Obama Energy Goals Announced

[Texsox]

Cut foreign dependence by 30% before 2025 and achieve having 80% of our energy from non oil sources by 2035. Not quite as stirring as Kennedy wanting a man on the moon.

 

I happened to see McConnel on Channel One News and I find myself becoming more of a GOPerhead in this. I am starting to think that we should use our oil resources, that we are making it too difficult for companies to drill on US land or sea. And this isn't so much from an economic pov, but shouldn't we have the same environmental pain as the countries we buy from? Is it right we hide the environmental impact of our consumption by buying from other coutries?

[Balta1701]

Cut foreign dependence by 30% before 2025 and achieve having 80% of our energy from non oil sources by 2035. Not quite as stirring as Kennedy wanting a man on the moon.

 

I happened to see McConnel on Channel One News and I find myself becoming more of a GOPerhead in this. I am starting to think that we should use our oil resources, that we are making it too difficult for companies to drill on US land or sea. And this isn't so much from an economic pov, but shouldn't we have the same environmental pain as the countries we buy from? Is it right we hide the environmental impact of our consumption by buying from other coutries?

Tex, do you really think a country with 2% of the world's petroleum reserves can get by using 25% of its oil?

[Texsox]

No but I am beginning to think we should be willing to take the same risks to our environment that we are having other countries make. Perhaps it is more symbolic than a solution, but refusing to drill here or there while buying supertankers of oil from around the world is starting to feel a little hypocritical to me. And along with that, perhaps we shouldn't be using 25% of the world's oil.

[Balta1701]

No but I am beginning to think we should be willing to take the same risks to our environment that we are having other countries make. Perhaps it is more symbolic than a solution, but refusing to drill here or there while buying supertankers of oil from around the world is starting to feel a little hypocritical to me. And along with that, perhaps we shouldn't be using 25% of the world's oil.

"Refusal to drill here" is the most confusing term here, as though it's a political decision and not a business decision. Saw a report yesterday that something like 60% of the leased land for oil production and a similar fraction leased for gas production is not currently being used for anything.

[NorthSideSox72]

These goals are useless without specific policy initiatives being enacted. I mean, I'd like to be 10000% richer, but so the f*** what?

 

Too many vagueries.

 

[Y2HH]

These goals are useless without specific policy initiatives being enacted. I mean, I'd like to be 10000% richer, but so the f*** what?

 

Too many vagueries.

 

NorthSide, it's even better that that...because in this instance, it's not really like you're saying you'd like to be 10000% richer by year XXXX, but that you'd like someone else to be that much richer by year XXXX...knowing that you'll have been out of any sort of decision making capacity for over a decade by the time that date rolls around...if not more.

[Texsox]

Balta, The prime lands are not available. It is the same as saying don't do stem cell research because we have not tried everything else.

 

Kennedy was going to be gone by the end of the decade. A President has to be able to set longer term goals than just his administration, with or without reelection. Setting a goal of being 1000% richer is powerful if then you start planning. This is what I want and how will I get there nakes more sense than where am I going, now what is my goal. The challenge will be when energy companies come forward with ideas that require government assistance, will the President *and* congress help? And shouldn't thisd be more private sector anyways?

[Balta1701]

Balta, The prime lands are not available. It is the same as saying don't do stem cell research because we have not tried everything else.

What prime drilling lands?

 

The only ones you can honestly cite are ANWR, which really only BP wants to drill in anyway since they're the only ones with resources up there that might, might make them cost effective, off the coast of Florida, and downtown Los Angeles.

[StrangeSox]

Obama announces economic plans: "By 2023, I want 0% unemployment and an average wage of $250,000 for every American!"

[Texsox]

Those would be unrealistic.

 

@Balta, you are looking at a macro view, within prime drilling areas there are restrictions. Areas here in Texas for example that are too close to this or too close to that. We also have those same issues with alternative energy. So I guess it all fits together.

[Balta1701]

Those would be unrealistic.

