Not that this is a new opinion on the gas prices issue...

...but I'm all for the price going up and up and up. It's the only way this country's gonna diligently put some effort forth to research and devise some worthwhile and cost-effective alternative fuels. It's already prompting me to review my habits and usage, and it's not yet at a crisis stage. I wouldn't consider myself a heavy mileage driver either, although I do drive quite a bit on the weekends unavoidably.

So yeah. I'm not the first to voice this opinion, but I'm really getting annoyed with the daily teeth gnashing about gas prices, especially from people who need to re-think their situation and why it's hitting them so hard. For instance, I work with people that commute from Lino Lakes and North Branch every day in heavy traffic, yet all I hear about is how high gas is. Um...there's a solution to your problem, and it's rather obvious.

So yeah, I hope gas gets outrageous.

 

I hope more 'in-house' jobs are converted to tele-commuting jobs. That'll rule!

 

 The problem with this opinion is that it only takes into account the impact of gas prices in relation to driving habits.

 

The much more serious impact is on the rest of the economy.....the inflation it is causing on essentials.  Low energy prices does not just enable Joe Blow to drive that Hummer into work...or buy an extra snowmobile.  Cheap energy also keeps the prices of food...clothing...housing....everything down.

So while the impact in suburban America is that we drive a little less...the impact around the world can already be seen in riots over food do to soaring inflation. 

I am all for the exploration of alternative energy.  But we simply cannot deny that right now...oil, coal and gas are the cheapest, most efficient energy we have.

The solution is not to raise the cost of our existing energy so that people start buying into other more expensive forms.  The solution is to keep energy at the lowest...most efficient cost as possible.....and embrace the alternative source when it comes along that is even cheaper...and more efficient.

Understood. But this country is reactive and not proactive these days. No one's gonna wanna fart around with alternatives if there's no need to. Most things in this country (grand scheme) are fixed when it's required, not when it's ideal. We love our "if it ain't broke..." ideology. When gas is $1.50 a gallon, "it ain't broke", even though it is since fossil fuels are finite, and Americans burn thru it as if it can be replenished no problem.

So until this country endures hardship as a result of their dependence on oil, things aren't going to change. Who wants to work on alternative fuels if it's super cheap to use fossils? There's no incentive there. Now there's some incentive - to resurrect our sagging economy. As you said, gas prices affect the whole economy, so it's at least forcing more than just a segment of the population to work on a solution, or reassess their current situations.

I'm still all for it.

 

Can someone tell me why we aren't building more nuclear power plants? Seems this would be one of the best options we have.

I also don't understand why the man made global warming fanatics are against clearing old growth trees and planting more new growth that actually absorb CO2. Using more wood will reduce our use of petroleum based products like plastics.

Justin - A Minnesota Star Citizen:

I hope more 'in-house' jobs are converted to tele-commuting jobs. That'll rule!

YES!

Scobbs,

When you say we need to keep fuel prices low, who are you calling we?  Are you referring to the oil companies, the government or the citizens.

I'm taking a guess here and assuming that we all fall under the citizen area.

So how do we keep fuel costs low as citizens?  We conserve right?  We driveless, utilize public transportation as much as possible.  Possibly move so we are closer to our work.  Better insulate our house, trade our less efficient auto for one that is more efficient etc....

Sure the price may continue to rise to near $5/gallon siill half of what they pay in Europe today.  Sure trucks that transport our food etc.. can't "drive less" so we will be paying more for certain goods BUT our worlds will not be rocked because we have cut back on our wastefulness.

right?

 We = everybody

 

How do we keep prices low?  We increase supply.

It is absurd that we are not going after supplies of oil that we know exist. 

We drill in the Artic.  We drill off the coast.  We drill in the middle of Lake Elmo Park if it increases supply.

 

Stop pretending like oil isn't the life blood of our economy.  It is not an evil thing.  It is a cheap and efficient fuel.  And we are stuck with it until something cheaper...and more efficient comes along.  In the meantime...it is in everybody's interest to keep our energy costs as low as possible.

Sure...that may mean some people are overindulgent with their lifestyle....but so what.  It also means that other people can afford to eat. 

But yeah.....I guess we can just welcome mass starvation across the third world....cause gosh darnit...at least some people will stop driving those evil SUV's!!

 

Why can't we just clone oil!?

Scobbs:

 We = everybody

Okay???

How do we keep prices low?  We increase supply.

Last I checked, by using less you actually increase supply.  Seeing that most of us as consumers can directly affect this supply by using less.  We thus are in agreement, right?

It is absurd that we are not going after supplies of oil that we know exist. 

I find it obsurd that you are interested in getting more when conservation has yet to be maximized in order to increase the supply. 

We drill in the Artic.  We drill off the coast.  We drill in the middle of Lake Elmo Park if it increases supply.

Stop pretending like oil isn't the life blood of our economy.  UMM, are you talking to me?  or someone who said that it wasn't? It is not an evil thing.  It is a cheap and efficient fuel.  Again, who are you talking too?  And we are stuck with it until something cheaper...and more efficient comes along.  In the meantime...it is in everybody's interest to keep our energy costs as low as possible.

