

Incorrect. CAFE laws were first passed in 1975 and implemented on cars starting 1978. Fuel consumption then declined in the US for five years.

Once gas got cheap people started buying big cars again (mid 1980's.) Specifically they bought SUV's which exploited the SUV loophole for mileage. Gas consumption then began to slowly increase.

In 2002, an NAS report concluded that CAFE resulted in 14% less gas used up until 2002.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

In any event, your reply misses the point of my post

What was your point? People still want to take the easy way out?

A comprehesive plan is the easy way out?

You still are missing the point and since you are getting snippy you can try and figure it out yourself

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,008]

>Zogby: 60% Favor Domestic Oil Drilling

Cool! Since we are currently drilling, everyone should be happy.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>Zogby: 60% Favor Domestic Oil Drilling

Cool! Since we are currently drilling, everyone should be happy.

Nice twist.

Guess I am NOT in the minority now??

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,008]

>Guess I am NOT in the minority now?

In terms of what? People who approve of the drilling that is going on in the US? I'd say that's most people. (Includes me too.)

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>Guess I am NOT in the minority now?

In terms of what? People who approve of the drilling that is going on in the US? I'd say that's most people. (Includes me too.)

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

Quote

In any event, your reply misses the point of my post

What was your point? People still want to take the easy way out?

A comprehesive plan is the easy way out?

You still are missing the point and since you are getting snippy you can try and figure it out yourself

So are you going to get to this point, or what? Hard to tell what it may have been, or if it was based on your false memory about the 80s.

There's nothing comprehensive about a plan to drill more. Comprehensive is examining the demand side, and weighing the strategic costs of pissing away our reserves now rather than in 2040.