Senators Warn New EPA Rules Would Raise Gas Prices

[Shadow]

Senators from both sides of the aisle are warning that looming EPA regulations on gasoline could impose billions of dollars (http://www.debatepolicy.com/#) in additional costs on the industry and end up adding up to 25 cents to every gallon of gas.
The senators, in a letter this week to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson (http://www.foxnews.com/topics/politics/obama-administration/lisa-jackson.htm#r_src=ramp), urged the agency to back off the yet-to-be-released regulations. Though the EPA has not yet issued any proposal, they claimed the agency is planning to call for a new requirement to reduce the sulfur content in gasoline.


Citing the nearly $3.40-a-gallon average price of gas and the state of the economy, the senators said "now is not the time for new regulations that will raise the price of fuel even further."
They said it would be "expensive" for companies to meet the sulfur targets and cited a study that found it could add up to $17 billion in industry-wide, up-front expenses, in addition to another $13 billion in annual operating costs.
This could in turn add between 12 and 25 cents to an average gallon of gasoline "depending on the stringency of the proposed rule," they wrote.
"If the EPA does not proceed carefully with its regulations, the nationwide price of fuel could increase to the further detriment of consumers and businesses," the senators warned.


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/01/13/senators-warn-new-epa-rules-would-raise-gas-prices/#ixzz1jP3bIig7

[gabosaurus]

The price of gas is going to rise whether we adopt new rules or not. If you want to see what our air and environment would be like without stringent rules, go to Mexico City. My sister has been there a couple of times and says you can't even breathe at times.
I think we need stricter rules for gas emissions. And less dependency for foreign oil.

[Gunny]

The price of gas is going to rise whether we adopt new rules or not. If you want to see what our air and environment would be like without stringent rules, go to Mexico City. My sister has been there a couple of times and says you can't even breathe at times.
I think we need stricter rules for gas emissions. And less dependency for foreign oil.

You just had to come along on a Friday night and harsh every normal person's buzz, huh?

Go away.

[gabosaurus]

You just had to come along on a Friday night and harsh every normal person's buzz, huh?


Like you have ever been normal. Go watch porn and leave the rest of us alone.

[fj1200]

The price of gas is going to rise whether we adopt new rules or not. If you want to see what our air and environment would be like without stringent rules, go to Mexico City. My sister has been there a couple of times and says you can't even breathe at times.
I think we need stricter rules for gas emissions. And less dependency for foreign oil.

Who is suggesting that we roll back regulations to Mexico City levels?

[PostmodernProphet]

The price of gas is going to rise whether we adopt new rules or not. If you want to see what our air and environment would be like without stringent rules, go to Mexico City. My sister has been there a couple of times and says you can't even breathe at times.
I think we need stricter rules for gas emissions. And less dependency for foreign oil.

we currently do not have the rules they are talking about.....we currently do not share Mexico City's air quality.......thus, not imposing these laws at this point in time is NOT going to make our air smell like Mexico City......this is called logic.....when applied to facts it helps us reach decisions.........can you guess which decision we should reach in this situation.........

[ConHog]

The price of gas is going to rise whether we adopt new rules or not. If you want to see what our air and environment would be like without stringent rules, go to Mexico City. My sister has been there a couple of times and says you can't even breathe at times.
I think we need stricter rules for gas emissions. And less dependency for foreign oil.

Of course we need the EPA setting standards for cars, they are the chief reason cars today burn fuel approximately 50 times cleaner and more efficiently than they did just 30 years ago. But there has to be balance. Today's cars are ridiculously clean and efficient, imposing further standards on them will do NOTHING to help clean the air.

Mexico City's air is filthy for a variety of reasons, none of which include new car emissions.

[Shadow]

The price of gas is going to rise whether we adopt new rules or not. If you want to see what our air and environment would be like without stringent rules, go to Mexico City. My sister has been there a couple of times and says you can't even breathe at times.
I think we need stricter rules for gas emissions. And less dependency for foreign oil.

So..it's all the sulfur in the gas making the air unbreathable in Mexico City then?

[Gunny]

So..it's all the sulfur in the gas making the air unbreathable in Mexico City then?

I'm sure it's responsible for the myth of "man-made global warning".

[Shadow]

I'm sure it's responsible for the myth of "man-made global warning".