Cool we are back t agreeing that we need to increase the supply, and since you and I don't have drills we need to conserve what we have..

Sure...that may mean some people are overindulgent with their lifestyle....but so what.  It also means that other people can afford to eat. 

But yeah.....I guess we can just welcome mass starvation across the third world....cause gosh darnit...at least some people will stop driving those evil SUV's!!

So drilling in Alaska will not only get us more oil but will also end starvation in the third world?

 

 

 

 

Or we can just sit on our oil while we burn up everyone else's. 

Why the rush to drill and drink all of our milkshakes?  Let's drink the saudi's milkshake all up and then sell our milkshake back to them when Ice cream is $20/gal.  Makes more sense to me.

 

The economy WILL absorb higher oil prices and it WILL spur private alternative energy research.  

 

oh, and ethanol is bullshit. 

 

...and one more thing.  All those nuclear power protesting hippies should feel really stupid right about now.

Sounds like someone is leaning Obama....

Todzilla:

 

Last I checked, by using less you actually increase supply. 

 

finite

 

 

 

Todzilla:

 

Last I checked, by using less you actually increase supply. 

 

It's a good start to save up for that Hummer that everyone deserves.

I guess I just disagree with you wholeheartedly then, Scobbs.

While gas may be cheap and efficient, the problem is that the machines using it aren't exactly using it efficiently for the most part. So...that kind of negates it right there, no?

And again, repeating myself here, but no one is going to pursue any realistic alternatives until they have to. You keep drilling for oil, and "they" won't have to until it's a full blown crisis. Meanwhile there's screaming and crying that costs are high, when the issue could have been averted by not waiting. Then it'll inevitably cost even more due to the urgency of it. You can't have it both ways.

Oh, and settle down with the hyperbole. This was a bit outrageous and warrants a jump to conclusions mat -

Scobbs:

But yeah.....I guess we can just welcome mass starvation across the third world....

 

 

GOOTS:

Todzilla:

 

Last I checked, by using less you actually increase supply. 

 

finite

 

 

 I hope you understand what I meant.  Let's imagine that the only use of oil was to fuel our cars.  Let's say that we all have constant driving patterns and distances and we all drive SUV's that get 15 mpg.  We also have that "finite" amount of oil that you so eagerly defined.

So basically we have an end game, a limit even to how long we can sustain this resource.  Let's say 10 years.

Then one day we all switch to a car that get 45 mpg.

Wouldn't that thus increase our supply by 3 fold?

That my friends is how supply increases with conservatism.

Gary Carter:

Oh, and settle down with the hyperbole. This was a bit outrageous and warrants a jump to conclusions mat -

Scobbs:

But yeah.....I guess we can just welcome mass starvation across the third world....

 

 

 While I would LOVE to own me a Jump To Conclusions mat....

 

Hyperbole it is not..... http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/2008/02/08/the-dangers-from-rising-food-prices.html

That still doesn't change my opinion that we need to focus more on alternatives than to step up oil production. If we don't dilligently work on alternatives, we're just pushing the problem out to the future. What good is that? The whole "more more more!" philosophy is what got "us" into this mess, so I don't quite understand how the solution can be the very same thing as the problem.

If, like the article mentions, rising energy costs are greatly responsible for the food crisis, why shouldn't we try as hard as possible for alternative energy sources? If gas production was increased like you mentioned, what would prompt automobile manufacturers to increase the efficiency of their machines? Why would they do that, when there's just more gas available?

I feel like I'm just saying the same thing over and over, here.

 

Todzilla:

That my friends is how supply increases with conservatism.

 

Yeah, you are talking about decreasing demand which has 0 effect on supply... they are two separate curves...

On a related note, there is no one easy solution. 

-People need to drive less

-Ethanol needs to be made out of more efficient sources

-People need to use solar energy, wind energy (other sustainable energy) etc. 

-We need to not ship water a couple thousand miles in petroleum based plastic bottles when our tap water is the same quality.

-We need to buy locally produced products in genaral to decrease shipping

-People need to drive more efficient cars and work closer to home

The point is there is no easy solution, best case for drilling is that it will put of the inevitable for future generations to deal with, which I guess is the Republican solution to all problems.  Give us our tax money back now and leave shitty roads and huge debt for our grandchildren.

As far as nuclear power, at some point something needs to be done with the waste.  Sure we may have plenty of storage for the foreseeable future, but at the rate we are going some foreign country is going to own the company responsible for storing the waste before long and that's just what we need China and Saudi Arabia (you know the place the people who really hate us are from) with tons of nuclear waste at their disposal within our borders...

Whatever, I'm sure you're right though, as long as we can keep them dirty Mexicans from sneaking in and cleaning our hotel rooms we'll be safe.

 You are making complete sense.  

What the keep drilling crowd is doing i using drugs to ease the pain in order to put off a necessary surgery.

It'll work I'm sure but all it will do is pass the buck onto our children.

 

not so new and slightly abused user:

Todzilla:

That my friends is how supply increases with conservatism.

 

Yeah, you are talking about decreasing demand which has 0 effect on supply... they are two separate curves...

 

Actually, we were talking about keeping the price low, thus conserving would cause the same result as increasing supply. 

Nevermind, no need to overcomplicate.