More on How Bush Found the Way to Continue Inaction on Emissions (with bonus Jon Stewart Video)
First, see Dorian de Wind’s piece ; it has a bearing on this.
Did you know that George W. Bush is still president? It’s true. And he’s still got plenty of ways to worsen things before his term is over, leaving us a country discredited in the eyes of our own allies, a more toxic and unstable environment, a military stretched to the breaking point, and an enormous deficit.
He merrily signed off at the G8 by saying his ‘"Goodbye from the world’s biggest polluter,’ knowing full well he was going to stave off any progress on climate change to the end of his term. Today’s Washington Post reports:
The Environmental Protection Agency plans to announce today that it will seek months of further public comment on the threat posed by global warming to human health and welfare — a matter that federal climate experts and international scientists have repeatedly said should be urgently addressed.
The Bush Administration discovered a great truth: a bare-faced lie, however it may be discredited, is as good as the truth if you pretend you believe it and act on it anyway. And if you don’t mind being called out as a liar, you can lie with complete impunity so long as there is no person with the authority (or the spine to wield it) to stop you.
As they’ve done many times before, administration employees have selectively altered the agency’s findings to reach a conclusion that better reflects Bush’s wishes.
Check out today’s story in WaPo. According to it, today’s EPA report —an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking —will override its own December 5 finding:
backed up by a lengthy scientific analysis — that global warming is unequivocal, that there is "compelling and robust" evidence that the emissions endanger public welfare and that the EPA administrator is "required by law" to act to protect Americans from future harm. (WaPo; emphasis added)
How could this happen?
It happens because such a finding would trigger a number of measures that Bush doesn’t want triggered on his watch, according to — guess who — that malignant offshoot from the executive branch known as the Cheney Branch. It’s true. Look:
"They argued that this increase in regulation should be on the next president’s record," not Bush’s, said a participant in the lengthy interagency debate, referring principally to officials in the office of Vice President Cheney, on the White House Council on Environmental Quality, on the National Economic Council and in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).(WaPo).
In its unaltered form, the changes heralded by the findings in the report would have had substantial economic as well as environmental benefits. Sadly, those changes would have also have done two things that Cheney isn’t going to let happen on his watch — I mean, Bush’s.
- Trigger ‘sweeping’ regulatory requirements under the Clean Air Act;
- Cost utilities and automakers billions of dollars.
To read the details of how the first set of findings developed (‘after resistance from the Cheney branch) after Bush’s order to the EPA to begin ‘the first steps’ toward regulation, see WaPo here. (This is my favorite detail: ‘Some officials began carrying around copies of Bush’s executive order, waving it while arguing with senior political appointees.’(WaPo)) Read about Cheney’s energy adviser here.
WaPo conscientiously informs us that the full story of what it tactfully calls the ‘sidetracking’ (as opposed to, say, the ‘hijacking’) of the original finding isn’t known. Someone told an ‘EPA deputy associate administrator to withdraw the finding after it was emailed to Susan Dudley, head of the OMB’s regulatory review office. (WaPo). But here’s a clue:
An official said the person involved was "more senior than the head of OMB," but declined to be more precise. (WaPo)
We do know, of course, that in April 2007, the Supreme Court (Massachusetts v. EPA) told the EPA that it needed to get its thumb out and either determine whether greenhouse gases are a threat to humankind or explain why it couldn’t.(WaPo-07) Or, as The Washington Post put it at the time, ‘[It] rebuked the Bush administration yesterday for refusing to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, siding with environmentalists in the court’s first examination of the phenomenon of global warming.’
The court ruled 5 to 4 that the Environmental Protection Agency violated the Clean Air Act by improperly declining to regulate new-vehicle emissions standards to control the pollutants that scientists say contribute to global warming….
"EPA has offered no reasoned explanation for its refusal to decide whether greenhouse gases cause or contribute to climate change," Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the majority. The agency "identifies nothing suggesting that Congress meant to curtail EPA’s power to treat greenhouse gases as air pollutants," the opinion continued. (WaPo-07)
According to today’s article, this made an impression on EPA officials..
