Do high gas prices really help the planet?

Government intervention? Never; call it the butt-out principle. Taxing oil companies out of existence? Contrary to every principle of Econ 101. Technological develop-ment of alternative forms of ebergy? Absolutely. We are in a transition period, much as that from horsepower to ... uh, horsepower. There will be disruptions, problems, complaints, but it will come about, regardless of how much oil is pumped or not pumped. But you make good points.

 

We already see that increased gasoline prices in the US are reducing miles driven, reducing prices for housing in remote suburbs, and causing a sharp shift toward more fuel efficient new vehicles. Also, high prices for petroleum-based fuels hasten the day of non-fossil alternatives, which inherently reduce global warming and which will be designed to reduce emissions of conventional pollutants; these are good things.

If today's producers of petroleum had the sense to pour pee from a boot they would be investing their enormous profits in a variety of non-fossil energy sources (instead of, for example, billion-dollar hotels and indoor ski slopes that few will ever use, or coal-to-liquids schemes that will soon be effectively illegal) to avoid having others eat their lunch.

 

I agree we may be off topic here, but if I may explain:

The butt-out principle is when the people tells the government to keeps its hands off. At the moment, not many citizens are willing to do that, but that doesn't negate the principle. And the government should not subsidize the fossil fuel industry, nor any other. I won't characterize the nature of "some forms of government intervention", but I agree government always is taking a position; it indeed is not butting out, and that's exactly my point -- it should butt out of commercial and personal enterprises. Taxation does not give the right to dictate how a business or an individual's life should be run. As for ownership, yes, the individual owns his own property; the government does not. To say it does through taxation is to admit that the government does butt in when it should not and is not wanted.

 

The higher the price, the more holes will be drilled looking for "black gold". I can't think of anybody that high oil prices help, except maybe oil speculators. The "planet" doesn't care. It was here before oil was discovered, and will be here after the last drop is used, though in a different condition, probably not for the better.

 

We have drought conditions in So. Cal. often. We're told to conserve. So we do. We use less. And because we use less the water utility doesn't make as much money. So....they raise the rates. So....we conserve more. Then they raise the rates.

Conserving gas won't make the price go down. But....we will use less gas and pollute less. It will spur discoveries in alternative energy. More people will invest in solar and wind. People will be more accepting of hybrids, then plug ins, then EVs when they are available. The demand for plug-ins and EVs will drive the market to produce a product to meet that demand.

 

In the grand scheme of things yes, charging more for fuel (transportation) will help the planet and our species. At face value it is not so obvious because more efficient cars are not the true answer for reasons you listed and more. With higher fuel prices people are more likely support intelligently designed public transit and efficient city planning designs where cars are not needed for 99% of a persons needs. In the end with continued population growth, personal vehicles of the types we currently use are not sustainable.

So in the end I do think that higher prices on just about everything degradational will help our situation as long as other important considerations like food, clothing, health security, are kept at "reasonable" prices. These required items must be considered sustainable as well otherwise it wont work in the long run. I.E. the price of unstainable practices as a whole should be priced such that almost nobody can afford them.

 

Absolutely! And, I hope, more emphasis on solar, which should be free except for the collection systems. I have no objection to wind power, just that it seems to be fairly limited in scope (Palm Desert is a wonderful site of turbines, and off the eastern seaboard is another large wind farm). May not be as efficient where wind is not fairly constant.

 

That seems like a valid point. Oil is finite and will likely be almost entirely used up at some point. Conserving fuel won't in the long rung reduce the total amount of carbon output it will just take longer.

Or am I missing something.

G

 

Yeah--unfortunately they do. They are phoney--cause by speculation in oil futures pricing. But they help to reduce consumption and encourage alternatives (hybrids and electric powered cars). The downside is the public is getting ripped off and the oil companies are profiting. Which is why they need to be taxed on those profits--to effectively return some of those profits to the public (i.e., the Treasury). The stock market is also crashing right now, because of inflation fears from runaway oil prices. And not much from the media about this--yet.