I'm sure. But, I do know that the air pollution in Mexico City has many different elements that contibute... like the fact that it sits so high above sea level where there's less oxygen...because of this... most of the air pollution is the result of the incomplete combustion of hydrocarbons. Incomplete combustion leads to the creation of soot. And unlike sulfur...soot is water repellant and can't be washed away with rain or other percipitation.

So...sulfur (which is one of the things they are trying to remove from fuel in the article in the OP) is not related to Mexico City's air quality. :)

[Dilloduck]

we gotta take them matches away from Mexican smokers

[Shadow]

we gotta take them matches away from Mexican smokers

Nope...sulfur is not the problem...weren't you paying attention? :slap:

[Dilloduck]

take away their matches anyway.

[ConHog]

I'm sure. But, I do know that the air pollution in Mexico City has many different elements that contibute... like the fact that it sits so high above sea level where there's less oxygen...because of this... most of the air pollution is the result of the incomplete combustion of hydrocarbons. Incomplete combustion leads to the creation of soot. And unlike sulfur...soot is water repellant and can't be washed away with rain or other percipitation.

So...sulfur (which is one of the things they are trying to remove from fuel in the article in the OP) is not related to Mexico City's air quality. :)

It's also in sort of a bowl, surrounded by mountains so the air pretty much just sits there.

But it is also true that they have zero environmental laws to try to even combat the situation.

[Shadow]

take away their matches anyway.


Well...okay...don't want them burning the house down or anything. :thumb:

[Dilloduck]

Then we need to take their soot away from them.

[Gunny]

Then we need to take their soot away from them.

You let YOUR Mexicans have matches? I'm seeing a class action lawsuit by James Sokolve on the horizon .....

"If you ever got burned by a match that can be connected to a Mexican, call 1-800-frivlous lawsuit NOW. You may be entitled to a cash award (after we get our cut, of course)."

[logroller]

I was watching a lectures on itunes academic from, iirc, a Yale professor, and he was talking about how gov't regulations lowering sulfur in fuel reduced the particule size of automotive sourced air pollution, but not the volume; what they found was, although the air appeared cleaner since the particle size was reduced, the amount of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) actually increased, since smaller particles have more surface area per unit volume. VOCs are associated with many, if not most of the long-term health effects from pollution. The lungs catch the larger particles, but not the smaller ones; so despite the appearance of cleaner, more breathable air, the health effects worsened. Reducing the amount of fuel consumed is the only way to reduce air pollution; there is no clean coal or clean diesel or clean gas engines. Raising the price of fuel reduces the consumption; environmental regs serve this purpose--rather inefficiently I might add. But eh, its govt right; no surprises there.

[Shadow]

I was watching a lectures on itunes academic from, iirc, a Yale professor, and he was talking about how gov't regulations lowering sulfur in fuel reduced the particule size of automotive sourced air pollution, but not the volume; what they found was, although the air appeared cleaner since the particle size was reduced, the amount of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) actually increased, since smaller particles have more surface area per unit volume. VOCs are associated with many, if not most of the long-term health effects from pollution. The lungs catch the larger particles, but not the smaller ones; so despite the appearance of cleaner, more breathable air, the health effects worsened. Reducing the amount of fuel consumed is the only way to reduce air pollution; there is no clean coal or clean diesel or clean gas engines. Raising the price of fuel reduces the consumption; environmental regs serve this purpose--rather inefficiently I might add. But eh, its govt right; no surprises there.


Exactly.

And in the case of Mexico City (since their air quality, and alleged lack of regulation was compaired to the US as a measuring stick)...the only regulations they felt would be effective to combat the problem (which was actually related to diesel fuel and altitude) was to ration the days folks were allowed to drive a car, from everyday to a couple times a week.

[Gunny]

Exactly.

And in the case of Mexico City (since their air quality, and alleged lack of regulation was compaired to the US as a measuring stick)...the only regulations they felt would be effective to combat the problem (which was actually related to diesel fuel and altitude) was to ration the days folks were allowed to drive a car, from everyday to a couple times a week.

I'm sure it's all our fault and O-blah-blah will apologize.

[Shadow]

I'm sure it's all our fault and O-blah-blah will apologize.

