Enough is Enough
Oil is AGAIN at a record high. Why? Because there is a shortage? NO! Because our usage is up in the US? NO! Because Wall Street and oil tycoons- GW and family, Cheney and their buddies in Saudi Arabia, etc. want to keep making record profits regardless of the cost to American families.
So, what do we do? We help ourselves. We start with petitions. From there we can proceed to protests, etc. What do we petition? Solutions- Simple, quick, logical fixes. Are the think tanks, politicians and other powers that be in this country so dumb they can't think of anything? Not just no, but hell no. But no one has the guts or desire to stand up and take the hit for the good of the country. I'm watching people suffer and I am sick of it. There are things we can do and just like minimum wage, we need to make Washington bite the bullet and do them.
There comes a point when the needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few, or the one. I say this because there is one very obvious step that Congress could take to relieve the cost of fuel and help green gas omissions at the same time. It is a sure fire solution that could be done, legislated and put into effect very quickly and it would have an almost instant effect on the prices of nearly everything from bread to milk to gas and everything else. We are being painted into a smaller and smaller corner, we HAVE to do something.
The solution of which I speak? Pass legislation that requires all big corporations (Wal-mart, Kmart, Sears, JC Penney, Dollar Stores, etc, etc) to transport via train instead of semi-trucks.
A lot of truckers would be able to stay within their home states, near their families, and truck to and from the train depots and the source and the final destination. There would also be an increase in train related jobs. But, such legislation would help every family in this country- and the world itself. The drop in emissions of these semis alone should be an incredible amount and immediate. It would also save lives as it would mean less semi drivers pushing their limits trying to drive when they are too tired in order to make deadlines. But, above all of this, it would crash the demand for crude oil in the USA. Which would crash the price of gas and diesel. Which would greatly lower the price of everything you and I buy. Bread, milk, clothing, you name it. Part of the cost of everything we buy is affected by the price of gas/diesel because everything we buy has to be transported to our given areas.
This is more than a band-aide that would help for a while and then fall off and be back where we were. It is a permanent help. Many other things need to be done as well. But this is do-able. It could be done quickly and it would help immediately and long term.
All Americans need to think of things that will help. Write about them. Petition for their implementation. Our country is being run by the rich and big corporations. They want the price of gas to be high. That's how they are making record profits. But, the average American is slowly sinking into poverty. Just like increasing the minimum wage. Washington absolutely refused to do it for 10 years. They would sneak in in the middle of the night to vote pay raises for themselves, but not a penny for our people. Then, cities, counties and states started passing minimum wage increases and showed Washington we could do it without them. So, they caved in and passed minimum wage increases nationally. But, not until we forced them to do it.
It's time to make them do whatever has to be done to stop this insanity. There is no shortage of oil, gas or diesel. (They got caught a week or two ago hiding oil on ships in the gulf so they could say there was a "draw" or shortage to push the prices up. There is supposed to be an investigation about them manipulating the markets on oil, but I personally doubt anything will be done.) There are rich oil/energy tycoons who want to be richer oil/energy tycoons. And then there is the rest of us. Who do you support?
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 17
Sorry to be rude, but come on! Some of us have been figuring out ways to survive without using much gas for years - deal.
Honestly, I am so sick of hearing people make comments who obviously didn't read or were not capable of understanding what was said. Maybe you're related to GW somewhere in your heredity. I never once referred to the cost of filling up my gas tank. If you can't keep up with the conversation, keep your mouth shut because it shows how dumb you really are.
Good thought. Nuclear power is absolutely an alternative congress should be working on, correction should have been working on for years now. I would want to see a very high priority on safety issues, but that should not be a problem. Nuclear power has been around a long time and we've known we needed to move away from fossil fuel since the 70's to my personal knowledge and involvement.
To the person with the comment amount filling up you gas tank. Your really not that dumb are you. I've talked to numerous people who can't afford the gas to go to work, over the last month. It's not only that, we're actually paying for our enemies to kill our troops, and have enough money left over for a burger and a kidney dialysis machine(Bin Laden). It never ceases to amaze me what the Nazi Party, oh sorry the republican party, will do to take the focus off the issues.
