Should Gasoline Really Cost $5 a Gallon -- Or More?

The Ixian Heresy blog offers a "sobering" post on the hidden cost of gasoline. Those hidden costs include market and social factors such as oil industry tax breaks and the public cost of providing healthcare for people with exhaust-induced respiratory ailments, which some argue should be figured into the price at the pump. As is, these de facto subsidies are just piling on to our already elephantine deficit.

Estimates on the "true" or "real" cost of gasoline vary by study and by year -- I've seen numbers ranging from $5 per gallon to $10 per gallon to $14 per gallon and higher. Over at the liberal opinion site AlterNet, Jason Mark notes that it is a conservative think tank whose research put real gas prices above $5 -- and that was a couple years ago. Presumably that number would only have risen since.

A top-notch researcher here passed along some information about a graphic found in the June 2004 issue of National Geographic, alongside this story. I have not seen the graphic, but I'm told this is what it said:

Congestion costs society about $1/gallon
Local pollution costs society about $0.80/gallon.
Global pollution costs society about $0.40/gallon.
Business cycle instability costs society about $0.12/gallon.
Leaks cost society about $0.12/gallon.

We grumble about high gas prices -- should we instead be aghast at how inexpensive our fuel really is?

A while back, Blogger Bob argued that gas is indeed much cheaper across the United States than it should be, and he suggested this creative solution to move the country toward energy independence:

87 Octane: $11.99.9 per gallon, plus one week on the front lines in Tikrit.
Things would get better in a big hurry.

So, what do you say? Does $150 and three months in Iraq sound about right for a tank of gas?

By Emily Messner |  April 26, 2006; 11:29 AM ET  | Category:  Economics
Previous: The Facts: Origins of U.S. Oil Imports | Next: The Ethanol-Powered Bandwagon

Comments

Please email us to report offensive comments.



California Refiners Export Gasoline As Prices Zoom Statewide: Price Manipulation Charged By Consumer Advocates


http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/478150/california_refiners_export_gasoline_as_prices_zoom_statewide_price_manipulation/?source=r_science

Not really, but throwing the Republicans out of office and the oil company executives in jail does.

Or at least enforcing our anti-trust laws would work.

Posted by: Richard Katz | April 26, 2006 11:59 AM

The price of gasoline in the U.S. is low. It has been priced at $4.00 plus in europe for years. The U.S. price is kept low so that people can drive gas guzzlers. Politicians are afraid to tell voters the truth - $3.00 per gallon is NOT high.

Posted by: richard carr | April 26, 2006 12:15 PM

Man I get tired of hearing about how Europe is such a model of energy consumption because they tax gas and use the money for social purpose. Europe's economy except for a few small countries is a model for long term stagnation and decline. Whole generations of French youth now believe their govt owe them a good living.

3 dollar per gallon is low for whom? For the typical American worker with an average 9000 dollar credit card balance and 40% of whom have no health insurance? Or for the retiring Exxon CEO with a 400 million pension package?

If you worry about gas guzzlers push Detroit and Tokyo to raise the average mpg by one mile a year for the next twenty years. They can do it.

Posted by: E | April 26, 2006 12:44 PM

My observation is that everyone did not start driving the gas guzzlers until after 9/11 when all the vehicles coming out started to look military. What was that?

I guess the soccer moms and neo-conservatives needed to feel safe.

Cars, IMHO, are just status symbols for Amercians, not utilities. The class warfare on this board rages on the issue of status cars and shows we are truly a class conscious society, when it comes to the vehicles we drive.

I agree that Americans vote based on the price of gas and that is why the Republicans are dancing the way they are about the mess W made to the oil market by invading Iraq and disrupting its oil output.

Europeans rightly place high TAXES their gas, which contributes to the higher prices I believe.

My point is that the oil companies are making bundle in profits. How come and why isn't it being taxed?

Posted by: Richard Katz | April 26, 2006 12:49 PM

"If you worry about gas guzzlers push Detroit and Tokyo to raise the average mpg by one mile a year for the next twenty years. They can do it."

But will you buy it? Or do you love your pig-fat SUV too much?

Posted by: Taniwha | April 26, 2006 12:49 PM

But will you buy it? Or do you love your pig-fat SUV too much?

Posted by: Taniwha | Apr 26, 2006 12:49:52 PM | Permalink


You ain't too bright aren't you? I say raise the average mpg for the whole fleet. Either they have to sell more small cars or they will have to make SUVs more efficient. Which part don't you understand?

Posted by: E | April 26, 2006 01:01 PM

E-

"If you worry about gas guzzlers push Detroit and Tokyo to raise the average mpg by one mile a year for the next twenty years. They can do it."