Well, of course. He will probably try to ration transportation next...and assign everyone what days they are allowed to drive on. I know a couple poster's on this board that would totally go along with that too. :thumb:

[Gunny]

Well, of course. He will probably try to ration transportation next...and assign everyone what days they are allowed to drive on. I know a couple poster's on this board that would totally go along with that too. :thumb:

Me too.

[ConHog]

Exactly.

And in the case of Mexico City (since their air quality, and alleged lack of regulation was compaired to the US as a measuring stick)...the only regulations they felt would be effective to combat the problem (which was actually related to diesel fuel and altitude) was to ration the days folks were allowed to drive a car, from everyday to a couple times a week.

There is no alleged lack of regulations in Mexico compared to the US, that is a fact, Mexico has next to nothing in the way of clean air regulations.

Now if you want to debate whether the difference in air quality is due to those differences, well I would say they are PARTIALLY to blame. But the fact is cars today are about as clean and efficient as technology is going to allow. I have no idea what more the EPA could regulate in terms of gas cleanliness.

[Shadow]

There is no alleged lack of regulations in Mexico compared to the US, that is a fact, Mexico has next to nothing in the way of clean air regulations.

Now if you want to debate whether the difference in air quality is due to those differences, well I would say they are PARTIALLY to blame. But the fact is cars today are about as clean and efficient as technology is going to allow. I have no idea what more the EPA could regulate in terms of gas cleanliness.

Who said I wanted to "debate" anything with you? I was responding to Logroller's comment about the only thing that will prevent pollution is a lack of consumption (which Mexico apparently already figured out...hense the transportation rationing). The "regulations" are just more big brother bullshit...and yet another venue for congress to bloviate over while they pretend they are actually doing anything that matters.

[ConHog]

Who said I wanted to "debate" anything with you? I was responding to Logroller's comment about the only thing that will prevent pollution is a lack of consumption (which Mexico apparently already figured out...hense the transportation rationing). The "regulations" are just more big brother bullshit...and yet another venue for congress to bloviate over while they pretend they are actually doing anything that matters.

I guess you misread b/c I didn't say you wanted to debate with ME, I just meant you COULD debate how effective the regulations have been.

Unless you are saying that NO regulations are needed, we don't have anything to debate about .

[logroller]

I guess you misread b/c I didn't say you wanted to debate with ME, I just meant you COULD debate how effective the regulations have been.

Unless you are saying that NO regulations are needed, we don't have anything to debate about .

It's a means to an end. Accepting we want cleaner air, how to go about it? Regulations do work, but only so far as the free market allows, then we need more. For example, coal fired power plants and factories were regulated-- and acid rain decreased, if not outright stopped. Success...but at what costs? Obviously the price of scrubbers is passed on to consumers, and they don't like this; shifting the demand for higher efficiency appliances-- energy star. Govt sees this and says, "oh that's great; now we need more regulations", computer standby reactive power this or that-- many things people just aren't aware of, nor care to be-- regulations satisfy the void of an uninformed/ unwilling public. Unfortunately, this promulgates this ignorance and people forget why they are to conserve, why 6mpg is bad, why you allow a wind turbine to slice and dice a few raptors, but refuse a drilling permit. Its progress, and people are resistant to change-- don't care how, I want it now!!! The key is finding a balance, but it requires people to accept some degree of delayed gratification, nothing is going to be immediate, and a few flounders are to be expected along the way, 'tis natural.

[gabosaurus]

I find it unbelievable that there are some who feel that the rights of businesses to make a profits trumps the right of people to have clean air, clean bodies of water and tighter regulations on food preparation.
There are many politicians that don't want to leave a large national debt to future generations, but they don't care if we leave a lesser quality standard of living.
If it is necessary, I am in favor of $5 per gallon gas, gas rationing and/or much stricter regulations on vehicle emissions and mpg standards.

[ConHog]

I find it unbelievable that there are some who feel that the rights of businesses to make a profits trumps the right of people to have clean air, clean bodies of water and tighter regulations on food preparation.
There are many politicians that don't want to leave a large national debt to future generations, but they don't care if we leave a lesser quality standard of living.
If it is necessary, I am in favor of $5 per gallon gas, gas rationing and/or much stricter regulations on vehicle emissions and mpg standards.

