Senate Approves Oil Drilling in ANWR

[Makalakumu]

I'm all for conservation, but it will make about as much a dent as drilling in ANWR will.

This is absolutely false. The US uses 20,000,000 barrels of oil per day. The USGS estimates with 95% accuracy that 5.7 billion barrells of oil are recoverable in ANWR.

Lets do the math.

In one year, this equates to 20,000,000 barrels /day x 365.25 days / year = 7,305,000,000 barrells per year. The maximum estimated of production of the ANWR oil fields could rise to 5,000,000 barrels / year. For the sake of simplicity, I'll skip the differential and just use that figure. 5,000,000 bpy / 7,305,000,000 bpy = .068 % of US total need. In a perfect world, we would see our gas prices drop only that much. If the prices were $2.50 per gallon, we would see a monetary reduction of about 0.017 of a cent. In other words, you would see absolutly no change in price.

However, if we shaved 10 mph of our top end by changing the national speed limit, going back to 60 mph, we would see up to a $0.42 change in the price per gallon. This simple conservation move would give us almost 250 times the amount of oil per year then exists in all of ANWR.

I've said it several times, you can not place you faith and hope in one avenue for a solution. Its not responsible to our citizens or our children.

It's not faith and hope. It's numbers. Breaking our committment to wilderness in order to drill in ANWR when other solutions that are HUGELY more productive exist is not responsible. DRILLING IN ANWR WILL NOT CHANGE A THING FOR THE AVERAGE AMERICAN. (see above)

As to mass transit...ever driven through west Texas? In certain large cities, Dallas, Houston, Austin, this might help a bit (and is currently)

50% of Americans live in the suburbs around major cities. Mass Transit would save a HUGE amount of energy. Think about it. If half the people in this country suddenly only had to drive their personal vehicles half the amount of time...that is not a drop in the bucket folks.

 

[arnisador]

How much of an effect would there be from changing the speed limit on the actual speed people drive? How expensive is it to enforce that?

 

[Makalakumu]

Who's going to tax them enought to build these things?

I've seen some mass transit plans that call for a gas tax. This tax would serve a few purposes, cut demand, increase supply and fund the projects.

 

[mrhnau]

How much of an effect would there be from changing the speed limit on the actual speed people drive? How expensive is it to enforce that?

Plus how many billions will we be spending to create more infrastructure.

Plan on making SUV's illegal too? Taking away more freedom of the individual?

MrH

 

[mrhnau]

I've seen some mass transit plans that call for a gas tax. This tax would serve a few purposes, cut demand, increase supply and fund the projects.

Thats right... we need more taxes. Those 50% of the people in the city should take the $ from the rest of the poor saps that don't live in the city and still require their cars. Tax the heck out of them.

The answer to all questions... raise taxes

Already have vehicle tax, ~50 cents tax on gas (depends on where you are), luxury tax on nicer cars and in some instances fees for parking. Thats enough.

MrH

 

[michaeledward]

how would you go about gettin the populous of the US to agree and actually act on a conservation plan?

A Three Dollar a Gallon Tax.

 

[Makalakumu]

Lowering Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards would have a huge conservation effect.

Raising CAFE standards by 5% annually until 2012 and by 3% per year thereafter could save 1.5 million barrels of oil per day (MBD) by 2010, 4.7 MBD by 2020, and 67 billion barrels of oil over the next 40 years. This is 10–20 times greater than the potential oil supply from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

 

[Makalakumu]

How much of an effect would there be from changing the speed limit on the actual speed people drive? How expensive is it to enforce that?

Carter gave us the 55mph national limit in the 70s in response to the oil shocks. So we already know that it works.

 

[mrhnau]

A Three Dollar a Gallon Tax.

do you actually understand what that would do to the economy?

 

[michaeledward]

do you actually understand what that would do to the economy?

Yes. Reduce the amount of petroleum consumed.

 

[arnisador]

A Three Dollar a Gallon Tax.

The tobacco approach! The idea is sound, except that there are poor people who must drive to work. It's a chicken-and-egg problem: Raise the cost to get money for public transit, but until that public transit is in place people must still pay that high cost. If there were a way to make it progressive, it'd be a good idea.

 

[arnisador]

I've seen some mass transit plans that call for a gas tax. This tax would serve a few purposes, cut demand, increase supply and fund the projects.