Do you have anything interesting to add? They already do this, it is called CAFE standards. There is a government mandated minimum mpg on cars and SUV issued by the DoT. If a car company fails to reach this minimum on a given vehicle, the government fines them. The car companies pass this fine on to consumers so that people who buy BMWs end up paying 1,000 on top of the market price to cover the accumulated CAFE fines.

This doesn't work because the measures are not severe enough or are indirect. Obviously an additional 1,000 on a 40,000 dollar car isn't much of a deterrant. And besides, most people don't buy BMWs, Mercedes, or Porsches anyways, so you aren't really addressing overall consumption.

Most Americans purchase cars they can afford. Most Americans can afford cheap but inefficient cars but cannot afford expensive but efficient hybrids. This will change the day gasoline prices make the former more expensive than the latter.

Posted by: Will | April 26, 2006 01:20 PM

One mile a year for twenty years will increase the average mileage by 20mpg. That ain't NO joke. It ain't easy either. But it can be done.

The current standard is set by auto industry lobbyists (and perhaps oil lobbyists also). That's a joke!

Of all the long term solutions, this is one that CAN be done relatively easy compared to everything else.

Posted by: E | April 26, 2006 01:44 PM

Emily's point is one that you don't want to hear....


and it's actually the most important one to be made.


it's also one the president should be making...


if the hidden costs of things is still being paid...


then it's the media that is ignoring them, the corporate mindset...

and you're the hamsters on the wheel.


IF Jimmy Carter had been listened to some years ago,

there's a good chance we wouldn't be in Iraq and that France would be our best friend...


because we wouldn't be trying to control the world so you could get cheap gas...

the $9,000 plus in credit card debt is part and parcel of a federal and corporate structure that victimizes it's people....

you're right about that...


and you know, that's not really


_your_


problem....


it's corporate america's and the federal governments problem...


they got us there...

unregulated outsourcing and corporations moving overseas,


CEO's downsizing, looting and selling the companies to internationals that owe citizenry of any country that they work from


NOTHING


have changed the face of the United States,

to worn out, buying what they don't need because it replaces a _need_ in them to actually have a life...


I'll tell you something,


it's not your fault.


The Iraq "war" joke.

is not your fault.


You want to change your life, look at what is going on.

and do something about it.

Posted by: hello _it's all about me_ | April 26, 2006 01:58 PM

Thank you for the facts,I have come up with the perfect solution for the crises that is currently facing the nation, i.e., the high cost of oil, oil-based products and gasoline.

If we could simply get the following entities in America to stop the greed and price-gouging, we could afford our high energy costs. For example:

If we could get the Federal, State & Local Governments to stop,
If we could get corporate executives and our bosses to stop,
If we could get home-developers and home-builders to stop,
If we could get landlords to stop,
If we could get the Homeowners Associations to stop,

If we could get the medical industry, health professionals and other service providers to stop,
If we could get pharmaceutical companies to stop,
If we could get insurance carriers to stop,
If we could get my the dental service providers to stop,
If we could get utility companies to stop,

If we could get the mechanics and dealerships to stop,
If we could get the taxicab and toll-roads to stop,
If we could get the church and ministers to stop,
If we could get educational institutions to stop,
If we could get all the individual trades to stop,

If we could get the restaurateurs to stop,
If we could get the sports franchises to stop,
If we could get manufacturers to stop,
If we could plumbers and repairmen to stop,
If we could get the downtown and uptown parking garages to stop,

If we could get beauticians and barbers to stop,
If we could get hotels and all of the travel industry to stop,
If we could get the butcher to stop,
If we could get the wedding chapels to stop,
If we could get the guy who rents out the hall for wedding receptions to stop

If we could get the Morticians to stop,
If we could get athletes and entertainers to stop,
If we could get the cable guy (pun intended) and the satellite TV guy to stop,
If we could get banks and other credit organizations to stop,
And if we could just get you to stop...(whatever your trade or business may be),

Then we all could have enough money left over to pay the exorbitant prices that are being set by greedy oil barons and energy suppliers like gas stations, and there might still be enough left over after to go to Disneyland. Oops, they need to stop it too, been there lately?

Get it, almost every entity and person in America is overcharging! Greed is not unique to the oil industry, and I apologize if I left you or your organization off of my quickly constructed list; nevertheless, stop it and we will all have more money in our pockets!

Peace & Grace,

Posted by: Rev. C. Solomon | April 26, 2006 02:08 PM

1. illegals need to go home and make their country a better place to live in.

2. congress people need to obey the laws they pass and be arrested if they don't

3. the president needs to be held responsible for lying about Iraq, whatever the rationale...arrested not impeached.

4. we need to stop unregulated outsourcing.

5. we need to reestablish pensions and benefits as a part of life in America.

