1. See my post here on the Public Blog. Nancy Pelosi said one year ago that the Democrat Congress was the solution to high gas prices.

That was $1.50 per gallon ago. And Greogire's 2005 legacy 9.5 cent per gallon, highest in the nation gas taxes just went up another 1.5 cents per gallon today.

Democrats don't want to drill, don't want to build refineries, power plants, or even admit that energy = good = virtue = success = moral = the USA.

So, instead from the Dem Congress we get mock trials of Oil Execs, and posturing to do as little as possible, while still trying to remain politically viable.

If you believe there is no shame in using energy and continuing the success of this great nation then:

VOTE THE BUMS OUT

Posted by: Jeff B. on July 1, 2008 12:30 PM

2. What? The private sector found its own ways of dealing with it, and it didn't require a tax increase?? Who knew....

Posted by: Michele on July 1, 2008 12:40 PM

3. Now, that is what I am talking about!!!

No Pain, No Gain is my motto at the gym. Same goes here.

The USA, mark my words, will solve energy issue. The rest of the world will follow suit. But, the USA is not the government, but the people.

Posted by: swatter on July 1, 2008 12:47 PM

4. They say we can;t drill our way out of it, but they want to sue OPEC to drill our way out of it.

Posted by: pbj on July 1, 2008 12:56 PM

5. Babbling Boxer was on a PBS show recently saying it's "Special interests on their side" (meaning oil and Bush) that is manipulative of energy pricing. She then said this " and there's special interest on the alternative energy side too but they'll take their business elsewhere if we don't open opportunity to them" (I think I got that right word for word)
Translation of course is "unless we pull the robin hood and fund them with somebody else's money"
She was single handedly making the case democrats have NO idea how to deal with energy needs.
But hey, they believe environmentalists can deliver energy better than energy companies.
Remember, dems are the party that wants the control of information. Such as the return of the fairness doctrine and making it illegal to post the amount of taxes of gasoline on the pump.

Posted by: PC on July 1, 2008 01:31 PM

6. Hybrid cars are an awesome contribution to fixing the problem. No government sponsorship.

Hydrogen cars are an even better solution. Leader in the market will be Japanese. (Again, Thanks for nothing Congress.)

What would move both of these solutions faster would be a short term easing of environmental regulation on battery manufacturing and some limited legal shields to help get these technologies to the field faster.

There are a lot of technologies in private hands that aren't going anywhere because the manufacturers are in analysis paralysis on how they go to market without opening themselves up to crippling lawsuits if something unforeseen should go wrong.

Think our congress would even consider something like this? (Don't hold your breath.)

Posted by: johnny on July 1, 2008 01:49 PM

7. PC, right, and they pine on about solar and wind and how that will solve the crisis. First, solar and wind are now less than 1% of US energy supply. Second, their deployment costs are huge. It takes thousands for a typical family to save hundreds. Third, solar and wind are intermittent technologies. It takes a lot more consistent supply than solar and wind to actually drive peak demand. At best they are supplemental. Fourth, solar and wind don't even begin to address current fuel infrastructure needs. Even if we came out with the perfect battery technology in a produceable car tomorrow, it would take years before there was enough grid enhancement, charging stations, etc. and that assumes quick charging, which would be as fast as filling up one's car with gas. We can't ignore our existing world for the sake of the future. It does not work that way. To get from here to there we have to work within what we have right now.

Solar and Wind will be a nice tiny supplement, but a real energy policy involves two key pillars.

1) Massive nuclear power expansion. The fuel and technology are in the US, we own it, and we have brilliant experience with many ships in our nuclear fleet and no accidents. We have everything we need to begin a build-out of nuclear. And nuclear has the energy density required to really supply the actual demands of US homes and businesses, and not just the fairy tale single light bulb demands of solar and wind.

2) We need to drill here now. If we ever hope to rid ourselves of expensive foreign oil, we have to be willing to stop the NIMBY whining and start using our own vast resource pool. You can go read about the new millionaires popping up all over ND as the Baaken formation is gaining ground. Upwards of 400 Billion barrels. Where else is there oil in this country that we have not even looked? Probably a lot of places, and there is natural gas as well.

The solution is to stop the self-hatred and realize that energy consumption is a sign of success, prosperity and the greatest American morality and virtue. This country and all of its great achievements and advances has been built on energy. We can learn to be more efficient, and we are indeed much more efficient than other countries. And we can create new technologies to meet future needs.