It makes sense. Of course, gas is already taxed at a pretty high rate, and as I mentioned above, the regressiveness of it is a concern.

 

[mrhnau]

Yes. Reduce the amount of petroleum consumed.

Might be a correct answer, but lets take a realistic look at the end result.

you absolutely wreck certain industries. Lets name a few:

Automotive: people will stop buying cars if they can't afford to drive them
transportation: willing to pay $1000 to fly to your next state? willing to pay twice as much for your vegitables or other food that is not produced next door? you require transportation to get it there.
Mailing: want to pay twice as much to send a letter? It takes gas and vehicles to deliver things.
Personal transportation: Willing to pay $100 to go visit your grandmother?

Everything trickles down.. if you don't fall in one of these industries, you have to interact with them at some point. if you provide a service, you need to be at the location of the service. if you provice a product, you have to deliver your product. there is a reason certain businesses such as airlines are going out of business. This was with $3 gas for a while. Wait until you add on another $2.50. You might save some gas, but you ruin our economy.

Cost of living goes up. If there are countries w/out this insane gas tax, they become more competetive. As a result, we have a harder time competing on the global market.

Many people have to drive to work. Increasing taxes on gas taxes anyone who has to drive to work. Many people can't live based on a bus schedule, so you want to tax those poor saps that can't coordinate effectively w/ a bus/train. Teachers, police, emergency services, government officials (gasp!)... they all have to go to work.

Again, everything is trickle down... even if you use buses (which become more expensive to operate too don't forget), you get it from other areas previously mentioned, such as food, other products, ect. that in essense is an incredible tax on everyone.

Bad answer. Try again.

MrH

 

[mrhnau]

The tobacco approach! The idea is sound, except that there are poor people who must drive to work. It's a chicken-and-egg problem: Raise the cost to get money for public transit, but until that public transit is in place people must still pay that high cost. If there were a way to make it progressive, it'd be a good idea.

Great point!

Know what this would be? this would be a tax on the poor. Those stinky rich people could afford it.

MrH

 

[Makalakumu]

The money from a gas tax isn't removed from the economy. It's reinvested. This would create jobs. Also, I wouldn't go as high as three dollars. MN looked at raising the gas tax to pay for a light rail system. The raise would have five cents. This isn't so bad. On a national level, would could look into cutting military expendetures to pay for mass transit. And I think one could justify it because mass transit would definitely contribute to making us safer because it would cut our dependence on foriegn oil.

 

[michaeledward]

Might be a correct answer, but lets take a realistic look at the end result.

you absolutely wreck certain industries. Lets name a few:

Automotive: people will stop buying cars if they can't afford to drive them
transportation: willing to pay $1000 to fly to your next state? willing to pay twice as much for your vegitables or other food that is not produced next door? you require transportation to get it there.
Mailing: want to pay twice as much to send a letter? It takes gas and vehicles to deliver things.
Personal transportation: Willing to pay $100 to go visit your grandmother?

Everything trickles down.. if you don't fall in one of these industries, you have to interact with them at some point. if you provide a service, you need to be at the location of the service. if you provice a product, you have to deliver your product. there is a reason certain businesses such as airlines are going out of business. This was with $3 gas for a while. Wait until you add on another $2.50. You might save some gas, but you ruin our economy.

Cost of living goes up. If there are countries w/out this insane gas tax, they become more competetive. As a result, we have a harder time competing on the global market.

Many people have to drive to work. Increasing taxes on gas taxes anyone who has to drive to work. Many people can't live based on a bus schedule, so you want to tax those poor saps that can't coordinate effectively w/ a bus/train. Teachers, police, emergency services, government officials (gasp!)... they all have to go to work.

Again, everything is trickle down... even if you use buses (which become more expensive to operate too don't forget), you get it from other areas previously mentioned, such as food, other products, ect. that in essense is an incredible tax on everyone.

Bad answer. Try again.

MrH

Actually, it is a correct answer.

I work in the collision repair industry (Insurance Claims handling and Body Shop Repair). Having fewer cars on the road would have a direct impact on the profitability of my current employer.

Argument 1 - People will buy fewer cars.

Yeah, So? Is the automobile so sacrosanct that we have to buy a new one every 5 years? A $24,000.00 item with planned obsolesence. How stupid are we? And while approximately 80% of automobiles get recycled, they are still a drag on the economy, in many many ways.

