Do you favor increased fuel prices to spur/encourage further alternative fuel sources?

I ask because I've encountered (I believe) such thought, here on this forum.

Do you favor increasing gasoline prices to spur the necessity for alternative fuels?

Simple question, and your reasoning welcomed. No need for another dumb poll!

No. And Obama won't raise fuel prices.

Like he has a real choice in the matter. Directly.

Well, not directly, but I dun think he'll propose it. Do you?

Has any president? No.



Just what are your expectations? Geez, there's a president. You know, that person doesn't set fuel prices. Right?


Edit: Sometimes I can't help wonder younger generations expectations. We live in a free market. No one sets prices.

Never ceases to amaze me how quickly older generations forget about the infamous "Bully Pulpit."

Guess I'm just a dumb young'in....

Like watchin' heartache on TV...

Just sayin', if you believe somehow the next elected president has a direct handle on the price of fuel, that's not how it works.

They can sorta steer markets, but not much more.

Just as J. Carter didn't have a great deal of control over the rationing that became necessary during his term. Oh yeah, I remember purchasing fuel according to the odd/even number on my license plate.

Guess a president has no right to PROPOSE anything. Similarly, even though popular, nobody will listen to he or she when they say this or that.

Although, it isn't "direct," as Incon said.



I can jive with that.



And Carter didn't decide that on his own. "Bully Pulpit" can be for the good -- or the bad.

Either way, I know what Incon meant. Smart guy. Can't help but to like him.

Well, considering that the common people bear the brunt of such prices, and their role could be considered a "squeaky wheel" at best when alternative fuels are concerned, then no, I don't agree that higher fuel costs really help spur the need for alternative fuels very much. I think that lately it has become evident that we need to get away from oil as our main fuel, there are too many benefits to mention. JMO

Yes. They are a very effective way of getting to greatly increased fuel efficiency as well as increased use of more efficient methods of transit (including more trains), and certainly much simpler than trying to get to greater fuel efficiency via more complex standards like fuel efficiency standards and so forth. Plus, they help move the US towards a significantly less oil-dependent society, which is definitely a good thing; the greater mass of our convention reserves are gone, so we're going to import more and more over time unless we change.

Why not? He's already on record saying he only wishes the increase had been slower, not that the increase didn't happen at all.


I don't understand the problem with higher gas prices anyway. For all my adult life I have heard some people lament "It's not fair! We pay soooooo much less for gas than in Europe. It's not fair!" So now that we are paying much more for gas they should be happy. But they aren't. Why not?

No. Take whatever steps are necessary to get the price lower while at the same time invest more resources in developing alternative fuels.

Ask the over-the-road independent truck drivers if they like prices kept high. If you support the idea you'd probably get a lug wrench beating.

How do you figure? He has proposed a wind fall profits tax of oil corporations and increase federal gas taxes at the pump, so that will naturally be passed down to consumers in the form of higher gasoline prices. Economics 101.

I don't favor furthur increased fuel prices.

I say take measures for more efficient consumption of Oil like discourage those mammoth SUV's and then drill.
That will bring the price down.
We don't even have to push for alternative, it will just be there once there is a market for it. Research has been going on for the past 20 years on it, just that what is available does not have a market yet.

You want to keep prices artificially low and just hope that alternatives catch on?

The other side of the count is ever increasing prices w/o a realistic alternative?

Face it people: Just as some say drilling won't matter now because it will take 10 years to get the oil to market (if we had done this 10 years ago we'd have it now!) it's going to take 10 years at least to bring realistic alternative sources to market and make the switch on a national level.

I'll take 10+ years with a solution over 10 years of wishful thinking and delaying the problem.

He already has been saying he will increase taxes on the oil companies to do the same thing. Raise taxes on a company prices go up to pay for it.

I hope you realize that the 10 years to bring oil to market is a Democratic talking point and NOT a fact. Please, do a little research. I happen to own stock in several US small oil producting companies and I know for a fact is does not take 10 years. The longest portion probably involves the red tape, ie envirormental reports and leases. Once a geologist has determined a likely area for drilling, a rig is moved in and can begin producing a productive well in weeks or months.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/oil-drilling.htm

Bush's own Department of Energy says:

Assuming, of course, that they have a rig to do so. You're arguing this from an "all other things being equal" perspective, when it's clearly not; assuming the Republicans get everything they want on this, you're going to have a delay while they try to scale up current offshore drilling to the larger possibilities that turn up after prospecting, caused by things such as moving around rigs, building new ones, and so forth.