Economic models just being published say that taxing carbon emissions and developing alternative energy sources are the two most cost effective ways of dealing with Global Warming. They give the highest return on investment.

 

I believe we have a parallel discussion that has gone on for pages both in the fuel economy forum as well as the environmental forum if I am not mistaken.

Icarus

 

This was such a well written post, I thought it would be worth even one more viewpoint.

There is a difference between being happy about high gas prices and relieved that economic forces are showing up that push everyone in the right direction. I'm glad to see moderate pain now, rather than intense pain later. I do not like paying more for gas (who does?) During the oil embargo, gas prices did not go crazy, instead you just could not get gas without extreme waits for small amounts. This is better than that period.

Keep in mind that the time for the prices to spike was just a couple of weeks. The time for gas demand to adjust by shifting auto company production will take years. Changing lifestyles and driving habits takes years. I'm sure even you had to respond to the price upswing by handing over more money at the pump, but that started you of thinking of ways to cut down. This is the situation everyone is in....and everyone will be responding in some way.

It does not play out as you describe with hybrids. It plays out with non-gas based transportation taking over at different rates. A lot of China and India will be back to using bikes. A lot of Europe will be using well thought out public transportation. The US will have a lot of electric vehicles. There will be a lot less commercial aviation. Hybrids will be part of the transition, not the end result. The key unknowns are how painful, how damaging, and how fast.

I doubt that "demand" for gas goes down. What goes down is "availability" of gas. It is unlikely for price to go down. The production of oil fields is always decreasing (about 5 % / year) and the population is increasing. That's the scary problem. Something has to give.

Your last comment is absolutely correct. What you do not use will be used by someone else....but you will not be using it since you are not willing or able to pay the price, assuming it is available for sale.

Please do not blame the oil companies for the situation we are in. The present dependence on oil was a result of past and present generations wanting a better life, with or without thinking ahead. The oil companies supplied the gas you and I wanted to buy. (Do you consider a farmer bad for selling you food...even if the price is high?) What is different now, is many individuals recognize that a better life mandates figuring out how to live sustainably without oil. This is not as hard as it sounds.

The only thing necessary for a dramatic push for sustainable power is for the economics to favor it. Well guess what....this point has been reached. The government does not need to do much other that allow these renewable efforts to occur. All auto companies are shifting REAL efforts to electric cars (no government incentive needed). Power companies have over 150 solar projects lined up in the US Southwest (150 !!!) Wind power is being built by the GWatt per year. (The US could not built nuclear plants at that rate even if we loved the stuff.) Photovoltaic companies cannot built panel manufacturing equipment fast enough. The throttle is wide open here.

You are right. It's that there is a lot to be educated on. Some things worth knowing:
1) Hubbles Peak. (e.g. Peak oil curves) - Correction Hubbert's Peak -
2) How speculation does not control the price of oil, but does cause day to day fluctuations. (e.g. Popular theories vs. Correct understanding of how the NYMEX actually operates)
3) What comes out of a refinery, and where it is used. (A whole lot more than gas...or...where do plastics come from?)

 

When consumers choose alternatives and/or when fossil fuels are essentially outlawed. This will happen within 30 years.

 

I thinks we will see a shift towards alternatives. 30 years is a little optimistic. As long a fossil fuels are cheaper and quicker than alternatives we will continue down this road.

Will we see outlawed fossil fuels? Not until the alternatives are widely used and then only in a few select countries.

Government can steer us down the road, but doesn't do well driving us there.

 

Don't the schools teach Upton Sinclair and Ralph Nader anymore? Government mandated clean food, safe and effective drugs, lead-free gasoline, seat belts, and air bags. If we relied on the market alone we'd still be waiting for them and suffering for the lack. Similarly, government must act on fossil fuels. Market forces will not act in time to prevent ruinous climate changes and sea-level rise.