Re: High Oil Prices == Less Freedom

On Mon, 08 May 2006 14:23:09 -0500, That Guy wrote:


"Shava_X" <voodopeople@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:pan.2006.05.06.22.06.42.572628@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Fri, 05 May 2006 11:31:05 -0500, That Guy wrote:


"Connie" <tucson.connie@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:VWz6g.18108$Qz.16491@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Shava_X" <voodopeople@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:pan.2006.05.04.23.38.05.794912@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Thomas L. Friedman has written an article entitled "The First Law of
Petropolitics" for Foreign Policy Magazine. In it, He charts how
high oil
prices allow nations whose prime source of revenue is oil to be even
more
repressive. In contrast, low oil prices lead them to be less
oppressive.
In short, oil prices and freedom are inversely proportional.
Another reason for biodiesel, ethanol, and other renewable energy
sources?

The first two paragraphs are available at Foreign Policy's Web site
without charge :
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/users/login.php?story_id=3426&URL=http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=3426
(The full article can be viewed on-line if You purchase a
subscription, or
1 day or 7 day "pass".)

NPR has a description of the article and an interview with the
author :
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5383613



I was listening to some talk about this for a little while on NPR
while driving somewhere today. One thing that stuck with me was how
we "need" a
price floor on oil to keep the prices up. Reason: folks won't invest
in alternative energy like we need them to while the oil prices are
so unstable and unpredictable. The fear is no sooner they put a
bunch of money in, the price of oil will tumble and their venture
will fall apart and they'll lose their shirts. Makes sense to me.


Me too. I propose a five-cent per gallon tax on gas (and possibly
other petroleum products as well) and for that tax to increase 5 cents
per month
for the next 40 years. 100% of the money from that tax will fund
research
into practical alternatives to polluting and nonrenewable sources of
energy.


That would add 60 cents to price of a gallon of gas each year. Prices
are already so high that pawn shops are reporting brisk business from
people trying to get enough gas money to just get to work. The problem
with fuel taxes is that they are highly regressive. They effect the
poor first, and have the largest, most negative impact on the poor. At
$3/gallon, this is already obvious. It is already making it difficult
for some people to just live. And in most cities in the U.S., walking
to a grocery store and back to buy food is a health hazard. The rates
of people being struck and killed by cars in U.S. is much higher than
in Europe, and it is not because European drivers are safer drivers
(They are not).



Well, they're paying seven to nine dollars a gallon in Europe and they
seem to be able to work.
There are alternatives to hocking ones posessions to buy gas.
Carpooling, public transportation, relocating closer to work, getting a
moped, riding a bike, changing jobs to a closer one, etc. I'm sorry but
while I do see people walking in the city all the time, I don't see
people getting run down in the street all the time, so I'm not sure why
you think it's dangerous to walk on them. It isn't.



If the price of gasoline stays in the $2.50-$3 range , Then we are
likely already in a position where alternatives will be able to gain
popularity (and they are). The price of fuel would likely have to drop
below $2/gallon for that change. (i don't expect that to happen.)

And research isn't really needed to find alternatives. Biodiesel and
ethanol are already here.


You're working on postponing the problem, I'm trying to solve it.
Biodiesel and ethanol may have zero-sum contributory effects on
greenhouse gasses, but they aren't nonpolluting. I am talking about
nonpolluting renewable sources, such as electricity and fuel cells.
Naturally, this would not impact the situation at first because the
production of hydrogen and electricity is so highly dependent on
nonrenewable and polluting sources, but dealing with that would be the
second phase of the plan. There is more than enough free power--solar,
wind, tidal, thermal and hydro for examples--to meet the requirements of
the worlds population for as many people as the planet can feed. It
will take power to develop these sources, but once they are developed,
the need for nonrenewable and polluting power sources will be a bad
memory.

So much solar energy reaches the earth in a single day that if it was
concentrated and released all at once in an earthquake, it would split
the earth in two. One millionth of that single day's energy would
provide enough power for the whole world for decades if not centuries.
All the energy we could ever want is there. All we have to do is catch
a little of it.

Additionally the farmland needed to produce biodiesel and ethanol may be
needed for growing food, especially if it begins to dawn on people that
high-yield corporate farms growing crops in ravaged and depleted soil
with chemical fertilizers produce nutrient-deficient foods may be
responsible for much of today's disease (through unrecognized
malnutririon) and may be part of the reason for skyrocketing obesity in
the US as people's cravings are screaming at them to feed their bodies
the nutrients they need and the only way to get enough from
nutrient-poor foods is eating massive amounts of it.


Methods of harvesting non-fossil source of methane have been around for
decades.

I have seen arguments which demonstrate that the amount of energy
required to produce methane and ethanol makes it a very inefficient
source of power. I have not fully investigated these reports, but they
seemed to have some merit. It takes a lot of energy to grow crops and
still more energy to get the ethanol or methane from them in a pure
enough form to power vehicles.

All that is needed is a means of
pushing them in the mainstream (where economy of scale would begin to
drop the price).