Give me a break, don't act like the Republicans are free from political games and are fighting for this so hard because it's a legitimate solution. This whole issue is a Republican talking point to distract from other issues that they're severely lacking in.

What's the best way to fight a better alternative energy plan? Claim (lie) that we don't have to convert to alternative energy until later because we have a few oil reserves.

Edit: Owning stock isn't very impressive as a credential. But then again, that was coming from the guy who downplayed Obama's credentials here because he held an esteemed academic position at a university without a Ph.D.

Yes I know that but the 10 year figure is what's being tossed around so may as well use that as the example because on one will believe it to be less (IMO we could probably have Alaska oil flowing to the pumps in 18-24 months or less).

Agreed entirely. Now with Gustaf hammering the off-shore rigs, oil futures are spiking. Ugh!

BTW, I asked a good Democrat (who sings the party line) in an earlier thread, just how much oil was leaked during Katrina. He chose not to respond.

The answer was zero.

Yup. Funny no one speaks of that.

Look, it's inevitable. Just as it's inevitable that someday there will be a plane fall from the sky for some mechanical or pilot error reason it's inevitable that someday somewhere oil will leak from a barge or tank or platform or something. That's not a reason to ban air travel or dismiss oil. The fact that airplanes don't fall from the sky every day or oil spill all the time is proof of how good the systems work.

Yet with Gustaf hammering the off-shore production, subsequent futures gouging, the good Democratic party-singing posters here are probably grinning soundly, since gasoline prices are headed upwards, once again.

Odd logic. Gore inspired?


Edit: Reminds me of a man I once knew, who kept beating his head against a brick wall. I asked, "why."

He said, "Because it feels so good when I stop."

The end justifies the means.

You're right there that's for sure. No one likes these prices we pay from day to day. If they do then they're probably the ones that's making the money off of the profit going into the stocks. I agree that the prices should or could be around two dollars a gallon or a dollar and fifty-five cents then we'd be alright. But at the same time, coming up with better ways to improve fuel efficenticy and also offering the choice for people to drive alternative fuel source type cars. If you give the people a choice then they'll take it. but don't kill your people just so you and the other rich scumbags of the USA can live in happiness knowing that they're the only ones that survived this crisis and they can run us over like we're just speed bumps in the road. If people stop driving their cars for two or three days and don't buy gas then there's a start too. But you have to work also, I understand that. Schools around here are packing two or three bus loads onto a bus, going to school less days, and some go less days but way, way! longer hours. Society can only take but so much before the system shuts down and begins to crash. People will eventually, lose control and then.....well then the rebellion against any form of government will start.

While I agree with most of your posting, the class-envy and resentment I just can't get behind.

Because a person is more wealthy than you makes them "scumbags?" That they can "run you over like you're speed bumps?"

Wow, get your donkey to work and enjoy the American dream yourself, pal. "Rich" people, for the most part, worked damn hard to get where they're at.

The answer may not be enormous but it most certainly is not zero.

The data is categorized by storm and source locations, and captures all spills one barrel or larger from federal OCS facilities that resulted from damages related to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. As a result of both storms, 124 spills were reported with a total volume of roughly 17,700 barrels of total petroleum products, of which about 13,200 barrels were crude oil and condensate from platforms, rigs and pipelines, and 4,500 barrels were refined products from platforms and rigs.

I stand corrected, thank you.

"Hurricane Katrina was a Category 5 hurricane when it entered the OCS, destroying 46 platforms and damaging 20 others, making landfall August 29, 2005. There were about 211 minor pollution incidents reported to MMS. Minor pollution incidents are categorized as incidents involving less than 500 barrels of oil that do not reach the coast line. Hurricane Rita was a Category 4 hurricane when it entered the OCS and destroyed 69 platforms and damaged 32 others, making landfall on September 24, 2005.

Hurricane Rita was the costliest and one of the deadliest in United States history.........

It is possible Rita was the largest hurricane of its strength to ever approach the United States in recorded history; its sheer size caused devastation over 100 miles from the center of the storm."

Again, thank you for correcting my contention. Minor leakage that never reached shore, from a historically devastating storm doesn't preclude me from desiring increased off-shore oil production.