After the court ruling, in Massachusetts et al. v. Environmental Protection Agency et al.,"people were bouncing back and forth into each other’s offices, saying, ‘Can you believe this? Look at this decision; look at the language; this is so strong,’ " recalled one agency official, who like the others asked not to be identified for fear of retribution. "People thought, ‘We are going to move forward and do the right thing.’ "(WaPo; emphasis added)
Right. The White House simply did what any sulky child does when it’s been ‘rebuked’ and told to do what it doesn’t want to do: dragged its feet by…
….editing its officials’ congressional testimony, refusing to read documents prepared by career employees and approved by top appointees, requesting changes in computer models to lower estimates of the benefits of curbing carbon dioxide, and pushing narrowly drafted legislation on fuel-economy standards that officials said was meant to sap public interest in wider regulatory action.(WaPo).
Jon Stewart in this video — ‘be patient; this gets amazing!’ — explains one technique that was apparently used to good effect. Via The Washington Post:
By late November, [EPA Administrator Stephen L.] Johnson had held a meeting with his staff at which he advocated finding a danger to public welfare and praised the agency’s technical supporting document as "excellent." But when [Deputy Associate Administrator Jason] Burnett sent the proposal to the White House, the OMB staff refused to open it, and it sat in limbo for months.(WaPo; links added)
EPA officials, speaking anonymously, say that the Bush administration — as it has before, with other officials — pressured them to make findings that would reflect the Bush administration’s wishes. This aspect of the Bush administration — the willingness of its minions and gremlins to support the distortion of fact — is something I still can’t get my head around. We all know it’s happened before — and I’m not even thinking of the Iraq war. Remember when Surgeon General (2002-2006) Dr. Richard Camorna resigned? Remember him claiming he’d been ‘muzzled‘ and the examples he gave of exactly how?
WaPo concedes that the full story of how Bush’s environmental regulations got ‘sidetracked’ isn’t known. Of course it isn’t. The full story of how the Bush administration managed to bury information that would have proved it was doing what everyone knows it was doing won’t emerge till Bush is out of the White House and officials feel free to accept those book deals.
Here, according to The Washington Post, are some of the distortions that the Bush administration foisted on the public by having its appointees change information in the reports:
EPA determined that global benefits of reducing carbon are worth $40 per ton, but the report will state that this isn’t an official estimate. And their supporting evidence will be omitted.
‘Dozens’ of pages on ‘cost-effective’ ways to reduce greenhouse gases have been cut out.
The benefits of tighter-fuel economy standards (originally estimated to be $2 trillion) have been recalculated based on the assumption that gas in the future will cost $58 per barrel instead of, say, $140, reducing the benefits to between $340 and $830 billion.
Edward Markey (D), Chairman of the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming got off a good one:
"If this administration spent the same effort fighting global warming as they do editing and censoring global warming documents, the planet might not be in such dire straits."(WaPo).
Markey, who is naturally quite frustrated, says his staff was apparently allowed to see a copy of the EPA’s Dec. 5 finding, but not to keep a copy. (WaPo).Well, naturally. There are rules about these things — we don’t want unofficial findings circulating around out there.
So there it is: the Bush Administration finds the way to keep on doing nothing till Bush’s term is over, at least with respect to climate change.
Or — maybe he’s right! As I often say, just because someone habitually lies doesn’t guarantee that they sometimes won’t tell the truth. That’s the hell of the Bush Administration — you can be fairly sure that Bush and his cronies will lie, but you can’t be 100% sure with respect to any particular fact. Maybe the EPA’s first findings were really highly questionable —oh, never mind the scientists — and Bush is just showing laudable caution here.
But would you like to bet the planet on it?
Recommended:
CROSS-POSTED AT BUCK NAKED POLITICS
opinions powered by SendLove.to
74 Responses to “More on How Bush Found the Way to Continue Inaction on Emissions (with bonus Jon Stewart Video)”
As far as EPA standards go, are you saying you want to reduce them or eliminate them? If so, why? And which ones?
Nope. Im not saying that at all. Again look at the ops post instead of mine:
It’s true. And he’s still got plenty of ways to worsen things before his term is over, leaving us a country discredited in the eyes of our own allies, a more toxic and unstable environment, a military stretched to the breaking point, and an enormous deficit.
