No President, American or Otherwise, Controls the Price of Petroleum

[homersapien 11,440]

"High speed" rail would be ideal, particularly for longer runs.  But more conventional technology - say 70 mph - would be a boon.

The problem with my Amtrak route is the physical rail line is actually owned by freight companies.  To cut costs, they don't maintain it to passenger train standards. This greatly reduces potential speed of intercity train routes, and makes for a relatively rough ride.

The rails in the commuter corridor of the northeast are government owned and are much, much smoother.

And don't get me started about how much better European systems are.  I am embarrassed for our country to have them visit the U.S. and take Amtrak.  We come across as a third world country when it comes to train travel.

Edited March 9, 2022 by homersapien

[TitanTiger 20,510]

32 minutes ago, jj3jordan said:

Numerous high speed rail projects around the country have failed for cost overruns, extended construction time, and lower than projected ridership.  EMT is right, seems like they never get the projected numbers of customers to make any money.  You end up eminent domaining a bunch of land to built track,  high speed needs upgraded track to run at 150 mph, and you abandon the enviro nerds who don't want a dirty RR track running across the pristine landscape of Leeds.  MAGLEV is nice but expensive. Might be too hilly in AL for that kind of run, and you need transportation on both ends also. Big parking lots for more customers.

We only have one true high speed rail project (trains that can reach top speeds of 155 mph or higher) - Amtrak's Acela, which runs from DC to Boston with stops along the way.  We haven't launched others that have subsequently failed.

[homersapien 11,440]

And for those who say Americans don't want to travel by train, it's a catch-22.  No one prefers traveling by train on a poorly maintained system with limited scheduling. 

Improve the road and provide more scheduling options and things would be different, just as they once were.

Edited March 9, 2022 by homersapien

[autigeremt 6,686]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

There's that paranoia again.

This country is governed by moneyed interests.  That includes the Airline and auto industries.  There's much less money to be made in passenger rail, even though we'd be better off for it as a nation.

But if by "culturally different" you mean stupid and short-sighted, you may be on to something. 

Damn you are something...what I don't know what but geez lol?

signed Mean, Short-sighted and STUPID

[autigeremt 6,686]

1 hour ago, icanthearyou said:

Like the airline industry?  Do you consider air travel a money pit?

Having grown up in it...yes I do. Deregulation was the worst thing that ever happened to the airline industry. Once George H.W. Bush decided to play favorites while President the industry went off the "rails". We had something going at one time. 

[autigeremt 6,686]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

Of course.  There's two sides (pros and cons) to everything. 

The point is to consider that when comparing alternatives.

Keep in mind every single thing we produce is petroleum based or petroleum influenced....including renewable energy products and sources. Batteries, computer components, solar panels, wind frames, insulated wiring, electrical storage components, etc....all created with plastics that are petro-based or influenced through one form or another. 

Neither are finite. One day we will run out of petroleum and/or lithium, cobalt, cadmium, etc. The mistake people make is thinking renewable energy is green/clean. It may be for the end user but the road to the products that make up "green" energy is paved with some very nasty roads. Kid hand mining cobalt in the rivers of Tibet, lithium mines in west Asia, cadmium mines in South America. Then you have the so-called "recycling" market which isn't much of a market at all. The pros and cons are very similar between gas and oil and "green" energy. The differences are more on the end use. 

I may be a simple minded, mean ole veteran from the South but this is an area I work in every day. Green energy isn't what people think it is beyond the wind farms, solar fields and gasified wood chips. I wish it were but it isn't.

[homersapien 11,440]

1 hour ago, autigeremt said:

Damn you are something...what I don't know what but geez lol?

signed Mean, Short-sighted and STUPID

Of course, I was speaking collectively so don't take it personal. 

Just be assured that no one - not even those who would like to see a more rational society - is going to seize your truck and force you to use trains.

[homersapien 11,440]

1 hour ago, autigeremt said:

Keep in mind every single thing we produce is petroleum based or petroleum influenced....including renewable energy products and sources. Batteries, computer components, solar panels, wind frames, insulated wiring, electrical storage components, etc....all created with plastics that are petro-based or influenced through one form or another. 