How clean and efficient do want.gas.engines to be?

Do you get that today's cars are magnitudes safer.
, cleaner, and more efficient than they were just 20 years ago. A.d that at some poi.t the government has to acknowledge that If people wanted tiny 80 HP microcars in quantity that car manufactures would be meeting those Wants?

I'm for clean air. But that does have to be be balanced against peoples freedom of choice. At least somewhat and don't you believe that if ford could build an F250 dually 4X4 that had 500 HP and got 50 MPG that they would so? That's a no brained for an evil capitalist to make

[gabosaurus]

I'm for clean air. But that does have to be be balanced against peoples freedom of choice.

There is a wonderful old song titled "You Can't Always Get What You Want." Because you don't always get what you, but you get what you need.

If everyone decided they wanted a huge mega truck that required huge amounts of gas and oil and run, while also discharging large amounts of toxic emissions, that would go against the chosen freedoms of many of us.
Such as unpolluted air and water. Like I said before, we need much stricter EPA standards. I don't want my grandkids to have to grow up wearing a gas mask.
Not to mention the fact that much of the millions of dollars we send to the Middle East for oil goes to support terrorism. What exactly do you think countries like Saudi Arabia, Iran and the other do with it? Don't forget that 15 of the 19 Sept. 11 hijackers were Saudi citizens. Their training and journeys abroad were financed by the Saudi government. But we didn't have to balls to call them out on it because they hold the oil card.
Where is your freedom of choice now?

[logroller]

There is a wonderful old song titled "You Can't Always Get What You Want." Because you don't always get what you, but you get what you need.

If everyone decided they wanted a huge mega truck that required huge amounts of gas and oil and run, while also discharging large amounts of toxic emissions, that would go against the chosen freedoms of many of us.
Such as unpolluted air and water. Like I said before, we need much stricter EPA standards. I don't want my grandkids to have to grow up wearing a gas mask.
Not to mention the fact that much of the millions of dollars we send to the Middle East for oil goes to support terrorism. What exactly do you think countries like Saudi Arabia, Iran and the other do with it? Don't forget that 15 of the 19 Sept. 11 hijackers were Saudi citizens. Their training and journeys abroad were financed by the Saudi government. But we didn't have to balls to call them out on it because they hold the oil card.
Where is your freedom of choice now?

I live north of you, in the Central Valley, and our air sucks. When the Clean Air Act (CAA) passed, we were exempted because of our geographic location, as most of the pollution comes from elsewhere, blown in from the north to the horseshoe of the valley, and it just sits. The exemption was granted with the understanding we would do all kinds of extra stuff to try and keep pollution down--but it still failed-- we got fined. Kicker is, we get fined and they add it to our car reg, despite some of the pollution coming from autos not registered here and just passing through. Agriculture is a huge culprit, so they had to water their roads to keep dust down; but water pumps pollute too and Sac River Delta doesn't want us to keep taking their water. LA doesn't have that problem, they steal it from the Owens River Valley. Speaking of LA, and another way we get pollution-- the LA Sanitation district. They bought land here and spread their,(read: your), treated biosludge. Residents here passed a proposition forbidding such activities, but LA sues and wins injunctions, so the operation continues.(link here (http://www.prwatch.org/news/2011/10/10923/los-angeles-and-kern-countys-epic-sewage-sludge-battle)) 'Tis the way of the world Gabby-- those with money have the power, and they get to shit on those with less.:fart:But I guess its been treated, as per regulations.:rolleyes:

[Thunderknuckles]

There is a wonderful old song titled "You Can't Always Get What You Want." Because you don't always get what you, but you get what you need.

If everyone decided they wanted a huge mega truck that required huge amounts of gas and oil and run, while also discharging large amounts of toxic emissions, that would go against the chosen freedoms of many of us.
Such as unpolluted air and water. Like I said before, we need much stricter EPA standards. I don't want my grandkids to have to grow up wearing a gas mask.
Not to mention the fact that much of the millions of dollars we send to the Middle East for oil goes to support terrorism. What exactly do you think countries like Saudi Arabia, Iran and the other do with it? Don't forget that 15 of the 19 Sept. 11 hijackers were Saudi citizens. Their training and journeys abroad were financed by the Saudi government. But we didn't have to balls to call them out on it because they hold the oil card.
Where is your freedom of choice now?
No on stricter EPA standards. Those guys go overboard as it is. The air is fine and getting better for us in So Cal. Mind you, I grew up in a time when the smog was so bad they closed schools down and kept the kids home for "health" reasons. That's all gone now and unlikely to return with standards as they are. There's always room for improvement and I'm for it but not during fragile economic times like today. People are hurting as it is and they don't need the cost of EVERYTHING going up due to higher fuel costs.