Now, if you think the American Big 5 (and others) are suppressing production, then I presume you're in favor of calls for those companies to be investigated, right?
Nope. They have a business model and they are following that model. Now if congress wishes to mandate that they increase production well then congress needs to also mandate that in 1o years they will be able to replace their existing reserves with new reserves if they are going to increase production in order to meet an ever increasing world oil demand.
Quite frankly Neocon, I don't think you're making much sense. You seem to be talking in circles.
That is because I have to talk in circles for the democrats to keep up with what Im saying. However I have no doubt that I am not making sense to you when your sole purpose is to discredit everything I say.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/Saudi_Arabia/B…
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/nonopec.html
http://www.rigzone.com/NEWS/article.asp?a_id=61623
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/2003/0…
The globalpolicy one is an exceptional link for some insight.
http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/envronmt/ge…
Im not sure your trying to hard to find information. I found those links in about 5 minutes googling.
http://www.arabnews.com/?page=6§ion=0&artic…
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/raymond-j-learsy/…
http://www.theoildrum.com/
This is a really good summary by market experts……watch the video. I must continue to reiterate a position I have always held. Oil is not our future. But it is our present and unless we get serious we are in deep trouble. That is not to mean that Green should be abandoned. Not at all. I am totally in favor of all efforts to go green. All. I would advocate for even more money to be spent on Green. But that is 2020 and beyond. That is not today.
Today we are in trouble. Today we depend on oil and everyone I talk to seems to think this is just going to go away. it is not.
Finally, the oil service industry is not in particularly good shape to meet the needs of a rapid worldwide ramp up in activity. A lot of the rig fleet, and much of the equipment are old. Very little spare capacity exists. This combination will compromise the service response, but the most disturbing shortage by far is the lack of specialized E&P professionals. A lot of skilled people have either been laid off, or have retired from the industry in the last 18 years. This shortage is as acute on the service side as it is on that of the operators. Training their replacements takes time, and there is already a great deal of evidence to suggest that the industry is fighting over the core of professionals that remain. The oil drum.
http://rrrocks.wordpress.com/
For you conspiracy theorists.
So let's see… Your primary point is that American oil companies are sitting on production that they can bring on-line in a veritable instant if they wanted to. So you spray me with an article about Saudi Ariabia, one about Nigeria, one about the dynamics of oil production in OPEC vs. non-OPEC producers, a five-year old article questioning Exxon-Mobil's arrogant business plan, and finally a link of links in which the synopsis of the lead article reads:
This Energy Watch Group report uses data from ten world regions to project the future of global oil supply. The study finds that oil production reached its peak in 2006 – earlier than most experts had predicted. After large oil fields pass their production peak, new smaller fields have to be developed. But smaller fields reach their peak quickly. The report predicts that the production rate of oil will decrease by 2030 and costs will increase. The supply gap will affect all aspects of daily life as consumers are forced to lower their energy usage.
So where's the one that “proves” American oil companies are sitting on production that they can bring on-line in a veritable instant if they wanted to. Where's one that even discusses the possibility?
Oh, some new additions to your post… I'll be back…
Neocon, my summary of your position on global warming is that you think we might be indeed causing warming which will flood portions of many of the cities in the state in which you live (California, correct?), but there's nothing we can do about it, so we might as well have a good time while we wait and drill more oil. Is this basically it?
Pacatrue. My point is simple
Green is the future. It will be here in 2030. But What about today? The tree huggers want to wait till 2030 because they believe that this gas problem will pass. I dont.
So its either drill and go green…….BOTH. Or just pretend it will all go away. I prefer not to let it all go away because this oil problem is a very real one. Supply for the first time in history is actually starting exceed production. Most people in the business already believe that oil will decline in importance but the world needs time to change.
Lastly I am not opposed to EPA regulations if they are imposed wisely. However Congress never does anything wisely and this ops post was essentially lets throw GM and Ford and Chrysler to the EPA dogs for the sake of curtailing emmisions on factories thus doing two things. Punishing the factories and punishing Americans because no corporation pays taxes. WE DO.
