A Weblog of Centrist Voices in American Politics
|
|
|
A Weblog of Centrist Voices in American Politics | |
|
April 27, 2006Mmmm...Irony......Going a Short Way to Make a Point Gas prices have gone above $3 a gallon again, and that means it's time for another round of congressional finger-pointing. WaPo reporter Dana Milbank has fun counting cars. Enjoy! Posted by Tully at April 27, 2006 01:22 PMComments
While Milbank's point is a bit glib, somehwhat funny and ultimately irrelevant, the bigger issue, reducing national consumption or bringing down price are the only topics that really matter. What can or will these lofty senators do about it? IMO, not too much...at least not in the short term. With that in mind, I find Boxer's correlation between gas and Bush a bit irresponbile and gratuitous for a senator...let alone with one with an economics degree (like her). Matters like these really get upset about DC...both in terms of what they've done about this problem dating back some 30 years (nothing) and how they're so willing to say such bold and empty and statements I'd only expect from Average Joe bitchin' about gas prices over beers at the local bar. I expect intelligent debate from our senators. On serious matters like gas and oil, it's sadly lacking as seems their knowledge about...or at least their perception of the public's knowledge about....which I find insulting and depressing. Posted by: John at April 27, 2006 01:59 PMIntelligent debate? Not sure there has been much of that in decades. I love the crazy ideas that are now being tossed around. $100 "rebates" and, once again, expanded drilling. Of course, neither of these will acoomplish much in the short term. To do anything in the here and now, demand must be reduced. Very little, if anything at all, can be done on the supply side for the next five to ten years. I am skeptical there is a solution in the supply side of the issue, no matter how many new holes we put in the ground. Demand growth will continue to outstrip supply growth until the tipping point is reached and the price finally forces more conservation. Heck, the oil companies know what is coming. They are trying to get as much as they can right now. When the price hits the breaking point, we will start seeing more breakthroughs in alternatives. The current industry setup almost demands that we tap out to the point of pain becuase there is no incentive to do anything else. Mergers and megacorporations make it difficult for a small company to develop alternatives and be successful in the current environment. Until the large energy companies get serious on alternatives, which will not happen until projected profits drop in current technologies, all the governmental blather on the planet won't do any good. About the only thing that could do anything might be some trust busting. However, between the time, cost and attitude of the current administration[plus dubious chances of having any success at all], this is most unlikely. Posted by: Jim M at April 27, 2006 04:36 PMA friend of mine sent me this excellent article on the oil situationat The Economist. I frankly consider our politicians utterly useless here. They do not, ultimately, control the economy. I'm doing what I can to conserve. Last year I traded my RAV4 for a Corolla, and I own a Honda Reflex scooter that gets over 70mpg. Posted by: JonBuck at April 28, 2006 12:32 AMAnd I recycled my Suburban for scrap metal--though at nearly 400K miles, I was going to do that anyway. I could keep the mechanicals running forever. But the body was going to rust apart, sooner or later, and the rot would have reached structural areas in a year or so. I think the story's funny, though. A little even-handed humor at WaPo is such a rare thing I had to share it. Posted by: Tully at April 28, 2006 11:08 AMKey info from the Economist In the past three decades America’s economy has become much less dependent on oil. The country is consuming slightly more of it, but is doing so more efficiently. In 1980 America used a little over 17m barrels per day (bpd) to produce GDP worth $5.2 trillion (in 2000 dollars). By last year oil consumption reached 20.7m bpd, but GDP had more than doubled to $11.1 trillion. As for consumers, they are not especially dependent on petrol either. According to the BEA, in 1970, Americans spent 3.4% of their consumer dollars on petrol and oil. By 1980 that rose to 5%. Yet in 2005, after a year of steadily appreciating oil prices, that number was 3.3%. Consumers are grumbling, however, because they remember happy days, as in 2002, when households spent a scant 2.2% of their income on fuel.As for previous comments about "inflexible" demand/need for gas, what about the bus or a big or car pooling? Posted by: c3 at April 29, 2006 05:37 PM |
Archives
June 2008
May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003
Recent Entries
Irish Blogger Charged For Blogging
Friday open thread Headline: Obama and Clinton Together in Unity There Is No EPA Document, There Is No EPA Document Only The Party In Power Need Apply Prosecutions? Can McCain claim the Ron Paul votes? Why We Worry About China Too Much Newseek Slams "Obama's Lame Excuse" Open Thread: What Annoyed You Most Reading Books?
|