Neither are finite. One day we will run out of petroleum and/or lithium, cobalt, cadmium, etc. The mistake people make is thinking renewable energy is green/clean. It may be for the end user but the road to the products that make up "green" energy is paved with some very nasty roads. Kid hand mining cobalt in the rivers of Tibet, lithium mines in west Asia, cadmium mines in South America. Then you have the so-called "recycling" market which isn't much of a market at all. The pros and cons are very similar between gas and oil and "green" energy. The differences are more on the end use. 

I may be a simple minded, mean ole veteran from the South but this is an area I work in every day. Green energy isn't what people think it is beyond the wind farms, solar fields and gasified wood chips. I wish it were but it isn't.

Oh I am aware of it.  In fact, I worked in the plastics industry. As long as we don't burn them, plastics won't affect the climate.  (Maybe our bodies and the rest of the ecosystem, but not the climate.)

All of those things you mentioned above can be addressed, at least in theory.  It's technically and scientifically possible to do so.

On the other hand, continued introduction of greenhouse gases into our atmosphere by burning petroleum will be catastrophic.  It's already becoming apparent and it will soon be obvious to everyone.

If you think transforming our energy consumption is problematic if we started now, just wait until it becomes too late to effectively do it at all.

P.S.:  We are not going to "run out" of petroleum.  The real issue is that we cannot use all of the known petroleum reserves we currently know about as an energy source, due to the climatic effects of doing so.  We'll still be able to use them as chemical feedstocks (for plastics and other products).

Edited March 9, 2022 by homersapien

[autigeremt 6,686]

16 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Oh I am aware of it.  In fact, I worked in the plastics industry. As long as we don't burn them, plastics won't affect the climate.  (Maybe our bodies and the rest of the ecosystem, but not the climate.)

All of those things you mentioned above can be addressed, at least in theory.  It's technically and scientifically possible to do so.

On the other hand, continued introduction of greenhouse gases into our atmosphere by burning petroleum will be catastrophic.  It's already becoming apparent and it will soon be obvious to everyone.

If you think transforming our energy consumption is problematic if we started now, just wait until it becomes too late to effectively do it at all.

P.S.:  We are not going to "run out" of petroleum.  The real issue is that we cannot use all of the known petroleum reserves we currently know about as an energy source, due to the climatic effects of doing so.  We'll still be able to use them as chemical feedstocks (for plastics and other products).

It's not just climate. If we continue to use toxic metals like cadmium, lithium and lead we run the risk or polluting the soil and water. We will run out of anything if we consume it beyond it's availability. About the only thing we may be able to convert to is hydrogen but then we have a water issue. 

[wdefromtx 3,159]

20 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Oh I am aware of it.  In fact, I worked in the plastics industry. As long as we don't burn them, plastics won't affect the climate.  (Maybe our bodies and the rest of the ecosystem, but not the climate.)

All of those things you mentioned above can be addressed, at least in theory.  It's technically and scientifically possible to do so.

On the other hand, continued introduction of greenhouse gases into our atmosphere by burning petroleum will be catastrophic.  It's already becoming apparent and it will soon be obvious to everyone.

If you think transforming our energy consumption is problematic if we started now, just wait until it becomes too late to effectively do it at all.

P.S.:  We are not going to "run out" of petroleum.  The real issue is that we cannot use all of the known petroleum reserves we currently know about as an energy source, due to the climatic effects of doing so.  We'll still be able to use them as chemical feedstocks (for plastics and other products).

Sustainable fuels from carbon capturing is where I see our energy source moving to. Most of the supermajors (think ExxonMobil) are developing their own technologies to start to be able to produce their own sustainable fuels. Within the last 5 years or so there has been a great push and investment for it. Granted the US is behind on it, but I think we will see a huge change within the next decade. Sustainable fuels will power the cars and the petroleum products will still have a place for engine oil, etc. 

[PUB78 1,362]

Perhaps the President has little control over gas prices, but Biden and the Democrats will pay the penalty for canceling the Keystone Pipeline. He and the Democrats have sold their souls to the Green Deal which will contribute to a Republican landslide in November.

[homersapien 11,440]

17 hours ago, autigeremt said:

It's not just climate. If we continue to use toxic metals like cadmium, lithium and lead we run the risk or polluting the soil and water. We will run out of anything if we consume it beyond it's availability. About the only thing we may be able to convert to is hydrogen but then we have a water issue. 

I agree. But again, it's technically possible to control toxic wastes from entering  the environment. Burning fossil fuels, not so much.

But if your argument is we're screwed regardless, due to over population, you'll get no argument from me. 