AS to Rico. You said you tried to find information but cant. Those are links I found in like 1 hour of looking around Google. Wasnt hard. If you cant extract information from them, then that is your fault. Not mine.
Secondly You are trying to discredit me when you asked this question to which I am responding.
Let me ask you a question. Is OPEC pumping at or near capacity? No? Your response was:See, those are the issues I'd like some documentation for. I can find some talk about it. But it's mostly hearsay, nothing substantive.
I just posted them so that we can all see how easy it might be to actually get information and expand your mind other then just trying to tear down my position. I repeat my knowledge is in my head. You know sorta like you. You have your perceived arguments organized and categorized based upon your collected knowledge. Im not asking you for links because frankly I don't care what you have to say. You are just attempting to discredit me by asking for my documentation. I am willing to play along to a certain extent because Im bored today and you amuse me.
So let's see… Your primary point is that American oil companies are sitting on production that they can bring on-line in a veritable instant if they wanted to.
Nope I didnt say that either. I'm not going to restate what I wrote. If you want to continue to misrepresent my position then go for it. However you might want to learn to distinguish between production and capacity. They are two totally different aspects of the oil game.
Unless I missed something here Im not in school and I dont have to document much of anything.
Neocon, I'm still looking into the other things you posted (it takes a while to watch all those videos). But allow me to respond to your most recent post first:
AS to Rico. You said you tried to find information but cant. Those are links I found in like 1 hour of looking around Google. Wasnt hard. If you cant extract information from them, then that is your fault. Not mine.
Actually, I already knew essentially everything in your first five links. The problem is, none of it addressed your central point — a point which you have made on this thread and a previous one, which is, in your own words, this: But you might try reading up on how the oil industry works if you really want to know how we can increase production today. Overnight with existing infrastructure.
Now you seem to be ignoring it entirely. Either that or I mistook your meaning of “we” to mean the domestic oil industry, not “we” the international oil industry. Which is it?
To the extent that there might be something we agree on it would be this: a large amount of the known world oil reserves are held under the control of nationalized oil companies, most of whom are not reliable friends of the US. Given that scenario, whether or not they are gaming the system to one extent or another is less relevant than what we, the US (from now on let's assume “we” means the US, okay?), can do about it. Oil is a fungible commodity, right? The price is set world-wide, right? So even if you're right that “we can increase production today. Overnight with existing infrastructure” unless it amounts to more than a few percent of the world supply it's not likely to have much of an effect on price. Not now, not ever. Other issues may be involved, but not price. Can we agree on that, or is that also debatable?
Perhaps it's a fool's enterprise, but my whole purpose in spending time on blogs like this is to learn things I didn't already know. You have presented a contention I can't verify — assuming your definition of “we” is the same as mine (i.e., the US). If it is then I'm very interested, because if you can convince me it could change my opinion substantially. But if you can't, then it seems the available evidence suggests that if the price of oil is the predominant issue, the quicker we can break our dependence on oil the better off we'll be (again, I'm using “we” as I defined it — the US).
Maybe I've been too hard on you. But trying to get any useful information from you has been like pulling teeth. You might say I'm playing the role of the dentist, pressing you as hard as I can to extract the necessary information. I don't care what your opinion is, I want your facts. School me.
Neocon, I'm still looking into the other things you posted (it takes a while to watch all those videos). But allow me to respond to your most recent post first:
AS to Rico. You said you tried to find information but cant. Those are links I found in like 1 hour of looking around Google. Wasnt hard. If you cant extract information from them, then that is your fault. Not mine.
Actually, I already knew essentially everything in your first five links. The problem is, none of it addressed your central point — a point which you have made on this thread and a previous one, which is, in your own words, this: But you might try reading up on how the oil industry works if you really want to know how we can increase production today. Overnight with existing infrastructure.
Now you seem to be ignoring it entirely. Either that or I mistook your meaning of “we” to mean the domestic oil industry, not “we” the international oil industry. Which is it?