As for oil and the Middle East, why aren't we doing everything we can to open up energy sources here in North America? We're sitting on a shale oil reserve that rivals the current reserves of the Middle East and who is the primary road block? The EPA.

[Nukeman]

I find it unbelievable that there are some who feel that the rights of businesses to make a profits trumps the right of people to have clean air, clean bodies of water and tighter regulations on food preparation.
There are many politicians that don't want to leave a large national debt to future generations, but they don't care if we leave a lesser quality standard of living.
If it is necessary, I am in favor of $5 per gallon gas, gas rationing and/or much stricter regulations on vehicle emissions and mpg standards.You know thats fine for those of you that live in cities and have mass transit and close commutes. what about those of us who live in rural areas and our commute runs about 30 miles each way. You're telling me I have to pay higher gas because you live on top of one another and congest the hell out of things and drive in bumber to bumber traffic to go 3-4 miles to work instead of riding a bike. If Ilived that close i woudl ride EVERY day.

The problem with YOUR fix Gabs is it ONLY WORKS in cities not in a rural setting, you know that 85% of the country out there...... My air is great and I have NEVER experienced smog or the like.....

[ConHog]

No on stricter EPA standards. Those guys go overboard as it is. The air is fine and getting better for us in So Cal. Mind you, I grew up in a time when the smog was so bad they closed schools down and kept the kids home for "health" reasons. That's all gone now and unlikely to return with standards as they are. There's always room for improvement and I'm for it but not during fragile economic times like today. People are hurting as it is and they don't need the cost of EVERYTHING going up due to higher fuel costs.

As for oil and the Middle East, why aren't we doing everything we can to open up energy sources here in North America? We're sitting on a shale oil reserve that rivals the current reserves of the Middle East and who is the primary road block? The EPA.

I remember smog days at school in California.

Gabby fails to see that cars today are as efficient and clean as the internal combustion engine can be. It's not the cars, but rather how many cars there are.Hell, and even at that, most of the pollution isn't from cars anyway.

The deflection about where the oil comes from is exactly that, deflection. Has NOTHING to do with the subject of pollution.

[tyler84]

The price of gas is going to rise whether we adopt new rules or not. If you want to see what our air and environment would be like without stringent rules, go to Mexico City. My sister has been there a couple of times and says you can't even breathe at times.
I think we need stricter rules for gas emissions. And less dependency for foreign oil.

I totaly agree with that. Foreign oil is controlled by a cartell, therefore they will just raise the prices as long as there is demand for it. If you look at the development of the OPEC oil price (http://www.statista.com/statistics/810/opec-crude-oil-price-development-since-1960/) before 2008 you can exactly tell that it is only going one way. Therefore there is nothing we can do to change gas (oil) prices from going up.

Buy smaller cars, actually let american car companies design cars that use less fuel as well. And at some points maybe think about getting a few fast trains running again.

[fj1200]

I totaly agree with that. Foreign oil is controlled by a cartell, therefore they will just raise the prices as long as there is demand for it. If you look at the development of the OPEC oil price (http://www.statista.com/statistics/810/opec-crude-oil-price-development-since-1960/) before 2008 you can exactly tell that it is only going one way. Therefore there is nothing we can do to change gas (oil) prices from going up.

Buy smaller cars, actually let american car companies design cars that use less fuel as well. And at some points maybe think about getting a few fast trains running again.

Way to cherrypick your data. :facepalm99:

Is OPEC also responsible for virtually every other commodity rising prior to 2008?

[ConHog]

Way to cherrypick your data. :facepalm99:

Is OPEC also responsible for virtually every other commodity rising prior to 2008?

I could make the argument that they are.

Most products have to be shipped, right? What product is used to ship most nearly every other product on the planet? Oh that's right, oil.