But one thing is for sure. We will never get there with the self-doubt, self-hatred and suicidal obfuscation of the collectivist left in our country.

Strong leadership that plows right through environmentalism is needed. And the head of political pressure needed to make that happen grows as each day passes with more Democrat apathy.

Posted by: Jeff B. on July 1, 2008 01:51 PM

8. No, and they're not waiting for Santa Claus or the Great Pumpkin to ease the pressure either.

So?

Of course small businesses and individuals are going to be more responsive in squeezing out efficiency gains from existing systems. On the other hand, when it comes to reworking existing infrastructure to meet the needs of an energy-scarce future, carpooling just isn't going to cut it.

@6: Hybrid cars are an awesome contribution to fixing the problem. No government sponsorship.

Much to the chagrin of environmentalists, hybrid cars are an awful solution to anything. You save more gas replacing a 15 MPG car with an 18 MPG one, than replacing a 50 MPG sedan with a 100 MPG one. It's a feel-good solution more than a practical one.

@7: I think that it is important to realize that things aren't going to be as easy. Wind and solar are not going to be competitive for the near future, and even if it were, we would need to expend a lot of energy to get all that started. There is an environmental cost that we face from living the lifestyle we do, even if for those dirty hippies that claim otherwise.

But just assuming that drilling will get us out of this is pointless. Cars and factories in developing countries are going to suck up that extra capacity as fast as we're going to be able to produce it, and unless you're suddenly down on free trade, it'll be subject to the whims of the international energy market. The only thing that it will do in the near future is to make oil executives a lot richer.

Nuclear? Yeah... it is sounding better by the day. However, there are still some significant concerns that need to be addressed about waste disposal. And you can claim that it's safe now, but these concerns need to be addressed before widescale development begins.

Posted by: demo kid on July 1, 2008 02:31 PM

9. Demo kid, I am confused. "You save more gas replacing a 15 MPG car with an 18 MPG, that replacing a 50 MPG sedan with a 100 MPG one." How do you save more gas by saving less gas?

Posted by: Paul G on July 1, 2008 03:26 PM

10. PaulG@9,

Assuming you drive 10000 miles each year:

10000 miles at 15mpg = 666.67 gals
10000 miles at 18mpg = 555.56 gals

You save 111.11 gals by moving to 18mpg vehicle.

10000 miles at 50mpg = 200 gals
10000 miles at 100mpg = 100 gals

You save 100 gals by moving to 100mpg vehicle.

Posted by: Smoley on July 1, 2008 03:46 PM

11. Demokid, you're a perfect specimen for the talking point argument dished up by the leftists.
When microwave ovens hit that magic marker of being in about 16% of homes, the technology was quick enough to react and make them faster, safer and at less cost. You're hard pressed to find a home without one on the northwestern hemisphere.
That was a pure reaction from the capitalist system. And nobody bitched about some electric manufacturing company exec getting rich off of selling microwaves.
The means ARE available to bring oil up cost effectively but the obstacles are entrenched in your camps.

Posted by: PC on July 1, 2008 03:47 PM

12. @11: Nothing about that argument makes any sense. Are people sharing microwaves now because of higher energy costs?

Posted by: demo kid on July 1, 2008 04:56 PM

13. Okay demo, I'll type it real slow so you understand.
Libs weren't in the way worried about microwaving the wild gnat, supply became unbridled and the price dropped rather ruthlessly.
Do you think there's an oil company exec out there happy that little Johnny can't afford to fuel his minibike. Before enviro-whackos meddled in the energy procurement biz, Chevron did a pretty good job helping Johnny in the quest for cheap fun.

Posted by: PC on July 1, 2008 05:48 PM

14. I like how your anti-liberal-government ideology is so tightly closed that amateur improvisation in the face of a long-predicted event gets celebrated. Almost thirty years ago, I attended a talk by Isaac Asimov, during which he warned us to start planning for the end of cheap oil. Had we continued President Carter's policies toward alternative energy, we could be a long way past these ad hoc measures. Too bad his successor dismantled all of those efforts.

Posted by: tensor on July 1, 2008 07:45 PM

15. tensor @ 14

What SPECIFIC policies that President Carter initiated were dismantled by President Reagan that would have changed our dependance on foreign oil or the price there of?

If you are refering to gas rationing, long lines, and high prices as a driving force for changing to alternative fuels that is more an arguement for the changes President Reagan did than an arguement against them. After all, if the economy tanks because of inflation caused by high gas prices it won't matter if we have an alternative- no one could afford it.