 

@Balta, you are looking at a macro view, within prime drilling areas there are restrictions. Areas here in Texas for example that are too close to this or too close to that. We also have those same issues with alternative energy. So I guess it all fits together.

With as many holes as their are in Texas...unless you're advocating drilling in downtown Houston or inside Big Bend National Park, there's really not much extractable resource left. That state has been developed like no where else in the world.

[mr_genius]

This just a scam to give GE billions more in tax payer money. f*** them. I don't want to contribute to this.

[Balta1701]

This just a scam to give GE billions more in tax payer money. f*** them. I don't want to contribute to this.

Would it help if we gave the money to Exxon instead?

[mr_genius]

Would it help if we gave the money to Exxon instead?

 

nope

[Y2HH]

With as many holes as their are in Texas...unless you're advocating drilling in downtown Houston or inside Big Bend National Park, there's really not much extractable resource left. That state has been developed like no where else in the world.

 

We can drill an undersea pipeline and drink the Saudi's milkshake.

[Y2HH]

Kennedy was going to be gone by the end of the decade. A President has to be able to set longer term goals than just his administration, with or without reelection. Setting a goal of being 1000% richer is powerful if then you start planning. This is what I want and how will I get there nakes more sense than where am I going, now what is my goal. The challenge will be when energy companies come forward with ideas that require government assistance, will the President *and* congress help? And shouldn't thisd be more private sector anyways?

 

Making attainable promises and making off the wall ridiculous promises are two different things. It's common in our current political landscape to just say the things your followers want to hear, such as we will get Bin Laden, or there are WMD's in Iraq, or this health bill will lower costs, or we will be 30% less dependent on foreign oil in a mere 14 years.

 

Note, if I was seeing some returns on these promises, maybe I'd say ok and believe a little...but we aren't seeing anything of the sort. It's only ok to make ridiculous sounding promises if you can show minor but yearly gains leading toward that promise. It's simple math in some ways. When you say costs will go down...but we never seen them drop a dime, it's a lie. When you claim we will use less oil, only we've seen consumption skyrocket...again, a lie.

 

While the promises from Obama may sound great (and many others in the modern 2000 and beyond era of politics for that matter), they're also unrealistic in the current landscape of things. Stating that we will cut foreign dependence by 30% before 2025 and achieve having 80% of our energy from non oil sources by 2035 is unrealistic in light of the fact we've seen our energy (oil) dependence skyrocket in the last decade. While it appeals to the believers and the Utopians among us (as in, not myself), it's unattainable in the current political and corporate climate of the US. Ergo, while optimistic, it's an outright f***ing lie.

 

If I saw them cut the wars, take that money we're pouring into the middle east and pour it into alternative energy/fuel R&D...maybe then I'd believe them. But right now, their money isn't where their mouths are...and I'm tired of people allowing politicians to continue to lie, and say whatever they want to say because it sounds great, but do nothing to show progress on said promises.

 

These are more empty promises.

[Balta1701]

Making attainable promises and making off the wall ridiculous promises are two different things. It's common in our current political landscape to just say the things your followers want to hear, such as we will get Bin Laden, or there are WMD's in Iraq, or this health bill will lower costs, or we will be 30% less dependent on foreign oil in a mere 14 years.

First of all, that bill will lower health care costs.

 

Second...seriously, where the f*** is Bin Laden?

[Balta1701]

To switch out of sarcasm mode...there is something to saying that our efforts to improve fuel efficiency have in fact succeeded. To show that, all one needs to do is look at a graph of per capita oil consumption in the U.S. since the 1970's oil busts.

 

 

U.S. per capita oil consumption has been pretty much flat since the start of the environmental movement. There have been a few wiggles, especially associated with the 2008 price spike, but overall, the growth in oil imports in this country have been driven by 2 factors.

 

1. Population growth

2. The fact that U.S. oil production peaked in the late 1960's and has been declining ever since.

 

I'm not going to dispute your characterization that the only way things will get better from here is if somehow we were to find politicians who weren't totally bought out by dirty energy...I only wanted to illustrate that it was possible to make an impact if you actually could find the political will.