6. we need to work no more than 40 hours a week, unless we want to.

7. we need to remove our marginalized people from that life style and make use of them as resources........permanently. if someone is not mentally ill, they can be a useful citizen, if they're not they're dead weight on _us_, that my friends is inefficient and blame won't make it go away.

8. some people need to be put on trial as a way of reestablishing democracy in the United States.....right now, we're posturing towards Iran as_if that was a rational choice to geo h. w. bush...

9. infrastructure needs to be rebuilt in communication, highways, commuting and telecommuting needs to be a mandated options...

11. bring back customer service from overseas and let the out of work factory people do that until we get out resources back under our control...not the internationals...

12. look at internationalism as a problem that can be solved by taking action and that it is not necessarily bad as long as the people that are in control

can be held responsible for their lack of thoughtfulness....if they can't we don't need to do business with them..

13. and so on


the point being that just changing the price of gas, will be a big first step....


the next step would be saying that it will be much higher in 6 months _all at once_


and put a plan in place to support that change....


Iran is already saying it's going to start playing with the oil market, right? so we're vulnerable right? well maybe Europe is.......so do we need to start a war or take action?

.

Posted by: gas prices need to raise... | April 26, 2006 02:14 PM

you're not very smart and it sseems like you're frustrated...

and ineffectivness seems to be your motto...

working with a system, doesn't seem to be within your mental capacity...


I suggest that you understand that saying


fix this _one_ thing is not a reasonable approach...


but in any game of pik up stiks there's always the first one that you have to move...

get past your four year olde response to


it's not possible and start pik ing up the stiks...

or shut up.

Posted by: hey rev.... | April 26, 2006 02:17 PM

then making a reasonable level of income to exist with will be easy enough....

when you don't have enough money it seems that everything costs too much...


you don't worry about it

you work with it


you require your country to work for _you_

THAT _IS_ a National Security ISSUE...


not some Europeans oil issues........when our country is going bankrupt and the citizens have to do with less each day...


WAKE UP

Posted by: if everyone has enough... | April 26, 2006 02:22 PM

I recently spent Easter weekend up in Vancouver, BC, and it shocked me how far ahead they are in Kyoto accords - in terms of the cars people drive, the massive reduction in energy usage, the placing of solar cells and solar panels on top of old building in Chinatown, and the massive expansion of reliable faster-than-cars transit everywhere.

And I live in Seattle (no, I'm not the other Will). We're supposedly meeting the Kyoto accords but we are WAY BEHIND here (multiple cars per person, tons of giant SUVs driven by housewives buying some flowers across town, never dirtied by real things in the backs of them).

So, if they did do a $2 per gallon tax - to pay for National Health Care like every other Western nation - I'd be for it.

It's time to wake up and smell the Bush inaction that has endangered our nation.

Posted by: Will in Seattle | April 26, 2006 02:48 PM

you require your country to work for _you_


THAT _IS_ a National Security ISSUE...

Posted by: yes | April 26, 2006 02:57 PM

so that "fill in the blank" gets to feel okay about his destruction of our economy to enrich his friends...


and "his or her" use of the government to enrich "him or her" as a way of doing business without worrying about recompense for the people


or how they/ _WE_


are affected...


they don't have to be responsible.

outsourcing downsizing internationalization


all of a sudden bankruptcy laws were tightened and overtime was allowed to not be paid


that's what the government and corporations needed......


they effing _caused it_


you have to effing _pay for it_

Posted by: this country doesn't exist solely | April 26, 2006 03:20 PM

we as a country start doing


the _right_


thing?

and that the majority get served, not the minority...


and punish those that would use disinformation to control you.


this is not the effing soviet union and we don't need a pravda feeding us effing lies on a daily basis....


Rupert Murdoch tried to own the media business....blah blah Fox News..blah..
.

Posted by: how about mandating that | April 26, 2006 03:31 PM

Will_in_Seattle

"I recently spent Easter weekend up in Vancouver, BC, and it shocked me how far ahead they are in Kyoto accords - in terms of the cars people drive, the massive reduction in energy usage, the placing of solar cells and solar panels on top of old building in Chinatown, and the massive expansion of reliable faster-than-cars transit everywhere."

Indeed you should be shocked because Canadians use more fossil fuel energy per capita than Americans do. And their rate of increase in energy use is even higher than the US because they are ading immigrants from dysfunctional families at a faster rate than the Ruling Elites have made America accept.

Not that Vancouver isn't a beautiful, sophisticated city with workable mass transit and trains that run on time. Similar to how many American cities were before inner city residents seized power and began sending modern American infastructure right down the toilet with their graft and financial mismanagement.