To the extent that there might be something we agree on it would be this: a large amount of the known world oil reserves are held under the control of nationalized oil companies, most of whom are not reliable friends of the US. Given that scenario, whether or not they are gaming the system to one extent or another is less relevant than what we, the US (from now on let's assume “we” means the US, okay?), can do about it. Oil is a fungible commodity, right? The price is set world-wide, right? So even if you're right that “we can increase production today. Overnight with existing infrastructure” unless it amounts to more than a few percent of the world supply it's not likely to have much of an effect on price. Not now, not ever. Other issues may be involved, but not price. Can we agree on that, or is that also debatable?
Perhaps it's a fool's enterprise, but my whole purpose in spending time on blogs like this is to learn things I didn't already know. You have presented a contention I can't verify — assuming your definition of “we” is the same as mine (i.e., the US). If it is then I'm very interested, because if you can convince me it could change my opinion substantially. But if you can't, then it seems the available evidence suggests that if the price of oil is the predominant issue, the quicker we can break our dependence on oil the better off we'll be (again, I'm using “we” as I defined it — the US).
Maybe I've been too hard on you. But trying to get any useful information from you has been like pulling teeth. You might say I'm playing the role of the dentist, pressing you as hard as I can to extract the necessary information. I don't care what your opinion is, I want your facts. School me.
Me: So let's see… Your primary point is that American oil companies are sitting on production that they can bring on-line in a veritable instant if they wanted to.
You: Nope I didnt say that either. I'm not going to restate what I wrote.
Allow me to restate what you wrote: Secondly your wrong I can get oil to the market in 30 days and drillers can get oil to the market in 9 to 18 months……….Just turn em loose. Both the GOP who wants to protect the Oil companies monopoly and the Democrats who want to save the squirrells use the same talking points and they are all lies.
Me: So let's see… Your primary point is that American oil companies are sitting on production that they can bring on-line in a veritable instant if they wanted to.
You: Nope I didnt say that either. I'm not going to restate what I wrote.
Allow me to restate what you wrote: Secondly your wrong I can get oil to the market in 30 days and drillers can get oil to the market in 9 to 18 months……….Just turn em loose. Both the GOP who wants to protect the Oil companies monopoly and the Democrats who want to save the squirrells use the same talking points and they are all lies.
Now that I did say.
You came over here in which I was discussing epa regulations and global warming to continue a debate about drilling. That I said in another thread and I stand by that. If you read farther I explained that statement.
It would take 9 to 18 months for the Oil companies to retool in order to expand current production. I also said that by turning the wildcaters we could bring oil to market in 9 to 18 months and that in 30 days we could get oil to market by opening up the capped wellls that are sitting idle as we speak. I even referenced they were doing that around Los Angeles right now.
Essentially in the last decade the oil companies exploration has become stagnant as they turned to a new unique concept of letting smaller oil companies(Wildcaters) explore and find oil and then BUYING out those companies and their resulting oil finds.
Most oil companies are running at or near the capacity for which they were intended to drill. This is not a big conspiracy to defraud the American people. To expand this capacity it would take 9 to 18 months of retooling AND huge incentives by the US government to insure that they can continue to be a vialble oil company when they pump out their existing reserves much faster then planned with not a lot of deveolping oil fields in their future. Finding oil is a lot like gambling. Its out there. But WHERE? Thats the million dollar question and if we fall for the Pelosi talking points that their are just a gabazillion acres of oil if they just look is deflecting the reality of oil exploration.
Now that I did say.
You came over here in which I was discussing epa regulations and global warming to continue a debate about drilling. That I said in another thread and I stand by that. If you read farther I explained that statement.
It would take 9 to 18 months for the Oil companies to retool in order to expand current production. I also said that by turning the wildcaters we could bring oil to market in 9 to 18 months and that in 30 days we could get oil to market by opening up the capped wellls that are sitting idle as we speak. I even referenced they were doing that around Los Angeles right now.
Essentially in the last decade the oil companies exploration has become stagnant as they turned to a new unique concept of letting smaller oil companies(Wildcaters) explore and find oil and then BUYING out those companies and their resulting oil finds.