EssDee: "Nuclear power is absolutely an alternative congress should be working on, correction should have been working on for years now."
The two of you should look into this a little further. Not only is nuclear not safe or clean, it is not economic. Read further....
Missing the Market Meltdown
"Capitalists have already scuttled Patrick Moore's claimed nuclear revival. New U.S. subsidies of about $13 billion per plant (roughly a plant's capital cost) haven't lured Wall Street to invest. Instead, the decentralized competitors to nuclear power that Moore derides are making more global electricity than nuclear plants are, and are growing 20 to 40 times faster."
"In 2007, decentralized renewables worldwide attracted $71 billion in private capital. Nuclear got zero. Why? Economics."
If that is your position, fine. But, instead of just saying what will NOT work, how about suggesting something that will. It's easy to say someone is wrong. But, it does nothing to help fix the problem.
Thanks for reminding me. Nuclear energy is a very expensive distraction from things that will work. Companies, such as Nanosolar and Nanogram, are making solar products that are already competitive with coal, and with mass production, will become much cheaper. Building factories, such as the Nanosolar production facilities in California and Germany, would be far less expensive than building the 200 nuclear energy plants in the U.S. alone.
If you object that solar cannot produce the amount of energy that nuclear can, think again. Large, central energy plants are not necessary with solar, since it can be distributed (which is safer, more reliable, and more secure). However, there are very large solar installations being built in Spain and Arizona, which will soon approach the amount of electricity produced by nuclear plants.
Of course, this is not to mention that wind energy is already competitive with coal. And despite the hyped objections to wind, it is actually more reliable than coal or nuclear. In regions where wind has crossed the "inexpense" threshold with coal, many businesses and residential customers have contracted for wind due to its reliability.
On the transportation front, I often refer to Amory Lovins',
Winning the Oil Endgame. Two major points from that book, I will make here. 1. Cars can be "lightweighted" using carbon composite materials that Boeing used in its new 787 airliner, which will double efficiency. 2. Enough wind energy exists in the two Dakota states alone to produce enough hydrogen to power all of the transportation needs in the U.S., given the "lightweighted" technology. BTW, "lightweighting" does not compromise performance or comfort.
Finally, you should know (if you don't already) that Honda and Toyota already have hydrogen fuel cell cars, and Honda is already leasing their model in California, where there are hydrogen stations.
These are just some of the things that will work, if we don't waste more time and money pursuing nuclear energy.
Sorry. Nothing personal was intended. BTW, I forgot to mention that Lovins always stresses conservation technology, which he calls "negawatts". A unit of energy conserved at the "end-use" location (your electrical outlet), because of efficiency losses in transmission, etc., equals ten units of energy that don't have to be produced. I urge you to spend a few moments listening to this guy. He has been an energy expert since the 1970s, and if we had taken his advice then, we wouldn't be in the mess(es) we are in today.
Thanks for coming back with some info. That's exactly what I was hoping for. I am not arguing the points of anyone's ideas. I think the more we, as citizens, post, petition, scream, protest, etc about doing SOMETHING NOW regarding energy efficiency, the more likely the Congress and/or Executive Branches are to listen. Look at minimum wage. It took individual cities, counties and states legislating raises in the minimum wage before washington would listen. When they knew the American public would do it locally anyway, then they jumped on board. More like grabbed the back of the bumper and got drug along, I guess.
My point is, people are eating Spam and feeding their kids Ramon noodles and have little or no healthcare. And it is because of the cost of a barrel of oil. Simple minded people like Stacie think gas is just put into gas tanks, I guess. But, everything the average American buys has it's price affected by the price of gas/diesel.
Again, Thanks to All for the ideas!! Please keep going. Post, Post, Post!!
(Too many people in this country like Stacie don't have any idea why their milk is $5 a gallon.)