****************

Again the Cold, Hard Numbers. We use 107 Quads. 40 of those Quads are oil. 16 of those Quads are used in Private transportation. 4 of those Oil Quads represent "gas guzzlers" excess. Unchecked immigration will add 4-6 more Quads of oil or oil substitute demand by 2030.

So a morally superior person ditches their 3-year old SUV for a hybrid? Ooooo! Well and good. Pat that person on the head as "socially conscious". Now the *spit* SUV the source of Lefty hatred, enters the used car market with 12-15 years of useful life left, where it is scooped up as a bargain by Juan or Pedro or Abdullah who consider it is ideal to get their large Familia or 2 wife, 8 kid household around.

We use 30% less oil per capita than we did in 1970..we did the easy stuff...stopped most electric generation from oil burning, lightened cars, put electronic controls on them. Yet we use 35% more oil as a nation than in 1970. Reason? We added 90 million new Americans, most from unchecked immigration, 3rd World village reunification programs, and their attendent spawn..

All the silly "just sell your SUV and all our problems with energy independence go away" talk is silly grade school fantasy the scientifically illiterate environmentalists started back in the 70s and still push on the public.

Should we have more conservation, work for their pet little programs like "biodiesel", oil from turkey guts, "glorious free solar power"? Sure. Every little bit helps.

But our exploding population assures we can not become energy independent, cannot meet 1990 Kyoto levels stagnant Euroweenie populations try and push on others, and cannot make "exciting alternative energy" any more than a drop in a bucket.

Oil. Nuclear. Gas. Coal.

Those are your ultimate choices for your foreseeable lifetime for 95% of your and every other American and future Border Crossers needs.

Take your pick(s).

Posted by: Chris Ford | April 26, 2006 03:33 PM

Erratum - In response to Will_in_Seattle, should read:

"Dysfunctional nations". Not "families".

I'm sure most of the Canadian immigrant families are wonderful warm nurturing, hard working solid families -not dysfunctional ones.

Even the few Muslim ones planning Jihad on the infidel Canadians or who not dishonor their host's hospitality and at least cross the Border into America if they have any Jihad cravings.

Posted by: | April 26, 2006 03:40 PM

aryan rants about minorities (black people) carefully disguised as not at all


please dumbfuk, see a therapist, or come see me personally and I'll help you...

Posted by: chris ford responds with his familiar | April 26, 2006 04:09 PM

you stupid nincompoop!


"American cities were before inner city residents seized power and began sending modern American infastructure right down the toilet with their graft"


what kind of mindless grub are you?


aryan nation is not a point of view, it is a delusion!

little men with dysfunctional family life trying to blame the world.

Posted by: what the fuk is this? | April 26, 2006 04:13 PM

oklahoma?

are you the oklahoma bomber?

yes or no...


is chris ford your real name?


are you a member of aryan nation or a white supremacists group

yes

or

no.

Posted by: are you in a jail cell in | April 26, 2006 04:15 PM

what are you?

Posted by: well? | April 26, 2006 04:23 PM

Whatever the cost motorists pay for a gallon of gasoline, it is important the government not get much of it; governments that do are hostile to fossil fuel replacements.

If taxes are intended to punish what the government considers misbehaviour or socially expensive behaviour, it must not, in the punishing process, simultaneously reward that large fraction of the population that it employs or otherwise supports. If that fraction of the pump price that producers don't get were promptly burned or shredded, in view of the payer, that could work.

--- G.R.L. Cowan, former hydrogen fan
B: internal combustion, nuclear cachet http://tinyurl.com/4xt8g
e

Posted by: G.R.L. Cowan | April 26, 2006 04:47 PM

$5 for a gallon?.. They woudn't dare! I'm really against it.

Posted by: Emilio | April 26, 2006 05:04 PM

$5 a gallon?.. They woudn't dare! Anyhow, I'm really against it.