[I_M4_AU 7,987]

According to the title, no president can control the price of oil.  Biden begs to differ:

 

 

[icanthearyou 4,463]

8 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

According to the title, no president can control the price of oil.  Biden begs to differ:

 

 

Now I see it.  Our enemy is the Democrats, progressives and, liberals.  They want to destroy America.

Putin is the good guy.

 

[I_M4_AU 7,987]

21 minutes ago, icanthearyou said:

Now I see it.  Our enemy is the Democrats, progressives and, liberals.  They want to destroy America.

Putin is the good guy.

 

How do you misinterpret everything?  According to Biden, Putin is controlling the price of oil which makes him BAD.  It certainly isn’t Joe’s fault.

 

[icanthearyou 4,463]

1 minute ago, I_M4_AU said:

How do you misinterpret everything?  According to Biden, Putin is controlling the price of oil which makes him BAD.  It certainly isn’t Joe’s fault.

2 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

How do you misinterpret everything?  According to Biden, Putin is controlling the price of oil which makes him BAD.  It certainly isn’t Joe’s fault.

 

Okay.  Now I get it.  Biden bad.  Putin bad.  Nobody good.

[homersapien 11,440]

A wise strategy (which we are obviously incapable of executing for political reasons).

And a good way to make potential remedies such as "carbon capture" potentially viable.

 

How the U.S. could show it’s finally serious about the geopolitics of energy

By Charles Lane

March 8, 2022

Once again, motorists in the United States must cope with a gas-price surge, this one due to the global market disruption brought about by Russian President Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, and the democratic world’s retaliatory sanctions.

It’s too late to avoid this shock, and its consequences, economic and political. It’s not too late to think about preventing the next one.

If we want to render ourselves less susceptible to the havoc that Russia, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Venezuela occasionally wreak around the world, we’re going to have to face facts.

The fact is that U.S. energy policy — to seek environmental sustainability and energy independence, while keeping gas cheap — mires us in contradictions and leaves us geopolitically vulnerable.

Ramping up oil and gas production is part of the solution, as Republicans argue. So is increased use of renewables, as Democrats argue — though another fact that needs facing is that it will be years before green alternatives replace very much of the 88 percent of U.S. primary energy that comes from fossil fuels and nuclear power. Putin is a threat in the here and now.

In addition to taking advantage of its domestic production capacity, the United States must exercise more control over its share of global demand. A substantial increase in the federal gas tax would put powerful market forces — which our adversaries have been exploiting — to work on behalf of U.S. national security.

Of course, a gas tax raised from its current level — 18.4 cents per gallon — would sting consumers. Thereafter, though, they would adjust by consuming less, which would, over time, weaken the pricing power of Russia and OPEC (and, indeed, domestic companies).

To the extent that drivers could not reduce their consumption — demand for gas is relatively “inelastic” in economic parlance — the tax increase would “stick.” This is a feature, not a bug: both a long-term incentive to conserve and a long-term revenue stream for the government — the U.S. government, not the ones in Moscow, Riyadh, Tehran and Caracas.

Instead of funding those tyrannies, more of the dollars that drivers pay at the pump could be put to work in this country, building highways or mass transit, or reducing the deficit, or bolstering our national defense.

The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that a 35 cent per gallon tax increase on gas and diesel would raise $512 billion over 10 years. In 2018, a study for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce found that a 25-cent increase would reduce consumption of 30 million to 35 million barrels of gasoline per year.

Admittedly, this suggests that we would have to increase the tax much more than 25 cents to put a significant dent in current annual consumption, which exceeds 3 billion barrels. (Reality check: Total average U.S. gas taxes, state and federal, were 52 cents per gallon in 2019, as compared to an average of $2.24 in other industrialized countries.)

What matters most, though, is a commitment to dampen consumption through ups and downs in the business cycle — and through geopolitical crises, thus improving the United States’ freedom to act in its own interests.

A gas tax is no panacea. It might help avoid a repeat of the current situation, though. President Biden finds himself justifiably punishing Russia by banning imports of its crude oil, and telling Americans that possible higher gas prices are the cost of "defending freedom” — while the short-term profits go either to other foreign producers or Big Oil.

As if this wartime windfall for the Saudis and Exxon isn’t confusing enough, the Biden administration has just put out some diplomatic feelers to the Russian-backed dictatorship in Venezuela, seeking a deal whereby the United States would drop sanctions on Venezuelan crude imports the Trump administration imposed in 2019. Venezuelan oil is interchangeable with oil from Russia, imports of which the United States ramped up in the first place to offset what it had lost by sanctioning — Venezuela.

