Pages

Wednesday, April 27, 2011

Pissed off at the gas pump? “Deny, Baby, Deny”


Perhaps we’ll get serious when gas reaches five dollars a gallon, and demand change when gasoline reaches ten dollars a gallon


Note: The Trickle Down theory of economics seems to be working overtime in reverse. These days, it's "Trickle Up," by the barrel.

Send your comments and news tips to roundup.editor@gmail.com, to Rocky at arrowbiz@texasorp.com or click on the "comments" at the bottom of the story

By Rocky Boschert
Financial Editor

As gas prices soar, Republicans and oil company executives are starting to revive the same old tired and ignorant rallying cry that echoed around the country in 2008, the last time gas prices spiked and took us into recession.

The totally asinine “Drill, baby, drill!” chant – spewed by Republicans in Congress and around the Gulf even after Deep Water Horizon are addicted to big oil money. They do everything they can to keep Americans addicted to oil by pushing more dangerous drilling in environmentally-sensitive areas and continue our reliance on climate-changing fossil fuels.

Yet, as usual, the big corporate oil Republicans continue to posit a seductive and simple idea: The U.S. has untapped resources that ought to be put to good use. If only big bad federal policy allowed more drilling, gas prices would drop, following standard rules of supply and demand.

But like so many simple ideas, this one is political fodder based on political opportunism and shortsightedness. The U.S. cannot drill its way into free-flowing, low-cost oil and then gasoline. The clear truth is the supply of U.S. oil isn’t anywhere big enough to make a dent in our current oil demands. It is scientifically proven that we have only about two percent of the world’s known reserves.

The larger supply problem is one of worldwide demand (though speculators and Middle East turmoil are too often blamed for current price spikes). As nations such as China and India grow more prosperous, they want their share of the world’s limited energy resources. Like Americans, members of the Chinese and Indian middle-class now view cars as symbols of prosperity and independence.

Anyone with a normal sense of business knows that if you have a limited product that lots of people want, you can charge a lot for it as we see with the Apple iPhone and iPad. That common sense business rule suggests that prices at the pump will likely continue to spike and then ease slightly, as they have for the past few years. But they’re unlikely to drop significantly.

A few far-sighted politicians and our most thoughtful prognosticators have known this reality for years — and said so. Indeed, analysts for a large British bank, HSBC, warned last month that the world may have no more than 50 years worth of oil left, at current rates of consumption, and such demand could lead to “very significant price rises.” (For those of you who don’t want to live in a right wing, American oil company propaganda information closet, read the British magazines the “Economist” or the “Financial Times” for your political and economic news.)

Despite multiple warnings, the American political system has become so dysfunctional that very little has changed since a president named Jimmy Carter tried to get us to get serious about reducing our dependence on oil based gasoline. Sure, cars and trucks get better gas mileage than they did back then. But the nation still lacks, after 40 years, a coherent policy for radically reducing fossil fuel consumption.

Families struggling in the post-recession economic landscape (some still jobless, many earning less than they used to just two years ago) are hard-pressed to fork over more and more money at the gas pump. And for many of those families, driving has become a necessity. They’re not taking leisurely spring-break road trips. They’re trying to get to work, to the doctor’s office, to the grocery store.

Over the last 30 years, suburban and ex-urban development, especially in fast-growing Sunbelt and Bible Belt cities have produced sprawling mega-suburbs, wherein workers may live an hour’s drive (or more) from the workplace. Those suburbs aren’t exclusive enclaves of the affluent, either. Many suburbs, like Plum Creek in Kyle, are economically middle class and racially diverse, so more families of modest means must drive up to an hour to work. A dime a gallon increase can hurt the budget, and twenty cents a gallon can break the budget.

It’s easy to look back and see what might have been: If Congress and state legislatures had adopted sensible energy policies back in the 1970s that promoted renewable energy development, discouraged never-ending sprawl and encouraged public transit, we would have slowed our dependency on polluting fossil fuel consumption and minimized the current pain at the pump.

But even those progressive energy policies of the 70s could still be adopted — pouring serious money into research and development of alternative fuels and boosting public transit, for example. But they continue to be stalled by ignorant and lobby money corrupted Congressional bickering and inertia.

Perhaps we’ll get serious when gas reaches five dollars a gallon – and demand change when gasoline reaches ten dollars a gallon. But don’t forget who you voted into office last November and who their major campaign contributors are.

15 comments:

Sam Brannon said...

Rocky, read Climate of Corruption, by Larry Bell. Its available on Amazon. Then let's talk.

IC_deLight said...

There are other fossil fuel related products that are in ample supply in the U.S. and yet nowhere near the support for them in the U.S. in terms of infrastructure.

Consider, for example, natural gas. CNG is a proven technology for fueling vehicles at approximately 1/2 the cost for gasoline-equivalent energy. 1/2 the cost.

CNG backgrounder

RoundUp Editor said...

Please notify the RoundUp if you've recently tried to post a comment and it was redirected.

Rocky said...

