Oil Economy

Have you ever thought about how profitable Toyota Motor Corp is?
Is profit the engine that runs economies?
Is profit bad?
Are those that are working the pumpjacks reaping any benefits from their labor?
Shouldn't we have have more pumpjacks and refineries in America?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(stukid @ Nov 24 2007, 11:35 AM) [snapback]543583[/snapback]</div>

Is the true cost of something merely the cost of taking it out of the ground, or cutting it down? Have we not learned over time that the impacts of using those resources can have a far greater cost than what we paid for them? Are we not familiar with many cases where while some profit, many others suffer consequences that they are not compensated for? Is it possible that how the world works is far more complicated than simplistic ideas about profits and markets?

No. Apparently not. Yes. Definitely yes.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(stukid @ Nov 24 2007, 09:35 AM) [snapback]543583[/snapback]</div>

Capitalism without restraints is bad yes. That is proven.

Should we have more pumpjacks and refineries in the U.S.? No. We shouldn't we should be creating new jobs working on renewables and generating income in new and inventive ways. Train workers for the future, not the stone age and allow them to tap creative potential. Reduce mechanization and utilize human capital, this will serve to create living wage jobs at the cost of some profit yet lead to a healthier society. Profit alone is bad and as we have seen is detrimental to the health of our society. We can see this depicted in our nations state of physical health, work regulations, crime rate, mental health, and participation in civic duties. What is our huge GDP doing for us again???

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(F8L @ Nov 24 2007, 10:50 AM) [snapback]543591[/snapback]</div>

I agree with above, except I do think we need more pump jacks and refineries in the US.

Why? Because all of the nice rhetoric will not eliminate our near term need for a hydrocarbon energy based supply. Near term is 20 to 50 years... And it is much more responsible of us to use our own resources rather than farm out our problem to someone else (e.g., Venezuela or the Middle East). there are 2 reasons for this: 1) We should be responsible for whatever pollution we create (same issue as sending our garbage overseas, because we don't want dumps here). And 2) We should not be further promoting the economies of these regimes - it would make you sick to see what these people are doing with our money.

Ultimately, I agree that we should work on alternative energy sources and reduce our overall energy consumption. However, as of now, these options do not come close to filling the energy gap... and hence, we need to maintain our oil supplies in the best ways possible.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(John in LB @ Nov 24 2007, 12:23 PM) [snapback]543652[/snapback]</div>

The counter arguement is are we better off using up the reserves in other countries before oil becomes too scarce and thus set ourselves up to have a large reserve when oil is at it's highest price? I think it is a gamble in many respects but if our large multi-nationals are controlling the technology for renewables then it could pay out in the long run.

The other idea is to utilize as much domestic oil as possible and use the money saved from reducing imports to promote renewable technology and wean oursevles off oil as quickly as possible. Problems with this scenario include, degredation on U.S. soil (biological and cultural), environmental clean-up costs are higher here than in most developing countries, and the lack of a large enough reserve to maintain our needs for very long without a severe reduction in consumption.

So there are two ways to look at this; #1 The ethical view where we should be responsible for our own pollution and the long-term stability of the global community. #2 We are only concerned with maximum profitability and short-term stability (IE we take care of ourselves).

 

We could next week enact sensible fuel economy standards for vehicles and be better off sooner than by drilling in ANWR.

No doubt there were people who looked out upon the last days of Rapa Nui and said to themselves, "thank the gods that my children and neighbors still have trees to cut".

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(richard schumacher @ Nov 24 2007, 12:42 PM) [snapback]543660[/snapback]</div>

It reminds me of the terms creeping normalcy and landscape amnesia used by Jared Diamond.

"Creeping normalcy refers to the way a major change can be accepted as normality if it happens slowly, in unnoticed increments, when it would be regarded as objectionable if it took place in a single step or short period. Examples would be a change in job responsibilities, a change in a relationship or a change in a medical condition.

The North Korean Army has been accused of using a strategy of creeping normalcy to build up its forces near the demilitarized zone next to South Korea. [1]

Jared Diamond has invoked the concept (as well as that of landscape amnesia) in attempting to explain why in the course of long-term environmental degradation, Easter Island natives would, seemingly irrationally, chop down the last tree:

Gradually trees became fewer, smaller, and less important. By the time the last fruit-bearing adult palm tree was cut, palms had long since ceased to be of economic significance. That left only smaller and smaller palm saplings to clear each year, along with other bushes and treelets. No one would have noticed the felling of the last small palm.[1]

On a larger scale, the environmental degradation and unprecedented climatic changes associated with global warming may seem to be less urgent problems than they actually are because they are taking place on a timescale greater than a single human lifetime."

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(F8L @ Nov 24 2007, 12:57 PM) [snapback]543665[/snapback]</div>

Jared Diomond is a verbose genius!

Icarus

 

Maybe the US government should impose a 100% tax on oil products and use the money to install wind turbines on government land and PV cells on the roofs of schools and government buildings. Increasing demand for PV technology would increase production of PV technology there fore spreading developement cost over a wider base reducing cost per unit. At the same time replacing power from fossil and atomic fuels. All that is needed is the US motorist to pay a similar price for petrol as the Europeans do.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(patsparks @ Nov 24 2007, 04:23 PM) [snapback]543715[/snapback]</div>

Americans are allergic to new taxes. The surest way for a candidate to lose and for a party to be turned out of office is to propose new taxes.

Personally, I agree that taxes on fossil fuels are way too low in the U.S. compared to what they are in the rest of the developed world. If Americans were to pay for gasoline what they pay in Europe and Japan (I am not sure about Australia), hardly any would be driving gas guzzling behemoths.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(patsparks @ Nov 24 2007, 05:23 PM) [snapback]543715[/snapback]</div>

I agree, but like IsrAmeriPrius says, tax is a very taboo word in the US. I think we would be wise to institute a progressive tax on oil to modify consumer behavior. The slowing US economy is going to maul the SUV market severely. That's a good first step.

There's not enough on US territory to quench our current thirst. We consume 20 mbd. You can't just go around putting more wells into an existing field. That will damage the field and you'll get less oil out. There are fields that we could develop, I'm pretty sure we will. But they won't change the fact that we import lots of very expensive oil. That's the part that's got to change and the only way to do that is through efficiency/conservation.

 

From Psych 101:

Addict will never quit until consequences become apparent and painful enough to illicit change.

If we just pump more oil, the public will forget the need to wean off the finite oil teet. We will need gas lines, shortages, before people get serious about the problem. Any proposal to pump ANWAR should be coupled with agreements to fund and develop our energy infrastructure post oil. I've said the same about Iraq. We need to secure oil resources to prevent economic collapse, but to do so without addressing WHY we would collpase is a fool's economy and will only worsen (although delay) said collpase.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Darwood @ Nov 28 2007, 01:21 PM) [snapback]545351[/snapback]</div>

Sounds reasonable to me. The texas fields are knackered anyways. Hell, even with all of the injection techniques they aren't producing that much. Those fields are old and tired. Their making more money now simple because it's economic to produce the wells for what little extra we can get out of them.