Posted by: David on July 1, 2008 09:48 PM

16. Who are they going to blame after Obama gets in, and he gets hit with a terroist attack early on, as many are predicting today, will he be willing to go to war with the terrorists?

This although I hate to see it, is a very likely scenerio, because it has happened to both of the last two presidents in the first year of their reign.

I sincerely hope that we now have the terrorists on enough of a run, but they will be dancing in the streets firing rifles in the air the day Obama gets elected.

Mark my word, this country will not be safer under an Obama administration.

But I guess 9/11 was not a lasting enough wake up call for America.

Unfortunately we will have to be woke up once again.

Posted by: gs on July 1, 2008 10:12 PM

17. @13:Libs weren't in the way worried about microwaving the wild gnat, supply became unbridled and the price dropped rather ruthlessly.
Do you think there's an oil company exec out there happy that little Johnny can't afford to fuel his minibike. Before enviro-whackos meddled in the energy procurement biz, Chevron did a pretty good job helping Johnny in the quest for cheap fun

Do you ever make sense, sir?

So let me get this straight... the problem is "unbridled demand" and the idea that "the price dropped rather ruthlessly"? And where do gnats come in?

And actually, I do think that oil execs care if Johnny Quest can fuel his motorbike, insofar as demand destruction might cut into future profits.

@16: But I guess 9/11 was not a lasting enough wake up call for America.

Noun, verb, 9/11. I'm simply amazed that your terrorist fetish is still going strong after seven long years. One-note foreign and domestic policy is doomed to failure, and the second that you invoke 9/11 as a reason for anything, you're pushing rational thought completely out of the equation in favor of jingoism.

Posted by: demo kid on July 1, 2008 10:37 PM

18. We need to close the Enron loophole, which allows speculation and apparently is partly to blame for this price jump in fuel.

Posted by: DaveD on July 2, 2008 06:36 AM

19. democrat kid at #17;

"I'm simply amazed that your terrorist fetish is still going strong after seven long years."

Why do you think that we have not had a terrorist attack in the US since 9/11?

Posted by: REBEL on July 2, 2008 07:06 AM

20.
Right...and they didn't need the Government to build a $2 Billion dollar Choo-Choo train. The used computer technology, networking and common sense to create a "personal taxi".

Posted by: John Bailo on July 2, 2008 07:43 AM

21. Given lack of government intervention... people are smart enough to figure it out.

Posted by: ljm on July 2, 2008 06:13 PM

22. DaveD@18 --

What is the Enron loophole?

This whole "blame the speculators" bit is ridiculous. Obama and McCain have both done this and its irritating. Speculating is just investing in the futures market -- anyone who holds stock is speculating in something. And the Wall St. Journal and Paul Krugman (not exactly allies) both agree that speculation is a negligible factor in today's high gas prices.

Futures markets are good things -- they help smooth out the peaks and valleys of commodity prices. I get it -- people want someone to blame. Obama blames speculators and oil companies; McCain blames speculators and offshore drill bans. Neither are speaking in good faith.

Also -- both have promoted alternative energy sources, while ignoring the fact that high oil prices make those alternative sources more viable. McCain talks about doing the right thing in Iraq, but ignores the fact that high oil prices means more revenue for Iraq, which presumably means more reconstruction and a quickened pace of nation building.

Posted by: Zeeb on July 2, 2008 06:27 PM

23. johnny@ 6

BMW rolled out the hydrogen 7 in 2006. since the hydrogen fueling stations are scarse it can run on gas at the push of a button. Not the Japanese.
see...
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2006/09/12/bmw-officially-announces-the-bmw-hydrogen-7/

Posted by: Hawkbait on July 3, 2008 07:09 AM

24. Oil demand is not all that elastic. This means that the amount used doesn't change greatly even if price does. On the other hand, that means the price can really rise alot when supply is exceeded by demand. Conversely price can fall quickly if supply exceeds demand. This means that an additional 4 million barrels a day of production by the US (A not unacheivable goal given time and access to prime locations now off limits) could give a meaningful drop in the price of oil if the OPEC cartel does not curtail their own production. Iraq is another area where increase in supply given time is a very real possibility and since they need every dollar they can get, they would be the last to curtail. Iran also is in great need of money as is Venezuela. Saudi Arabia knows a world wide recession is not in their interest and they need the West to protect them from Iran. Given this scenario, I think the opinions expressed here that increased American production will not decrease the price of oil are wrong.

Posted by: KW64 on July 7, 2008 06:41 PM

Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:

Remember info?