Posted by: Emilio | April 26, 2006 05:04 PM

There are many solutions. People need to apply themselves and not succumb to mass media and the dumbing down of America.
One solution is utilization of new technologies to make better utilization of carbon sources through gasification. New AC plasma torches facilitate this process. Even garbage and most hazardous waste can be converted to syn-gas and reduced to basic elements; AC plasma torches can reach temps of 33,000°F if necessary. The syn-gas (produced at lower temps) can be used to generate electricity while, solving the garbage problem. Coal and even coke can be utilized with 3X efficiency through gasification with minimal atmospheric pollution. http://www.suip3.com/acplasmatron_2.html
It is amazing what technology can be developed. I don't have enough hours in the day to come up with solutions if I cloned myself a 100X.
A personal example of using the abundance of knowledge to capitalize on energy available is in the use of atmospheric energy. I have crossed the western US in a glider utilizing thermal lift several times. It required a few pints of gas to get up a couple thousand feet and rest was atmospheric energy. One of things that have made it possible is the advancements in atmospheric prediction and flight computers that have been developed that were science fiction only a decade ago. Of course, I do it for fun and most people are not knowledgeable enough to even conceive of what I'm talking about, let alone technically adept enough to do it. Another example is a friend of mine who flew MacCready's solar powered aircraft across the country several years ago; a first. Esoteric, but it shows what can be done. And yet another example of creativity are several people I know who are currently using bio-diesel at pennies a gallon, have a 2 year supply and are selling it to other people. It is almost a best kept secret, since the raw materials are a limited resource if it became popular now (limited for a wide scale use, at least currently). But, the people took it into their own hands and are not relying on someone else to do it for them.
The American people need to take charge and become more technically oriented; gear themselves toward the science and engineering that affects their lives. If not, our society will take what it gets, a default path where the lemmings of society whine and complain about what they get instead of creating their destiny. Americans need to ask themselves what they need and don't wait for someone else, like the "TV", to tell you. Go for it. That is what American freedom is supposed to be about.

Posted by: Matt | April 26, 2006 05:08 PM

Ford,

Your becoming an embarrassing fixture in these debates sadly betray your pathetic state of denial.

Posted by: Emilio | April 26, 2006 05:11 PM

Jaxas, I always find your comments useful.

Matt, you have a point there.

Will, what persistence.

E, don't mess with Will.

Posted by: Emilio | April 26, 2006 05:22 PM

Or maybe the American public is simply being gouged by the oil industry, Emily. Let's not overcomplicate the issue TOO much.

Posted by: ErrinF | April 26, 2006 05:33 PM

What if ALL 200 million or so Americans REFUSE to pay anything higher than, say, $2.50?... $2.50 and not a cent more.

That would be an equvalent of the revolution.

Than the elites will get befuddled and thus...


forced to reduce the prices.

Posted by: | April 26, 2006 05:35 PM

this is a multifaceted issue, and it's not all about


price.


A major portion of it, is that we're looking at a failing country...


the average credit card debt in the United States is at about $10,000 per family of 1.5


at minimum wage you can work a whole day to fill your tank up....


and this isn't Ecquador.

Posted by: dear nameless | April 26, 2006 06:00 PM

I would think they could increase the mpgs by 15 in six months...


if it were mandated, right?


no problemo....not a bit...we're already there, it just hasn't been pushed far enough...

Posted by: dear E | April 26, 2006 06:05 PM

Nameless One - "What if ALL 200 million or so Americans REFUSE to pay anything higher than, say, $2.50?... $2.50 and not a cent more. That would be an equvalent of the revolution. Than the elites will get befuddled and thus...forced to reduce the prices."

1. Oil is a global commodity like rice or gold.

2. America is not the center of the Universe. American companies do not control the planet and all that people on the globe make or buy. The American consumer is not sovereign over all global events.

3. You can refuse to buy oil gold or rice and perhaps even drop price a little by shrinking demand. But then producers globally would shrink the output of any of those commodities to establish a new floor price. Then wait as a planet scheduled to go from 6.7 billion to 10 billion inserts new demand for gold, oil, rice, etc. so they can ramp up production.

4. The result of a boycott by Sovereign American consumers would be them motionless, jobless, and starving from lack of deliveries of food while the rest of the world hummed along quite nicely on their 4 dollar a gallon gas. (Already there).

5. Then the Sovereign American consumer might question why we shouldn't be allowed look for more supply in the areas the environmental extremists have barred us from looking - East and West Coasts, Great Lakes Region, the whole East Gulf Coast, Alaska, all the Fed lands out West where exploration is verboten.

6. Then again the Sovereign American consumer might just whimper and demand we chop down our version of 100 square miles of free Amazonian rain forest a year to plant for ethanol..and beg for "more exciting alternative energy sources" as they suffered...

Posted by: Chris Ford | April 26, 2006 06:14 PM

Would the stream of consciousness anonymous poster (you know -

the guy

who wites


like this...)

Please knock that crap off. That is one waaay irritating affectation you have there, brother. If you have something to say, you should say it in a normal style. Otherwise, people are just going to blow right by it. That leaves you with no reason to post here, other than to be a pain in the ass.

Please stop being such a pain in the ass. You're as bad as Che, for Chris Ford's sake.

Posted by: Smafdy | April 26, 2006 06:26 PM

thanks....

Posted by: nice opinion | April 26, 2006 06:54 PM

comeon.

Posted by: want to danc epeanut? | April 26, 2006 06:55 PM

Here's an idea: Give up personal cars altogether.