Sam, although my article was mostly about our dependence on oil – and not the global warning side, we can go there if you like.

First of all, I choose to believe real physical scientists like those of the American Physics Society, who produced a study that said:

"A survey of 1372 climate scientists has concluded that the overwhelming majority support the basic idea that humans are significantly affecting the Earth's climate. The study also claims that the scientists, who are skeptical of anthropogenic climate change (ACC), tend to hold less "credible" publication records.

The survey, led by William Anderegg at Stanford University, included only researchers who have at some point written scientific assessments or signed public documents in relation to ACC. Participants were asked whether they were either convinced or unconvinced by the basic tenets of ACC as outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Anderegg's team finds that 97% of the respondents are convinced by the idea. What is more, the surveyors rank all the participants by the number of climate science publications, and find that only one of the top 50 scientists, and three of the top one hundred, remain unconvinced by the arguments of ACC."

Besides, Sam, Larry Bell is an Architecture Professor at U of H. He is hardly a model of hard scientific credibility. And he is a free markets fundamentalist ideologue to boot (like yourself I assume). The anti-government regulation bias is too evident to believe his methodology. I see it kind of like the birther movement. It is really about Obama being a black man but they cannot honestly admit they are racist schmucks.

To IC deLight, what does that blogging moniker imply? Sounds like a flavor at Amy's Ice Cream.

Seriously, natural gas is a good interim solution. But it has its problems as well - like EARTHQUAKES (well, maybe). But it is a cleaner burning fossil fuel than the smelly filthy oil.

I think regional energy problem solving is the answer like wind on the coasts, solar in the desert climes, fuel cell later in time, and nuclear - once the politicians and their corporate masters are willing to accept very rigorous regulatory oversight and a place to dump the nuclear waste other than Texas.

Thanks for both your responses.

Anonymous said...

Rocky said...

“Perhaps we’ll get serious when gas reaches five dollars a gallon – and demand change when gasoline reaches ten dollars a gallon. But don’t forget who you voted into office last November and who their major campaign contributors are.”

Rocky, Don’t forget who YOU voted into office in November 2008 and what he has brought us.

The price of oil and the shortage of it are not the worst problems we have today. The unrest in the Middle East, encouraged by the current President, is set to overwhelm our already crippled economy. Remember the current surge in gas prices began over the Obama/Clinton sponsored overthrow of the oppressive but legitimate Egyptian Government of Mubarak and his latest escapade in Libya to remove Gaddafi. He may think starting wars will enhance his chances if re-election. Neither possibility is acceptable to me.

The high price of gas has not encouraged any meaningful conservation or policy changes including in mid 2008 when the price went to $5 in some places. It took the lack of gas and the rationing of it back in the 1970s to really have an impact. It was when you had to wait in line at a gas station (if you could find one open and with gas) to receive only 6 gallons, which caused remarkable things to happen. Smaller cars sold like hotcakes and you couldn’t give a Winnebago away. Some people even car-pooled. Of course when OPEC turned the spigots back on it was only a few months before we again became super consumers of petroleum.

Since the current President is actively encouraging radical Muslim Revolutions in the Middle East, extremely high gas prices may become the norm, not to mention other unintended consequences. Since the Jihadis don’t hesitate to cut off someone’s head, cutting of the flow of oil is a piece of cake for that disgusting bunch of murderers. Be careful what you wish for.

Rocky B. said...

Anonymous of April 29 10:15 AM says:

"Since the current President is actively encouraging radical Muslim Revolutions in the Middle East, extremely high gas prices may become the norm, not to mention other unintended consequences."

That reality is certainly one small cause of almost pre-recession gas prices. But your interpretation of history and the current cause of high oil prices is not so much the President's Middle East policies - but the Federal Reserve Board trashing the dollar via the QE2 corporate welfare program.

When the value of the dollar goes down in relation to other global currencies, oil prices go up proportionately. It happened under Bush as well when he borrowed heavily (i.e. printing money by selling government bonds) to finance his war machine. Check it out on the time graphs.

Keep in mind, however, the Middle East will always be a problem no matter what president we have. It is the nature of the region - with its dictators, Islamic extremists, and the fact that they cannot resist instilling religion into politics - which is what all governments should avoid, including opportunistic US politicians (like Jason Isaac).

I think a more valid case about what is happening in the Middle East is a result of Bush attacking Iraq and inflaming anti-American hatred in the region. And, quite honestly (I never thought I would be saying this), maybe the current Iraq status is giving some hope to other Muslim citizens who are tired of their psycho-leaders. Conveniently, you left that part out of your comments.

And, yes, I voted for Obama, because he was the smartest man for the job given the choices we had as determined by our two-party political monopoly. Plus, Obama didn't select a narcissistic dominatrix nutcase for VP. And, yes, he has broken many promises. What is ironic, though, is he has acted more like John McCain than I would have ever imagined. Strangely, you conservatives can't even see that fact.

Anyway, the Middle East has always been a powder keg waiting to happen. This is not Obama's doing. This is human history in the process of change - and a God-given case of people very tired of being treated like inferior beings and idiots.