My idea of transporting at least big corporation merchandise by train was an idea born from the desperate condition this country is in and the lack of time and money to produce change that would be effective. Transporting by train is already being done. We've had train tracks far longer than highways. Trains are like 20% the cost of transportation via semi-truck. Semi-trucks are BIG, BIG polluters, especially when you consider how many miles are driven by them. Truckers are needed. Will always be needed, but some could be doing local routes near home. Some will still do long distance for small companies, etc. But, the overall effect would be a huge drop in the demand for diesel almost IMMEDIATELY. Then, the price of EVERYTHING drops and we can afford to do solar and/or wind.
Take Care!!
Exactly right!!! Oil is at the core of every other issue. Foreign policy and mideast "resource wars", environment and public health, jobs and the economy, climate change and "natural" disasters - at the core of all these issues is the cost of a barrel of oil. I may be overly optimistic, but I think the general public is beginning to wake up to this.
EssDee: "I think the oil companies who raked in the record profits while the American public suffered should finance both. But, that's a tough battle."
That was, in essence, what democrats were trying to do with the energy bill that passed in January. Unfortunately, extensions of tax credits for renewables had to be dropped from the bill, because senate republicans filibustered the bill. Why did senate republicans filibuster the bill? Because tax incentives for renewables would have been paid for by repealing subsidies for oil/coal companies.
I cannot emphasize enough how important it is that republicans lose enough seats in November to take the filibuster out of their hands. If they don't, nothing meaningful on energy will happen - and the entrenched interests will continue to delay any progress.
EssDee: "...they have to be built, which takes time and money, which people are too broke too pay for or wait for because the price of energy is too high."
This process is already well underway. Actually, it is inevitable. The only issue is how fast it will happen. It can be delayed or sped along - the sooner, the better. Buildng these systems, though, is not just a liability for the American people and the economy. It can just as well be an economic plus, given the right public policies. Amory Lovins is constantly making the point that "business as usual" is the real economic liability, while conservation, micropower, and cogeneration represent substantial economic gains - returns on investments. It is as simple as understanding that energy independence means not exporting $hundreds-of-billions$ to foreign countries. That money gets invested back into our own infrastructure and economy.
EssDee: "My idea of transporting at least big corporation merchandise by train was an idea born from the desperate condition this country is in and the lack of time and money to produce change that would be effective."
I keep hearing rumors of a trucking strike. Truckers say they can bring this nation to a halt. But I wonder if the real reason truckers don't strike is because shippers would turn more to rail. That, as you say, is happening anyway. With oil getting increasingly expensive, many trucking companies are going out of business. Your idea may simply happen due to market pressures.
And that's because of the free market. If oil were cheaper but we still had our current dynamics (flat production but increasing demand) then we would have shortages.
"Because Wall Street and oil tycoons- GW and family, Cheney and their buddies in Saudi Arabia, etc. want to keep making record profits regardless of the cost to American families."
You should look a lot more at the oil situation over the past few years. It has little to do with profit-taking and much more to do with a fundamental problem: the world economy is based on exponential growth (with unlimited resources) yet this is a finite world with finite resources. Those two facts are colliding with one another. People want more and more oil as they expect their standard of living to increase and to put more people on the planet next year than this year. But at the same time, there is only so much oil. On top of that, only small portions of all oil in the world is actually exploitable due to technological and geological conditions.
"So, what do we do? We help ourselves."
You start off on a good note here but then...
"The solution of which I speak? Pass legislation that requires all big corporations (Wal-mart, Kmart, Sears, JC Penney, Dollar Stores, etc, etc) to transport via train instead of semi-trucks."
Oh man. Why do people always do that? They always seem to find someone or something else to blame! No. Don't look at the facts of over-consumption or limited supply. Nor look at anything each individual can do (such as carpooling, biking, mass transit, etc). Nah, blame it on the corporations.