Obviously, a higher gas tax is a nonstarter right now — economically and politically. Even before Putin’s invasion, expensive gas made for a cheap Republican talking point, to which six Democratic senators — four facing reelection — responded by calling for a suspension of the existing federal gas tax.

Once this emergency passes, though, politicians are going to have to level with the public: The federal gas tax has not been raised since 1993, which means it has been cut 50 percent in real terms, and is long overdue for adjustment. Painful as filling up feels now, gas prices actually remain well within historical norms, adjusted for inflation.

The alternative, imposing higher federal fuel-economy standards on car manufacturers, is politically expedient because the costs to consumers are less transparent. Yet, a 2013 study by MIT’s Global Change program found that higher gas taxes were a far more cost-effective way to reduce fuel consumption.

Yes, there is a price to be paid for defending freedom. Let’s pay it to ourselves.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/03/08/get-serious-about-energy-geopolitics/

 

[icanthearyou 4,463]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

A wise strategy (which we are obviously incapable of executing for political reasons).

And a good way to make potential remedies such as "carbon capture" potentially viable.

 

How the U.S. could show it’s finally serious about the geopolitics of energy

By Charles Lane

March 8, 2022

Once again, motorists in the United States must cope with a gas-price surge, this one due to the global market disruption brought about by Russian President Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, and the democratic world’s retaliatory sanctions.

It’s too late to avoid this shock, and its consequences, economic and political. It’s not too late to think about preventing the next one.

If we want to render ourselves less susceptible to the havoc that Russia, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Venezuela occasionally wreak around the world, we’re going to have to face facts.

The fact is that U.S. energy policy — to seek environmental sustainability and energy independence, while keeping gas cheap — mires us in contradictions and leaves us geopolitically vulnerable.

Ramping up oil and gas production is part of the solution, as Republicans argue. So is increased use of renewables, as Democrats argue — though another fact that needs facing is that it will be years before green alternatives replace very much of the 88 percent of U.S. primary energy that comes from fossil fuels and nuclear power. Putin is a threat in the here and now.

In addition to taking advantage of its domestic production capacity, the United States must exercise more control over its share of global demand. A substantial increase in the federal gas tax would put powerful market forces — which our adversaries have been exploiting — to work on behalf of U.S. national security.

Of course, a gas tax raised from its current level — 18.4 cents per gallon — would sting consumers. Thereafter, though, they would adjust by consuming less, which would, over time, weaken the pricing power of Russia and OPEC (and, indeed, domestic companies).

To the extent that drivers could not reduce their consumption — demand for gas is relatively “inelastic” in economic parlance — the tax increase would “stick.” This is a feature, not a bug: both a long-term incentive to conserve and a long-term revenue stream for the government — the U.S. government, not the ones in Moscow, Riyadh, Tehran and Caracas.

Instead of funding those tyrannies, more of the dollars that drivers pay at the pump could be put to work in this country, building highways or mass transit, or reducing the deficit, or bolstering our national defense.

The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that a 35 cent per gallon tax increase on gas and diesel would raise $512 billion over 10 years. In 2018, a study for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce found that a 25-cent increase would reduce consumption of 30 million to 35 million barrels of gasoline per year.

Admittedly, this suggests that we would have to increase the tax much more than 25 cents to put a significant dent in current annual consumption, which exceeds 3 billion barrels. (Reality check: Total average U.S. gas taxes, state and federal, were 52 cents per gallon in 2019, as compared to an average of $2.24 in other industrialized countries.)

What matters most, though, is a commitment to dampen consumption through ups and downs in the business cycle — and through geopolitical crises, thus improving the United States’ freedom to act in its own interests.

A gas tax is no panacea. It might help avoid a repeat of the current situation, though. President Biden finds himself justifiably punishing Russia by banning imports of its crude oil, and telling Americans that possible higher gas prices are the cost of "defending freedom” — while the short-term profits go either to other foreign producers or Big Oil.

As if this wartime windfall for the Saudis and Exxon isn’t confusing enough, the Biden administration has just put out some diplomatic feelers to the Russian-backed dictatorship in Venezuela, seeking a deal whereby the United States would drop sanctions on Venezuelan crude imports the Trump administration imposed in 2019. Venezuelan oil is interchangeable with oil from Russia, imports of which the United States ramped up in the first place to offset what it had lost by sanctioning — Venezuela.