The next time you're driving on the Beltway during normal daytime conditions, look at how many cars there actually are (and realize you're driving a circle). Unless you're way out in the country (beyond the exurbs), it's the same everywhere you go. From Tampa to Boston, Chicago, to LA, don't forget the Motor City (sorry).

How long can we keep this up?

We should keep mass transportation, emergency vehicles, commercial vehicular traffic, and develop a radically streamlined distribution network. We can telecommute.

The extra $20,000 to $60,000 we don't spend on cars, we can use to pay off the naional debt.

Logistically, it could work. Life would be more difficult (maybe), but it could work. Most of the population lives within walking distance of a grocery store. Mass transportation can get everyone to work. Other essential services are a fairly easy commute using public transportation.

We'd lower our dependence on foreign oil to manageable levels and reap multipls National security benefits in the process.

Realistically, it won't work. Why? From Deep Purple's Highway Star:

Nobody gonna take my car
I'm gonna race it to the ground
Nobody gonna beat my car
It's gonna break the speed of sound
Oooh it's a killing machine
It's got everything
Like a driving power, big fat tires
and everything

I love it
and I need it
I bleed it
yeah it's a wild hurricane
Alright hold tight
I'm a highway star


That pretty much sums it up.

Posted by: smafdy | April 26, 2006 06:59 PM

please, you're not even worth the time...

try again.

Posted by: that's your response? | April 26, 2006 07:00 PM

the twelve points that I put together earlier, actually made sense...


who cares if you don't like my style, you've not got the content to back up your mouth.

Posted by: you're not even close... | April 26, 2006 07:02 PM

reducing cars clueless...

mass transport, making city life liveable, walking to work...

the old ideal of having little shops for community strolling...

Reston Virginia is set up that way, with shopping centers hidden from sight with retirement centers at each one....with biking trails, etcetera to support a non-car driven life style if you want it.

.

Posted by: infrastructure refers to | April 26, 2006 07:05 PM

oil, pollution, lack of benefits, no future, too much reaction/no forward thinking are


all facets of the same jewel, just different aspects.


we as a people,


can't control what is done to us,


unless we do.


it's not an iss u e issue....it's a set of issues issue...


dweebbot

Posted by: the main point that you're really missing is that | April 26, 2006 07:08 PM

did you vote this president in

knowing that he had a plan to intervene before he got elected?


no, then you should be arresting him, because that's a fact...


as far as waaaaaaaaaaaayyy irritating, it's someone that calls me out that doesn't deliver.

.

Posted by: why should _we_ pay off the national debt? | April 26, 2006 07:10 PM

I prefer to do this differently, but if you just want to attack my style...


I'll still eat you for breakfast.

Posted by: have a nice time, I"m going out | April 26, 2006 07:18 PM

We use 30% less oil per capita than we did in 1970..we did the easy stuff...stopped most electric generation from oil burning, lightened cars, put electronic controls on them. Yet we use 35% more oil as a nation than in 1970. Reason? We added 90 million new Americans, most from unchecked immigration, 3rd World village reunification programs, and their attendent spawn..


Posted by: Chris Ford | Apr 26, 2006 3:33:39 PM | Permalink

Let's take a moment and do some calculations based STRICTLY on Mr. Ford numbers and see if they compute.

US population added 90 million since 1970 per Mr. Ford. Current population is around 300 million (298,605,411 today per US census). That gives us a population of 210 million in 1970. Check.

We use 30% less oil per capita today than we did in 1970. But as a nation we use 35% more oil. Also per Mr. Ford.

For the sake of our computations assume we used 100 barrels of oil per capita in 1970. With a 30% drop we each use 70 barrels today. Check.

Our oil consumption as a nation goes up 35% more per Mr. Ford.

Now the calculations:

For 1970:

Total US consumption = 100 X 210 = 21,000 million barrels.

For 2006:

Total US consumption = 70 X 300 = 21,000 million barrels.


Where's the 35% increase due to population growth Mr. Ford?

As usual numbers don't lie so who's fibbing here?

Posted by: Chrisoroid Fordoloid | April 26, 2006 07:31 PM

DearPsychobabble:IneverattackedyourthoughtscauseIdon'tread the(althoughwhatIhavereadhasoccasionallybeeninterestingIonlyattackedyourstyleIt'sultrairritatinginahipsterbeatnewagestreamofconciousnesskindofwayanditgivesmefitstryingtokeepupwiththeotherwisefastpacedcommunicationonthisblogkindofladeedaladeeahIdon'twantyoutoeatmeforbreakfastcannibalismisn'tnicebutyoucanhavemybreakfastifyou'rehungryI'monadietanywayMypostaboutgivingupcarswasironyifyoudon'tgetitthentoobadIevenmanagedtofitinsomecoolrockandrolllyricsdon'ttakeitpersonallyThat'sthefirststepinacceptingnegativecriticismofyourcreativeoutputThinkaboutit

See what I mean?