The scale would not drop the price, because it is completely dependent
on a commodity that cannot be increased (at least not without further
damage to the environment through deforestation): cropland. Methane and
ethanol raw materials are plants, i.e. crop production. As more and
more acreage became needed for fuel production as dozens of millions of
people started switching from petroleum to methane/ethanol, competition
for farmland would increase. That would drive up the price of food as
well as fuel production.


If the current fuel tax, or other revenue sources, are not enough to do
that, then a single 5 cent increase in the fuel tax almost certainly
would be enough.


Agreed, but did not mention a single 5 sent increase. I mentioned a
five cent increase every month, which is something else entirely.


Rather than taxing gas, providing incentives for Fuel stations to
provide alternative fuels would probably be much more effective.


Where would the money for that come from? The US is on the verge of
economic collapse due to a number of factors not the least of which is
an impossibly high national debt.


In Europe, people are used to paying high fuel prices. People in the U.S.
are not. Jacking up the price of fuel will (already has) cause problems
for many people (non-rich that is). Additionally, the solutions You
suggest are not practical short term term solutions for many people.
Unlike most European cities, few cities in the U.S. are pedestrian
friendly, and the public transit systems of most leave a lot to be
desired. And being a pedestrian in many large U.S. cities is VERY
dangerous. It is minor miracle more people are not struck by cars in the
U.S. Compared to rates in Europe, the U.S. rate is extremely high.
Crossing 4 lanes of heavy traffic, often with as much as half a mile
between intersections (and crosswalks), which is common in many cities, is
a big risk. U.S. cities are designed for driving. That makes them both
inconvenient and dangerous to people who are not. (a friend of mine
bought a car because He was sick of being nearly run of the road or hit
multiple times on the way to and from work. And this is not a very big
city.)

And moving, or getting a different job, is not an option for most people.
Moving is not a minor thing, especially if You have kids. Even without
them, it is a major (and very stressful) task for most people. Getting a
different job is no minor affair either, unless you are willing to settle
for a minimum wage job that will likely pay less than a poverty wage. If
it were so easy to get a job near where they lived, most people would do
that to begin with. But the reality is that most people work where they
can find the best employment. Doing otherwise for many people is not an
option, unless You consider self-imposed poverty to be an option. The
situation with housing is not that different for most people. They find
the most convenient location (close to work, school, etc...) they can
afford, that meets their perceived needs. Living in a high crime area
with ineffective schools just to be closer to work will not be considered
a viable option by most people.

Maybe, if like in Europe, (almost) no one had to shell out for health
insurance, or if housing were guaranteed (like it is in some European
countries), Or if U.S. cities were redesigned to be more pedestrian
friendly, and had effective, useful public transit systems, Then many
people would be able live with higher fuel prices, and would drive much
less. Redesigning cities in the U.S. could be a great thing. But it is
not happening now, and when (if) it begins, it will take time.

Biodiesel and ethanol are not "postponing" the problem. It is taking a
major step toward a solution. Changing fuels will dramatically reduce
pollution. They also provide a potential path for migration to even
cleaner technologies. Fuel cells are about as clean as we are likely to
get. Running them directly off of hydrogen my never be both safe and
practical. The few attempt i have read of all attempt to bind the
hydrogen to something else for storage, and free it later. That has been
done for decades. Exotic systems using iron oxide as a storage medium are
not necessary. Ethanol works very well. Carbon dioxide is produced, but
the amount is roughly the same as what is removed from the atmosphere by
the plants that the ethanol was made from. Net increase is zero.

Net increase is Key. All electric cars would be an environmental
disaster. Why? Think of where that electricity will be coming from. in
the mid 1990s i was researching fuel cells and found an EPA study on the
environmental impact of electric cars. (It was a local library, not
on-line.) The report used the then estimated mix of power plant types
expected in 2010 or 2020, and concluded that all-electric cars would
produce 1/3 More emissions per mile than comparable gasoline powered cars.
The emissions would be somewhat different in content. Even if that were
overcome, it will still be more efficient to fuel the cars. Think of the
difference between gas and electric heating, etc...

Reformers currently exist that work with ethanol. A few years some auto
companies announced that they had developed a reformer that allowed fuel
cells to work of off gasoline. (Seems a bit pointless at first.) E85
will almost certainly also be a viable fuel, as will biodiesel. For 15
years it has been predicted that fuel cell cars are "only a decade away".
Switching to environmentally friendly fuels like biodiesel and ethanol
Now, in internal combustion engines, reduces the overhead involved with an
eventual switch to fuel cells. The same pumps, the same infrastructure,
nearly everything will be same. Reducing the number of changes needed,
and severity of the changes will allow the changes to occur sooner, and
faster. It also greatly reduces the damage that is done in the interim.

With or without any of that, Your tax idea still breaks down to something
very simple : "Lets *** the Poor". That is exactly what it would do.
There are other ways to raise revenue that would not have such a
disproportionate and negative effect on those with less income. Putting a
tax on vehicles that is inversely proportionate to the fuel efficiency
might be an option, particularly if it only kicked in past a certain
sticker price. It would certainly discourage people from buying SUVs.


.