Obviously, a higher gas tax is a nonstarter right now — economically and politically. Even before Putin’s invasion, expensive gas made for a cheap Republican talking point, to which six Democratic senators — four facing reelection — responded by calling for a suspension of the existing federal gas tax.

Once this emergency passes, though, politicians are going to have to level with the public: The federal gas tax has not been raised since 1993, which means it has been cut 50 percent in real terms, and is long overdue for adjustment. Painful as filling up feels now, gas prices actually remain well within historical norms, adjusted for inflation.

The alternative, imposing higher federal fuel-economy standards on car manufacturers, is politically expedient because the costs to consumers are less transparent. Yet, a 2013 study by MIT’s Global Change program found that higher gas taxes were a far more cost-effective way to reduce fuel consumption.

Yes, there is a price to be paid for defending freedom. Let’s pay it to ourselves.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/03/08/get-serious-about-energy-geopolitics/

 

I don't know.  I have to think about this.  At the moment, I see it solving one problem while creating many more.

I cannot support anything that further pushes of the tax burden downward. 

Edited March 10, 2022 by icanthearyou

[DKW 86 7,440]

On 3/9/2022 at 9:08 AM, icanthearyou said:

I do not believe this.  I think most would love high speed rail.  The airline industry/lobby would not.  They are powerful.  How many bailouts have they gotten?  Socialism.  Look up, not down.

And at the same time, look how much we have blown on Amtrak. It is just not sound financially to invest in rail in the US. Peopl all think they would love Amtrak or trains in general. I know several families that take/took the train from Bham to NO, get off swearing to never go back.

[DKW 86 7,440]

A very nice article...

Of course, a gas tax raised from its current level — 18.4 cents per gallon — would sting consumers. Thereafter, though, they would adjust by consuming less, which would, over time, weaken the pricing power of Russia and OPEC (and, indeed, domestic companies).

My thoughts: raise taxes based on engine size and maybe cylinders for non-commercial vehicles. An engine <2.5L should not be taxed IMHO. But for every few liters over that, raise the tax substantially. Have increments for 3.0, 3.2, 3.5, 3.6, 3.8, 4.0 etc. The bigger the motor, the bigger the tax. Maybe have some compensation for larger vehicles for families. Make the delta substantial. After 2.5L, car tags cost an extra $1500/year or so. make it hurt. 

Edited March 10, 2022 by DKW 86

[homersapien 11,440]

18 hours ago, icanthearyou said:

I don't know.  I have to think about this.  At the moment, I see it solving one problem while creating many more.

I cannot support anything that further pushes of the tax burden downward. 

Good point. 

But increasing gas tax shouldn't be done in isolation without addressing income disparity.  One option would be to increase minimum wage.  Another would include a minimum guaranteed income, via tax credits.  Of course, increasing taxes on the wealthy should be part of a comprehensive strategy as well.

 

[icanthearyou 4,463]

5 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Good point. 

But increasing gas tax shouldn't be done in isolation without addressing income disparity.  One option would be to increase minimum wage.  Another would include a minimum guaranteed income, via tax credits.  Of course, increasing taxes on the wealthy should be part of a comprehensive strategy as well.

 

I agree with raising taxes on the wealthiest .25%.  Other than that NO.  The vast majority already pay enough taxes, even if they pay no income tax.  Meanwhile, some of the wealthy pay capital gains and no employment taxes.  The governed are getting angry. 

[PUB78 1,362]

22 hours ago, icanthearyou said:

Now I see it.  Our enemy is the Democrats, progressives and, liberals.  They want to destroy America.

Putin is the good guy.

 

You are right on the first part.

[icanthearyou 4,463]

2 minutes ago, PUB78 said:

You are right on the first part.

 

If you truly believe that nonsense you are insane. 

[PUB78 1,362]

2 hours ago, icanthearyou said:

 

If you truly believe that nonsense you are insane. 

Oh Icky. Don’t you realize that most of us post on this forum for fun? You , Homer, Cole, Coffee and Fifty are never going to change my mind on any main issues that separates conservatives from liberals. I don’t expect to change any of your minds either.

I get a kick out of throwing in a grenade and seeing what the response/reactions are from our “progressive” posters.