Anyway, as to your plan, it would not have a massive effect upon the markets. 1) Large corporations such as these are highly efficient. That's what made them able to grab such a large share of their respective markets. Any gains made from transitions would be minimal as they already use relatively little diesel.
2) We have a decaying RR system in this country. No law could have an immediate or even short term solution to this problem let alone being able to put thousands of tons of payload on transit.
3) As large entities, they can not simply shift their transportation system over to another method "immediately" or "very quickly" as you proclaim. Instead, they'd have to work out an entire new logistics operation in order for it to work. One thing that's very important about businesses in America is that they rely on timely transportation. Any kink in that system and then they face shortages of items at their stores. They have a well-oiled machine right now that works fine for them to get their products on the shelfs in a timely manner. They would not nor could not be expected to make the transition without doing a proper analysis of that transition and doing multiple tests to make sure it would work long term
4) These are corporations. Corporations are after profit. I think you'd agree. Since you'd acknowledge that they are after profits and that this would save them money, then you can certainly assume that the would have already looked into this as an option to save more money and thus make more money. Since they haven't made the shift yet, it can be presumed that they did not find it to be economically feasible which would mean that prices could go UP if they were to make the change or that the RR system is too inadequate for their demands.
We use roughly 4 mpd of diesel in this country but TWICE that in gasoline demand. The large corporations in this article likely use less than 10% of that diesel consumption which means a savings of 400,000 bpd. A much more intelligent "solution" would be a law requiring all vehicles have 2 or more persons in the vehicle and that cars could only be driven in the absence of mass transit. No more school buses. No more HS parking lots. Laws requiring either mass transit, biking, walking, scooters, etc for short distances (≈ 5 miles). Those could save millions of barrels of oil consumption each day (and thus hundreds of millions of US dollars going overseas which would strengthen the US dollar and economy).
However, they are sacrifices and therefore, "un-American". They are the last thing that people think of when there is a problem. Instead, as your post demonstrates, blame is the first thing to occur.
Diversify, That's my advice. The American people are doing their part, consumer consumption is down 5.5%. I re-read the article and there is no criticism, but a new concept, worthy of not only consideration, but implementation. I also re-read your article, and it is filled with nothing new, but a regurgitation of talking points already endlessly used on Bloomberg CNBC....
Simple research yields interesting facts.
http://www.usnews.com/articles/business/economy/2008/02/01/exxons-profits-measuring-a-record-windfall.html
How are they earning record profits without somebody getting squeezed. Isn't it remarkable that even though demand for gasoline is down, their profits are continuing to increase. That's not how supply and demand works is it?
So your contention is that this would require a logistics change by business. That they would have to change long established transportation routes.. Blah Blah Blah
The facts are, business is having a lot of trouble passing cost through to the consumer, because the consumer is under stress. In addition your whole contention that the infrastructure would have to be built is complete BS. May I direct your attention to this page. Looks like the infrastructure exist.
http://www.ncbfaa.org/files/2008Conference/presentations/NCBFAAEM.ppt#359,32,Q U E S T I O N S
So your idea is to put folks on bicycles, and restrict travel. We've already discussed a 5.5% reduction. So you want to move the entire workforce from the burbs, back into the inner city. Let's face it a 20 mile bike ride doesn't make sense, or is that we should put people in trains, and coal in automobiles. I got lost somewhere in the flawed logic.
I think you make a poor spokesman for whoever your speaking for, because of the lack of sanity or logic for your arguments. I'm open to any idea that reduces the price of oil, including charges being brought against those that are manipulating the oil market during war time.
Yes that is supply and demand. Demand for petroleum is inelastic which means that an x% increase in price will be met with a % decrease in demand which is less than x. This is how oil/gas prices can go up 25-35% year-over-year while demand falls but 5.5%. This points the "blame" at the consumers. They are the ones that demand the oil at such amounts in spite of price increases. Without that inelastic demand, the profits wouldn't exist in a record state. However, since there is inelastic demand caused by the consumer, prices have continued and will continue to surge in order for demand destruction to occur so that supply can equal demand.