[Y2HH]

To switch out of sarcasm mode...there is something to saying that our efforts to improve fuel efficiency have in fact succeeded. To show that, all one needs to do is look at a graph of per capita oil consumption in the U.S. since the 1970's oil busts.

 

 

U.S. per capita oil consumption has been pretty much flat since the start of the environmental movement. There have been a few wiggles, especially associated with the 2008 price spike, but overall, the growth in oil imports in this country have been driven by 2 factors.

 

1. Population growth

2. The fact that U.S. oil production peaked in the late 1960's and has been declining ever since.

 

I'm not going to dispute your characterization that the only way things will get better from here is if somehow we were to find politicians who weren't totally bought out by dirty energy...I only wanted to illustrate that it was possible to make an impact if you actually could find the political will.

 

I can't disagree with you here, however, I've seen reports that show that people driving more fuel efficient cars/hybrids tend to drive something like 3x MORE than an average person without a fuel efficient vehicle...sort of nullifying any perceived gains. Yes, our cars and trucks are getting more MPG, and are far more efficient than in years past, yet we are using the same amount of oil or more? That's not adding up.

 

The fact that your chart shows US oil production has declined since the 1960's sort of illustrates that we are even MORE dependent on foreign oil now than ever before, does it not? Also, I'm not certain here, but does that graph only count the people? What I mean is I've read that we are using more oil due to shipping, trucking, factories, etc...does that graph of our oil consumption include all of that, too?

 

I think we'd both like to see the same things here, instead or the typical modern government method of doing things. Make promises about energy dependence, but do nothing but continue to subsidize dirty energy companies while giving a pittance of money for R&D for future energy tech...that's what I see happening...so I'm forced to call their bluff.

Edited April 4, 2011 by Y2HH

[NorthSideSox72]

I can't disagree with you here, however, I've seen reports that show that people driving more fuel efficient cars/hybrids tend to drive something like 3x MORE than an average person without a fuel efficient vehicle...sort of nullifying any perceived gains. Yes, our cars and trucks are getting more MPG, and are far more efficient than in years past, yet we are using the same amount of oil or more? That's not adding up.

 

The fact that your chart shows US oil production has declined since the 1960's sort of illustrates that we are even MORE dependent on foreign oil now than ever before, does it not? Also, I'm not certain here, but does that graph only count the people? What I mean is I've read that we are using more oil due to shipping, trucking, factories, etc...does that graph of our oil consumption include all of that, too?

 

I think we'd both like to see the same things here, instead or the typical modern government method of doing things. Make promises about energy dependence, but do nothing but continue to subsidize dirty energy companies while giving a pittance of money for R&D for future energy tech...that's what I see happening...so I'm forced to call their bluff.

First, I'd love to see actual evidence of this number.

 

Second, that doesn't nullify anything - those people were likely going to drive anyway, so you are actually getting a bigger payoff that way, not a smaller one.

 

[Balta1701]

I can't disagree with you here, however, I've seen reports that show that people driving more fuel efficient cars/hybrids tend to drive something like 3x MORE than an average person without a fuel efficient vehicle...sort of nullifying any perceived gains. Yes, our cars and trucks are getting more MPG, and are far more efficient than in years past, yet we are using the same amount of oil or more? That's not adding up.

 

The fact that your chart shows US oil production has declined since the 1960's sort of illustrates that we are even MORE dependent on foreign oil now than ever before, does it not? Also, I'm not certain here, but does that graph only count the people? What I mean is I've read that we are using more oil due to shipping, trucking, factories, etc...does that graph of our oil consumption include all of that, too?

 

I think we'd both like to see the same things here, instead or the typical modern government method of doing things. Make promises about energy dependence, but do nothing but continue to subsidize dirty energy companies while giving a pittance of money for R&D for future energy tech...that's what I see happening...so I'm forced to call their bluff.