Posted by: Smafdy | April 26, 2006 08:46 PM

Apples and oranges, pseudo-poster. 40% of oil consumption is private use. The rest is commercial, gov sector. A 30% reduction in per capita private use from a 1970 net of 400 gal per person lowers net oil to 352 gal per person. 400X210 million = 84 billion gallons. Adding 90 million new Juans, Osamas, and Marias + the small part that is native growth gives us 300 million. But while we lowered oil use for power, we had large increases in commercial use of oil for JIT trucking and aviation (and creep due to population driven congestion, sprawl and gridlock cutting into the post 1970 35% savings) so we are up to 376 gal per person. 376X300 million =112.8 billion gallons net. Which, divided by 84 billion = 1.343.

Or, 35% more oil than we used in 1970.

Lessons?

1. Sign your name to posts. You might start getting some respect from other posters.

2. Immigration is the #1 driver of energy use. Besides direct input as a per person addiditional demand negating conservation savings....immigration introduces sprawl, gridlock and other factors driving up fuel usage.

3. People fixate on the trivial and picayune. Yes it would be nice to make 5,000 barrels of oil from turkey guts. Exciting even. But utterly meaningless. SUVs are a wonderful target, but amount to 22% of the private vehicle market and suck up 36% of the gas. Meaning of 107 Quads total, 40 of that oil, 16 of that private transportation, and use 5.76 Quads. Doubling their efficiency would buy us 2.52 Quads after the dozen years it will take to get them out of the fleet to a 90% level. But the border crossers and familias will add 4.2 Quads additional oil demand by then.

It's nice an all to lavish attention on the little things like a pet alternate power project or "hating" SUVs...but not at the expense of ignoring the big things.

A. Starting to produce energy and refine it after 35 years of the environmentalists blocking the supply side.

B. Controlling the explosive growth of the American population. We are on track to have a billion people by 2100.

C. For the foreseeable future, the choices to meet 95% of the nations energy needs will come off Oil, Gas, Nuclear, and Coal. Even hydrogen and ethanol are dependent or and derivative of/on use of those Big 4 sources. The other stuff cannot distract from that.

D. We need a National Energy Program with the powers invested by Congress to roll over local and special interest group's roadblocks. We need an international energy program to minimize instabilities in supplies and to develop new Gen fission and hopefully fusion facilities for the future. We need to have an international agreement on population limits. We cannot have some countries stabilize population and ecosystems for sustainability - only to have that effort undone by mass invasions of people fleeing overpopulated lands unable or unwilling to stabilize their population or prevent environmental or national resource collapse.

Posted by: Chris Ford | April 26, 2006 11:16 PM

Smafdy - LOL!

His whole act is a pompous affectation. His style of pseudo-poetry, psycho-babble does suck.
I suspect most posters breeze right by it because it is at it's core unreadable garbage.

We disagree on a lot, but you do write in a very understandable way.

I think people with little to say sometimes try to hide that with incoherent pseudo-sophisticated vacuous prose with little dribbles of what they think are clever bon mots or oh-so-witty snarking tossed into their crappy prose...

Despite that, and 3 years of community college teachers telling them their writing stinks, they keep at it...

Posted by: Chris Ford | April 26, 2006 11:26 PM

No no no, you did not say 30% reduction per capita private use! You say out right 30% reduction per capita. Let me quote:

"We use 30% less oil per capita than we did in 1970..we did the easy stuff...stopped most electric generation from oil burning, lightened cars, put electronic controls on them"


Electric generation from oil is not private use. It's used for home, business, factories, etc.


Too late to fudge more numbers after you are caught cooking them! Using phony numbers to justify blatant racist posts is nothing to brag about. There is no honor in any of it. From now on all your numbers should be suspect!

Posted by: Chrisoroid Fordoloid | April 26, 2006 11:35 PM

5 dollars a gallon? are you serious? who is setting this standarts? whos idea is to make the gas imposible for most people to obtain??

Posted by: Dr.Q | April 27, 2006 12:26 AM

Thank you, Mr. Ford.

Posted by: smafdy | April 27, 2006 12:26 AM

there's only one word to say about this, you make a perfect pair...

invite me to your wedding.

Posted by: this is well, how do you outwit children? | April 27, 2006 12:44 AM

I can see it pains you too much to think, so don't do anything different than you've been doing...

mocking and lieing seems to suit you both, oh you've shamed me so, how will I heaver hold my head up...

oh me oh my...


I wouldn't wipe my shoes on you.


come up with five like the 12 I did above and you might be able to lick

my bottom...other wise continue licking each others...

hee hee heee...