"So your contention is that this would require a logistics change by business. That they would have to change long established transportation routes.. Blah Blah Blah"
So you don't actually want to debate this points? You just want to wish them away just like you want to wish this problem away by passing it off to others? How typical. When one can't win a debate, he/she usually turns it into a shouting match or discards the presented information out of hand without any refutation.
" In addition your whole contention that the infrastructure would have to be built is complete BS. May I direct your attention to this page. Looks like the infrastructure exist.
http://www.ncbfaa.org/files/2008Conference/presentations/NCBFAAEM.ppt#359,32,Q U E S T I O N S"
That says nothing significant. It is a model for a single business. That's like pointing to Hess which has increasing production while failing to note the fact that oil production at large is stable and on the verge on decreasing.
The facts are the we are at capacity for freight. What EssDee proposes and what you seem to support (or at least defend) is that we shift even more of our trucking over to freight. But there's a problem: there's no more room for freight!
http://www.transportation1.org/tif1report/surface_02.html
A quote:
"
In 2003, AASHTO's Freight Rail Bottom Line Report found that the rail industry today is stable, productive and competitive, earning enough profit to operate, but not enough to replenish infrastructure quickly or fund modernization. After years of downsizing, the railroads face a capacity shortage because the growth in rail freight demand has now outstripped what they can carry. This is especially true for rail intermodal freight which has been growing at 4.6 percent per year, and is forecast to grow 213 percent by 2035. This growth, of course, is contingent on the ability of the railroads to finance adequate additional track capacity. Another challenge is removing height clearance obstructions that prevent double-stack service, such as along the I-95 Corridor."
See? We can barely keep our RR infrastructure from falling apart and modernizing it let alone transfer thousands of tons a day more over to it. That is what I was talking about. Our RR infrastructure, like our oil infrastructure, has suffered through decades of underinvestment and we've been caught with our pants around our ankles. We simply can't transfer more to it or ramp up capacity. You have to build new trains, new tracks, hire new crews, etc.
If you would note, I never disagreed with this idea. Only with her assertion that it could happen quickly and immediately. The facts stare at us in the face: we simply can't right now. There is simply no such thing as 101% efficiency. What this author proposes is not possible.
"Let's face it a 20 mile bike ride doesn't make sense, or is that we should put people in trains, and coal in automobiles."
Wow. How did you get me suggesting coal in automobiles out of what I wrote? I mean, that's something that Bush would laugh at. Wow. Go back to school and learn to read and learn basics about the world around us.
You really need to read what I wrote. You are completely mischaracterizing what I said. I proposed biking etc for SHORT distances and I even gave an indication of what I mean (≈ 5 miles). How you read 20 when it clearly says 5 is absolutely beyond me. For distances larger than that, I proposed carpooling, shuttles, mass transit, etc.
But like I said, what I'm proposing is "un-American" and thus people like you will disregard it as such or try to mischaracterize what I say (coal in automobiles, 20 mile bike commute). It's a disgrace that we have REAL solutions to these problems and nobody wants to actually do anything about it except blame others and make someone else sacrifice.
Here is the unvarnished truth; however, I suspect that you will read it and push it out of your brain and hope it's not the truth but it certainly is. We are in a major crisis. This is not a crisis of $4 gas but a crisis that will bring down this nation and the world if it's not dealt with properly. We've built a world on cheap energy and cheap energy is GONE. It will never return no matter how badly you wish it to. We're on the verge of oil production falling off of a cliff. No lawsuit or election will bring oil production back to the glory days of annual increases. We're going to have to buckle up and make sacrifices before a real energy crisis tears this nation asunder. Do not get caught in the middle or you'll lose more than just a few dollars at the pump.
You have been warned. What you do with that information is up to you. You can make wise choices and have a decent life ahead of you. Or you can continue on this current path which will lead to ever increasing prices of transportation, rising unemployment and gloomy economic outlooks which will eventually make the Great Depression seem like the good ol' days.