Argument 2 - Food will be more expensive.

Yeah, so? I really don't think our fuel prices should subsidize Archer Daniels Midland. I would like to give my local producers an opportunity to compete, and earn a living. Do I really need to be able to buy Strawberies all year long? Do you know how the strawberies you purchased at the market last week were harvested, anyhow? You probably don't want to know.

What was the precentage of family farms in the country 100 years ago? Today?

Argument 3 - Postage

Email.

Argument 4 - People have to drive to work

Sprawl. Local communities have 2 acre minimum building lots. McMansions. Having people drive shorter distances to work ain't that bad of an idea.


So, I understand that you are not in favor of taxing everyone. Got it.

We can use tax cuts to encourage the super wealthy to create jobs .... but we can't use tax increase to encourage people to conserve fuel. Hmmm.

 

[Tgace]

You people are from another planet...the planet Communtaxitron. Taxes to create jobs...yeah more government/patronage/pork jobs.

 

[arnisador]

The money from a gas tax isn't removed from the economy. It's reinvested.

What taxes would this be false of? Money spent on defense, or research, is invested. Money spent on welfare is then spent on food etc. in the community. I suppose it's more direct in this case, but even still, one hopes that ll of our taxes are being "invested" in some way that benefits us.

A 5 cent per gallon tax increase is livable, I think. What would it get us?

 

[mrhnau]

Actually, it is a correct answer.

I work in the collision repair industry (Insurance Claims handling and Body Shop Repair). Having fewer cars on the road would have a direct impact on the profitability of my current employer.

good for you

Argument 1 - People will buy fewer cars.

Yeah, So? Is the automobile so sacrosanct that we have to buy a new one every 5 years? A $24,000.00 item with planned obsolesence. How stupid are we? And while approximately 80% of automobiles get recycled, they are still a drag on the economy, in many many ways.

not everyone buys one every 5 years. mine is 8 and I'm driving it into the ground LOL. regardless, its the freedom to me thats important. If I want to, I have that right. The more logical arguement would be that it would encourage people to buy more hybrids/alt fuel cars, but you forgot to mention that.

Argument 2 - Food will be more expensive.

Yeah, so? I really don't think our fuel prices should subsidize Archer Daniels Midland. I would like to give my local producers an opportunity to compete, and earn a living. Do I really need to be able to buy Strawberies all year long? Do you know how the strawberies you purchased at the market last week were harvested, anyhow? You probably don't want to know.

What was the precentage of family farms in the country 100 years ago? Today?

I don't live off of strawberries. All food will be increased in price. Everything. This gets back to transportation. They also need fuel for tractors to produce/harvest. This cost more money.

Argument 3 - Postage

Email.

tell that to buy.com. how do you suggest getting things from the store to your house? you can't email them. If you want it shipped, it cost fuel. Otherwise, you better buy a house in walking distance of Walmart or some other evil store owned by the evil rich.

Email is great, but it just don't work when you need something physical.

Argument 4 - People have to drive to work

Sprawl. Local communities have 2 acre minimum building lots. McMansions. Having people drive shorter distances to work ain't that bad of an idea.

Yes, but allowing the people the freedom to live where they want it key too. I'd love to live out in the country. I miss it alot. When I get the $, I'm on the way back. I don't like living next to a zillion people. I like my space. So, because of my tastes, I should be taxed more? I should try to limit my options of homes?

So, I understand that you are not in favor of taxing everyone. Got it.

We can use tax cuts to encourage the super wealthy to create jobs .... but we can't use tax increase to encourage people to conserve fuel. Hmmm.

there has been (not sure if current) tax breaks for alt energy cars. I'd be in favor of that. Instead of emphasizing the negative (higher taxes) lets try working with a positive (lower taxes for cooperating). thats what we do with other things, such as mortgage deductions. Your arguement would have an increased tax on people who -don't- own a house.. seem a bit odd. I'd prefer positive reinforcement. Isn't that what we are doing in our schools now? Give tax breaks to companies who employ alt energies or cut emissions. If its a significant tax break, I bet companies will jump in line. Make it affordable. Good for the economy and the environment.

MrH

 

[arnisador]

It's not just a matter of where people want to live. Some people must live in a low cost-of-living area. But there can only be so many jobs there--others will be in industrial areas. Transportation is needed.

This is good for business--not just for individuals.