Yes, oil consumption numbers per capita come from the raw data, it doesn't matter how it is used. I checked about half a dozen sites before I found a graph I liked, all showed the same thing...it's domestic production + imports divided by population, and that has remained roughly constant over the past 30-40 years.

 

Second point...I have a hard time believing that hybrid vehicle drivers would actually drive 3x as much as a non-hybrid vehicle driver just because of the numbers...3x the average american's driving distance would be 30,000-35,000 miles a year, which would mean most Priuses would have 200,000-300,000 miles on them at this point. I think your numbers have to be slightly off there...

 

However, I would fully expect there to be a correlation between increasing driving distance and hybrid vehicle purchases...but not for the causality you give, where the ownership of the hybrid causes increased consumption. I'd expect it is the reverse...if you ask "Which group of the population would benefit most economically from owning a hybrid vehicle", the answer is "People who drive an awful lot while in cities". They'd save the most money by pushing up their MPG. A lot of them would be driving the miles whether or not they had a hybrid, and therefore they extract the maximum amount of savings through that purchase.

[Y2HH]

Yes, oil consumption numbers per capita come from the raw data, it doesn't matter how it is used. I checked about half a dozen sites before I found a graph I liked, all showed the same thing...it's domestic production + imports divided by population, and that has remained roughly constant over the past 30-40 years.

 

Second point...I have a hard time believing that hybrid vehicle drivers would actually drive 3x as much as a non-hybrid vehicle driver just because of the numbers...3x the average american's driving distance would be 30,000-35,000 miles a year, which would mean most Priuses would have 200,000-300,000 miles on them at this point. I think your numbers have to be slightly off there...

 

However, I would fully expect there to be a correlation between increasing driving distance and hybrid vehicle purchases...but not for the causality you give, where the ownership of the hybrid causes increased consumption. I'd expect it is the reverse...if you ask "Which group of the population would benefit most economically from owning a hybrid vehicle", the answer is "People who drive an awful lot while in cities". They'd save the most money by pushing up their MPG. A lot of them would be driving the miles whether or not they had a hybrid, and therefore they extract the maximum amount of savings through that purchase.

 

My number of 3x is far exaggerated...however, I've read studies showing that hybrid owners drive far more.

 

Doing a quick search:

 

http://www.insure.com/car-insurance/hybrid...onsibility.html

 

Together, studies by auto insurance analytics company Quality Planning, collision publication “Mitchell Industry Trends Report” and the Highway Data Loss Institute found that:

 

* Hybrid owners drive 25 percent more miles than owners of gas-powered cars.

* Hybrid owners receive almost two-thirds more traffic citations than their all-gas counterparts.

* Hybrids are involved in more collisions than non-hybrids.

Edited April 4, 2011 by Y2HH

[Balta1701]

My number of 3x is far exaggerated...however, I've read studies showing that hybrid owners drive far more.

And as both NSS and I stated...hybrid ownership correlating with miles driven is exactly what you should expect from the economics. It doesn't mean that hybrid ownership causes additional driving.

[Y2HH]

And as both NSS and I stated...hybrid ownership correlating with miles driven is exactly what you should expect from the economics. It doesn't mean that hybrid ownership causes additional driving.

 

Actually, they think it does. Studies are showing that people who own hybrids opinions are that because they are "greener" they can drive more, often nullifying any green effect, and they aren't realizing or recognizing it. According to these studies, they aren't driving more because of the economics at all, they're driving more because they tend to take more "pleasure trips" they wouldn't have taken before they had the hybrid.

 

Researchers, according to USA Today, "Found that even though hybrid owners may be able to save gas, they eat up the savings by driving more on pleasure trips. Their commute habits are about the same as non-hybrid drivers, but they logged up to 25 percent more on trips not related to their jobs."

 

Don't jump on me, I'm just the messenger.

 

More:

 

http://usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/cars-...-Bills-Tickets/

Edited April 4, 2011 by Y2HH

[Jenksismyhero]

I'm all about Obama making this pledge, but really, hasn't every President since Carter been saying this? And yet we're still nowhere close to attaining that goal.