Most oil companies are running at or near the capacity for which they were intended to drill. This is not a big conspiracy to defraud the American people. To expand this capacity it would take 9 to 18 months of retooling AND huge incentives by the US government to insure that they can continue to be a vialble oil company when they pump out their existing reserves much faster then planned with not a lot of deveolping oil fields in their future. Finding oil is a lot like gambling. Its out there. But WHERE? Thats the million dollar question and if we fall for the Pelosi talking points that their are just a gabazillion acres of oil if they just look is deflecting the reality of oil exploration.
Let me try this one more time in really simple terms.
Oil companies make money selling oil. Mostly.
Oil is not an infinite source. Their holes in the ground dry up. Become economically unsound investments at a certain date in the future. One of the links I think I pointed you too was of the declining production rates of existing oil wells for Exxon.
Oil Companies are pretty certain as to their available oil reserves that they can harvest for markets. In addition to replace the current oil they are pumping they are continually looking for new fields to develop.
When they find a new field, it is this new field that determines how fast they produce the current field that is actually pumping oil.
So to make a long story short. Current production is determined by future oil finds. To remain solvent and a major corporation the oil companies must continue to look for new oil and gas in order to keep their futures healthy. For them their future is in finding more oil and gas that they can economically harvest into profits for them and oil for our country and this world.
So when you hear that so and so has hit oil or has drilled and capped wells then what they are doing is exploring………….not pumping. The oil industry is like many other industries. It requires knowledgeable people to run oil rigs and know what they are doing. Many times there is just not the human resources to develop a find as it takes two different sets of people to drill and then to develop a find into existing producing fields.
Let me try this one more time in really simple terms.
Oil companies make money selling oil. Mostly.
Oil is not an infinite source. Their holes in the ground dry up. Become economically unsound investments at a certain date in the future. One of the links I think I pointed you too was of the declining production rates of existing oil wells for Exxon.
Oil Companies are pretty certain as to their available oil reserves that they can harvest for markets. In addition to replace the current oil they are pumping they are continually looking for new fields to develop.
When they find a new field, it is this new field that determines how fast they produce the current field that is actually pumping oil.
So to make a long story short. Current production is determined by future oil finds. To remain solvent and a major corporation the oil companies must continue to look for new oil and gas in order to keep their futures healthy. For them their future is in finding more oil and gas that they can economically harvest into profits for them and oil for our country and this world.
So when you hear that so and so has hit oil or has drilled and capped wells then what they are doing is exploring………….not pumping. The oil industry is like many other industries. It requires knowledgeable people to run oil rigs and know what they are doing. Many times there is just not the human resources to develop a find as it takes two different sets of people to drill and then to develop a find into existing producing fields.
Working in a business for 40 years. All these things go into whats in my head.
I only googled up information for you. NOT me.
Working in a business for 40 years. All these things go into whats in my head.
I only googled up information for you. NOT me.
Neocon: Most oil companies are running at or near the capacity for which they were intended to drill. This is not a big conspiracy to defraud the American people. To expand this capacity it would take 9 to 18 months of retooling AND huge incentives by the US government to insure that they can continue to be a vialble oil company when they pump out their existing reserves much faster then planned with not a lot of deveolping oil fields in their future.
Okay, now I understand where you're coming from. Had you made that connection in the first place I wouldn't have hassled you.
So let's assume the US government does everything it can to assist the oil companies: (1) how much added production are we talking about, and (2) how much is it likely to cost us taxpayers?
And wouldn't you say it's equally true that the US government could do everything it can to assist the auto manufacturers to transition to high mpg vehicles?
Mind you, I'm not advocating either, just comparing them. In that regard it seems to me the first idea (assisting the oil companies) isn't likely to have much effect on price unless the increase in production is very large and sustainable. Oil is, after all, a fungible commodity. It seems to me the second idea (assisting the auto companies) would have a larger and lasting effect. The CAFE standards passed last year would reduce fuel consumption by 25% by 2015, and 40% by 2020. Based on current levels of consumption that represents 2 billion, increasing to almost 4 billion gallons saved per year — while also reducing traditional pollutants and GHGs.