What is happenning in the Middle East could be instructive to Americans as well. Maybe someday we US citizens will realize the politicians we elect don't work for us - they work for the corporations and the special interests who make them rich. The Republican Party is the worst, but the Democrats are almost the same now because they are much more reliant on corporate and big business money as unions have lost power. President Obama is a perfect example of that trend. So, yes, Anonymous, I can be duped as well.

I just hope you conservatives will see the truth someday too.

Sam Brannon said...

Rocky... Larry Bell discusses energy options in depth in the book. That's the part I was referring to. You might even pick up some new outlooks on the climate discussion.

Don't dismiss Bell out of hand. He designs space structures, and as you would imagine, geology, meteorology, biology, physics, etc, are a part of his regular routine.

In 2006 I published a couple of articles on global warming, and its affects. I was about where you are now. One acquaintance asked a few compelling questions, and suggested I keep looking into it. When Bush jumped on the global warming bandwagon in 2008, that gave me one more reason for skepticism.

Climate of Corruption is very informative and highly referenced, and recommended for those with even slightly open minds.

Rocky Boschert said...

Sam, your comment:

"In 2006 I published a couple of articles on global warming, and its affects. I was about where you are now."

C'mon man, it clearly sounds like ego-based oneupmanship to me. In fact, almost all of your comments are focused that way. This is what I loathe about so-called libertarian intellectual types. You think you all have superior intellects who are always one step ahead of everyone else's cognitive development. It is psycho-babble politics and economics, pure and simple.

And your comment:

"Climate of Corruption is very informative and highly referenced, and recommended for those with even slightly open minds."

That comment fits very nicely into your mindset of "superior intellect." So if any one of us don't want to read Bell's free markets fundamentalist take on climate change, which almost always tries to dispel its validity, we are "close minded?"

Sam, you can comment to the blog about my articles - but being condescending, while trying to look like you're not - is intellectual dishonesty.

I suggest you take a look at your style of political and economic conversation. Sure you can believe what you want. And you may be correct. But your self-righteous style will push people away - except those who need someone to guide them.

I believe you are still young, at least compared to me. Thinking yourself "superior" or "advanced" serves no one, especially yourself.

Anonymous said...

to Rocky--

You said of Sarah Palin:

"...Obama didn't select a narcissistic dominatrix nutcase for VP."

Love it! I don't see how anyone --
liberal or conservative -- cannot
laugh out loud at that deft description!

Sam Brannon said...

Rocky... You sure assign a lot of adjectives and labels to someone you've never met.

Just because its good reading "for those with even slightly open minds" doesn't mean that if don't read it you are close minded. That's a logical fallacy that I would not assign to your or anyone else. Don't assign it to yourself.

I happen to enjoy entertaining new ideas that challenge my old ones. Its good practice. I didn't account for your sensitivity on this.

Rocky Boschert said...

Sam, thanks for your gentlemanly reply. Yes, I guess "sensitive" is one way to put my take on climate change deniers. And frankly, your own wording "someone you've never met" applies to me as well.

The bottom line for me is I have not seen any climate change deniers - even the ones with credentials - fall outside the following three categories: 1) scientists funded by the oil industry, 2) free markets fundamentalists, and 3) right wingers who follow the herd of the two above.

And of course climate change is an imperfect science. But, in my researched opinion, as well as just common sense, it is certainly not as uncertain as the climate change denier science (or the political and economic "religion" behind their assault).

To me, the consequences are much more devastating to mankind to deny climate change given the convincing scientific data. Any more "I happen to enjoy entertaining new ideas that challenge my old ones" - as you put it - is just an excuse for inaction, in my opinion.

Frankly, in the case of climate change, I would rather err on the fearful side, as I do not want my 20 year old son living in hell on earth.

And of course climate change has its fear exploiters and profiteers - exactly the same as the climate change deniers, birthers, new age therapies, all sides of political media, and on an on. I think that is called capitalism.

One last point: Given what we have seen recently, I don't see how anyone can argue against imposing the same regulatory oversight on the current fossil fuel industry as we would on a sane nuclear energy industry. The only difference between the casualties caused by the two energy sources is the speed of their potential destructiveness, both environmentally and economically.

Keep challenging me, Sam. I will try to respond better next time. And I think I know you a little better now as well.

Anonymous said...

Rocky and Sam:

Battle of the mental giants!

Should I sell silver or bash county officials?

Anonymous said...

"Rocky and Sam:

Battle of the mental giants!

Should I sell silver or bash county officials?"


THAT IS FUNNY!

More like black helicopters vs. corporate conspiracy

Anonymous said...

I'm surprised that either Sam or Rocky can read

Just Plain Mental said...

That's funny you last three Anonymouses.

Actually I think I read too much. And as two of you alluded to - once I believe I am a mental giant, I immediately become a mental midget.

But I'm glad you three can make fun of Sam and I - ANONYMOUSLY.

Btw, Anon of April 30, 2:09 PM: It is NOT a conspiracy.