Posted by: and regarding my rebuttal of you drivel... | April 27, 2006 12:47 AM

as I said earlier are you in prison in oklahoma?

are you an aryan or a white supremacist?

I'm not looking for _your_ respect, why would I want respect from a liar?


that's like asking the pope to like me.


.


or karl rove...yah note, demagogurey kinda guy, not unlike you..

I notice that you've not answered are you in Oklahoma in prison? or are you involved in aryan nation or white supremacists movements?

can you answer or would that cause you some pain....I'm not being facetious.

.

Posted by: ps. I just got back... | April 27, 2006 12:52 AM

don't want to answer chris ford?

Posted by: what's wrong | April 27, 2006 01:03 AM

they ken lak theenk and tehy knows how tah duo lak cackleus an d stuff thet dark magick...

like sanfroid moss stuffing and stuff...eeeww it chest meks me queesi


hep me he p me...meester wizard


twizzle twazzle twizzle twone...

Posted by: those smart guys are dangerous... | April 27, 2006 01:16 AM

A 30% reduction in per capita private use from a 1970 net of 400 gal per person lowers net oil to 352 gal per person... But while we lowered oil use for power, we had large increases in commercial use of oil for JIT trucking and aviation

Posted by: Chris Ford | Apr 26, 2006 11:16:27 PM | Permalink

More phony calculation from Chris Ford:
400 X .7 = 280 not 352!

And what the hell does just in time trucking and aviation has to do with immigration? Blame that on the big bad Japanese instead if you want to blame foreigners!

Posted by: Chrisoroid Fordoloid | April 27, 2006 01:26 AM

I'm not coming after you, not everyone likes rock, jazz, blues, afro, world, newage, classical or dare I say disco or swing...I like 'em all...

most never heard of sonny terry and brownie mcgee

when I dance the world moves with me, and children smile....


you don't like my style you won't like my comments on your style

you can't get it...hey

moveon


chris ford, that's a different story, there's not much difference 'tween him and k. rove...selling you homophobia as "family values"

just experience and a few feet of concrete and razor wire...seperate them

but that may change soon.

Posted by: dear smafdy | April 27, 2006 01:36 AM

Smafdy, the second I saw you criticise his post, I thought "Oh, here we go..." Take comfort in the fact that regardless of the insnae babling he spouts at you to try to make himself the 'winner' (funny that he threatens to eat you when in other posts he says he doesn't like debating and doesn't care about winners or losers)most people probably agree with you.

And random poster posted:
"I wouldn't wipe my shoes on you."

Well, I'd assume that someone that writes like a burnt out hippie wouldn't be wearing shoes, so yah. That makes sense.

Posted by: Freedom | April 27, 2006 11:17 AM

If everyone with a desk job across the United States worked just two days a week from home, imagine the impact that could have on gasoline consumption. Five days a week would really do a number. We don't need to waste tax dollars on a government study of oil company profits--we know they're profitable.

History has shown that consumers can have a significant impact on oil prices. When the price goes too high, we stop consuming. Let history repeat itself.

Posted by: Jeri Kirschner | April 27, 2006 01:20 PM

You mean, to drastically reduce consamption, don't you?.. To cease consumption entirely would be another extreme.

Posted by: | April 27, 2006 03:04 PM

my boots feel like walkin...

no hard feelings don't run, be brave.

Posted by: come back smafdy anD freedom | May 3, 2006 01:05 AM

my boots feel like walkin...

no hard feelings don't run, be brave.

Posted by: come back smafdy anD freedom | May 3, 2006 01:06 AM

The price of petroleum is driven by demand versus supply. China and India have rapidly growing economies demanding more and more fuel. Conservation in the U.S. will not dramatically change the world demand for petroleum.

It is my understanding that the U.S. has huge oil reserves in our western states in oil shale. Unfortunately it is expensive to recover the oil from shale; even more expensive than recovering oil from Canada's oil sands. It requires approximately one ton of oil shale to yield one barrel of petroleum. If the cost of petroleum were about $90/barrel, recovery from oil shale could become profitable.

Does anyone remember the 70's when the government froze the price of gasoline? We could only buy gasoline on odd or even numbered days depending on our license tag numbers. We were limited to five gallons at one time. I'd rather pay five or six dollars per gallon for gasoline and be able to get it than regulate price and not be able to get it. I'll get a more fuel efficient vehicle if the prices go there.

I don't understand why no one complains about the price of bottled water. Many people are willing to pay a dollar for one pint. That's equal to eight dollars per gallon. Isn't water a more renewable resource than petroleum?

Posted by: Larry LaClair | May 3, 2006 10:52 AM

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.