Neocon: Most oil companies are running at or near the capacity for which they were intended to drill. This is not a big conspiracy to defraud the American people. To expand this capacity it would take 9 to 18 months of retooling AND huge incentives by the US government to insure that they can continue to be a vialble oil company when they pump out their existing reserves much faster then planned with not a lot of deveolping oil fields in their future.
Okay, now I understand where you're coming from. Had you made that connection in the first place I wouldn't have hassled you.
So let's assume the US government does everything it can to assist the oil companies: (1) how much added production are we talking about, and (2) how much is it likely to cost us taxpayers?
And wouldn't you say it's equally true that the US government could do everything it can to assist the auto manufacturers to transition to high mpg vehicles?
Mind you, I'm not advocating either, just comparing them. In that regard it seems to me the first idea (assisting the oil companies) isn't likely to have much effect on price unless the increase in production is very large and sustainable. Oil is, after all, a fungible commodity. It seems to me the second idea (assisting the auto companies) would have a larger and lasting effect. The CAFE standards passed last year would reduce fuel consumption by 25% by 2015, and 40% by 2020. Based on current levels of consumption that represents 2 billion, increasing to almost 4 billion gallons saved per year — while also reducing traditional pollutants and GHGs.
Comment #12, last line: “I cant think of one good reason to be afraid of Global warming.” – Neocon
This seems to be at the heart of your rationale. It has also been the operative response from our current administration. I suppose the hoped for result is that by ignoring a problem, it will cease to exist. Not much of a strategy I'm afraid.
Comment #12, last line: “I cant think of one good reason to be afraid of Global warming.” – Neocon
This seems to be at the heart of your rationale. It has also been the operative response from our current administration. I suppose the hoped for result is that by ignoring a problem, it will cease to exist. Not much of a strategy I'm afraid.
Jspencer
So Im a thinking to myself. Why should Bush curtail emmissions when we are going to run out of fossil fuel before anything really happens anyways. I can only conclude its the left wanting to destroy global corporations which stand in the way of socialism and such.
Other then that I cant think of one good reason to be afraid of Global warming.
If you go back and read my original post I think anyone can see from my hillbilly drawl that it was in jest……but
The world is screwed. 7 billion people can be pretty demanding. By 2030 their will be 9 billion and the planet will not be able to support them.
But okay I have a proposal for you. The USA is roughly divided in about 60/40. About 60 percent of the people believe in global warming.
Okay so why dont those 60 percent stop driving cars. Give em up. That would reduce our oil intake by about 10 million bbls per day. Then those same eco nuts could give up using electricy which would further reduce our need for oil by about another 4 million barrells. Then they could spend their money on wind generators and solar panels and that would reduce our oil needs by another 2 million bbls thus ending our need to import any more oil.
The result of all these savings would be that I can then drive my SUV buying 1.79 dollar per gallon gasoline, use my air conditioner while paying for these things while the green conservationists would pay no energy bill and would have no gasoline bill and would have no carbon emissions.
The problem is solved. At least for America.
So why is it that the tree huggers demand. Why not just do. Give up all your global warming stuff and let the rest of us have ours. Because that is exactly what you are asking America to do…..give up our stuff and let the world go right on doing what they want.
Jspencer
So Im a thinking to myself. Why should Bush curtail emmissions when we are going to run out of fossil fuel before anything really happens anyways. I can only conclude its the left wanting to destroy global corporations which stand in the way of socialism and such.
Other then that I cant think of one good reason to be afraid of Global warming.
If you go back and read my original post I think anyone can see from my hillbilly drawl that it was in jest……but
The world is screwed. 7 billion people can be pretty demanding. By 2030 their will be 9 billion and the planet will not be able to support them.
But okay I have a proposal for you. The USA is roughly divided in about 60/40. About 60 percent of the people believe in global warming.
Okay so why dont those 60 percent stop driving cars. Give em up. That would reduce our oil intake by about 10 million bbls per day. Then those same eco nuts could give up using electricy which would further reduce our need for oil by about another 4 million barrells. Then they could spend their money on wind generators and solar panels and that would reduce our oil needs by another 2 million bbls thus ending our need to import any more oil.
The result of all these savings would be that I can then drive my SUV buying 1.79 dollar per gallon gasoline, use my air conditioner while paying for these things while the green conservationists would pay no energy bill and would have no gasoline bill and would have no carbon emissions.
The problem is solved. At least for America.
So why is it that the tree huggers demand. Why not just do. Give up all your global warming stuff and let the rest of us have ours. Because that is exactly what you are asking America to do…..give up our stuff and let the world go right on doing what they want.
Added capacity is not known. The key is the wildcaters and the amount they can bring into play. The second key is the amount that can be brought into production using existing capped wells. Im guessing perhaps another 200k bbls per day. Im guessing the Wildcaters can bring in another 1 million bbls per day.
The Big 5 could produce new oil in large quantities in 3 to 5 years if given the right leases to do so. Florida for example. Anwar.
Oil Futures are a future guarantee that a company can buy oil at a future date for a future price. This is essential in planning for next month or next years budget so that a company or corporation can continue to make money reasonably well despite rising fuel costs.
But what many people fail to understand that is without a moving floor on oil futures there is panic in the market. Oil and gas is being bid up by ever increasing fears that oil and gas will rise. The more it rises the more its bid up in fear that it will rise. A cap or ceiling would allow for oil prices to not plummet below an established floor thus ending the overwhelming speculative nature of oil. The war in Iraq has not affected oil production, but what it has done is rise fears that something bad is going to happen.
Reducing this fear by drilling, expanding additional oil reserves and putting a crash proof ceiling on oil prices prevents the frenzied bidding to continue.
The oil and gas conundrum is a result of fear. Congress is trying to force the bidders to not be afraid and thats impossible without a floating ceiling that prevents a collapse of the prices AND the knowledge that people are actively seeking new oil and are going to bring that into production as quickly as possible.
Oil companies are not actively exploring areas they believe no oil exists. Congress prevents them from drilling in areas that oil is most likely to exist. Ie off the coast of Florida. Or allows them to drill in extremely deep water which until very recently was so expensive as to be not worthwhile.
The hurricane after Hurricane that hit the gulf in 2006 and not one oil leak showed the distance we have come in the industry since the 70's and the continual oil spills. Double hull tankers mean oil is almost impossible to spill now.
Let them drill. Oil is safe now. Oil is NOT our future. Green is. But UNTIL Green is the norm, oil is the storm.
Added capacity is not known. The key is the wildcaters and the amount they can bring into play. The second key is the amount that can be brought into production using existing capped wells. Im guessing perhaps another 200k bbls per day. Im guessing the Wildcaters can bring in another 1 million bbls per day.
The Big 5 could produce new oil in large quantities in 3 to 5 years if given the right leases to do so. Florida for example. Anwar.
Oil Futures are a future guarantee that a company can buy oil at a future date for a future price. This is essential in planning for next month or next years budget so that a company or corporation can continue to make money reasonably well despite rising fuel costs.
But what many people fail to understand that is without a moving floor on oil futures there is panic in the market. Oil and gas is being bid up by ever increasing fears that oil and gas will rise. The more it rises the more its bid up in fear that it will rise. A cap or ceiling would allow for oil prices to not plummet below an established floor thus ending the overwhelming speculative nature of oil. The war in Iraq has not affected oil production, but what it has done is rise fears that something bad is going to happen.
Reducing this fear by drilling, expanding additional oil reserves and putting a crash proof ceiling on oil prices prevents the frenzied bidding to continue.
The oil and gas conundrum is a result of fear. Congress is trying to force the bidders to not be afraid and thats impossible without a floating ceiling that prevents a collapse of the prices AND the knowledge that people are actively seeking new oil and are going to bring that into production as quickly as possible.
Oil companies are not actively exploring areas they believe no oil exists. Congress prevents them from drilling in areas that oil is most likely to exist. Ie off the coast of Florida. Or allows them to drill in extremely deep water which until very recently was so expensive as to be not worthwhile.
The hurricane after Hurricane that hit the gulf in 2006 and not one oil leak showed the distance we have come in the industry since the 70's and the continual oil spills. Double hull tankers mean oil is almost impossible to spill now.
Let them drill. Oil is safe now. Oil is NOT our future. Green is. But UNTIL Green is the norm, oil is the storm.