Yes, I know it's a simple explanation, but it is also a true explanation.

[fj1200]

I could make the argument that they are.

Most products have to be shipped, right? What product is used to ship most nearly every other product on the planet? Oh that's right, oil.

Yes, I know it's a simple explanation, but it is also a true explanation.

Simple is usually wrong. Transportation costs are small for most products and the subject is commodity inflation anyway.

[ConHog]

Simple is usually wrong. Transportation costs are small for most products and the subject is commodity inflation anyway.

Transportation costs are small for most products? That's odd, my brother is a food wholesaler and to hear him tell it transportation is about 10% of the cost of a product, not exactly small.

[fj1200]

Transportation costs are small for most products? That's odd, my brother is a food wholesaler and to hear him tell it transportation is about 10% of the cost of a product, not exactly small.

Small enough, did you miss the part about commodities?

[ConHog]

Small enough, did you miss the part about commodities?

Commodities, like umm, wheat, orange juice, coffee, tea? That sort of thing?


And 10% may be small enough, but companies aren't just going to lose that 10%. That IS going to affect prices.

[fj1200]

Commodities, like umm, wheat, orange juice, coffee, tea? That sort of thing?


And 10% may be small enough, but companies aren't just going to lose that 10%. That IS going to affect prices.

Dude, try some math. If oil doubles in price and wheat doubles in price, explain how 10% (accepting your figure for the moment) of the transportation costs caused the entire doubling.

[ConHog]

Dude, try some math. If oil doubles in price and wheat doubles in price, explain how 10% (accepting your figure for the moment) of the transportation costs caused the entire doubling.

Who said it contributed entirely to it? Certainly not I.

[fj1200]

Who said it contributed entirely to it? Certainly not I.

No, of course not.


Is OPEC also responsible for virtually every other commodity rising prior to 2008?


I could make the argument that they are.

:rolleyes:

[ConHog]

No, of course not.





:rolleyes:

Nice try , but I do believe you're smart enough to realize that I meant partially to blame.

However, I realize this is the cheap sort of debate technique that you enjoy so from now on I will endeavor to be VERY specific when discussing any matter with you. Don't worry though , I still won't correct silly errors you might make...........

[logroller]

I totaly agree with that. Foreign oil is controlled by a cartell, therefore they will just raise the prices as long as there is demand for it. If you look at the development of the OPEC oil price (http://www.statista.com/statistics/810/opec-crude-oil-price-development-since-1960/) before 2008 you can exactly tell that it is only going one way. Therefore there is nothing we can do to change gas (oil) prices from going up.

Buy smaller cars, actually let american car companies design cars that use less fuel as well. And at some points maybe think about getting a few fast trains running again.

Through a system of production quotas OPEC maintains (albeit inflated) profit margins; but OPEC only provides about 40% of worldwide oil supply-- growing worldwide demand, most notably emerging markets like China, India and Brazil, is far and above the reason we see price rising across the board, not just oil. Demand for oil/energy is complex, and is manipulated through governmental regulation of financial/credit markets. Therefore, when financial markets crashed in 2008 as a result of inflated demand, backed by overzealous lending, you see price and demand shifts about about a recognized inflated dollar. Insert quantitative easing to the tune of trillions of dollars and you see the stagflation we have now. Little growth and uncertain results cause prices to stay high, as though the dollar is still valued as it was previously, but little growth because of the doubt the dollar actually has that value. But that's it for big bad govt.

What we can do is realize, and I can't stress how important this is, just how much influence emerging markets have on commodity prices; it is simply astounding over the last decade. Given the US has an insatiable desire for the cheap goods produced in these countries, they have reaped the bounty of our wealth and prosperity. I don't have a problem with this, for the free market dictates it to be so, but just make sure you have the information on the whole picture before blaming a cartel, when it is WE who buy the products from countries that care not who provides oil; or how many workers die; or how many people are displaced to accommodate the growth we fund.

I'm with ya on the trains, doubtful it'll happen. People are all for it until they realize they have to have trains running by.

[gabosaurus]

If the U.S. started drilling in Alaska and other wildlife preserves, it would add perhaps one percent of this country's energy needs.
What we REALLY need to do is stop exporting so much of our oil abroad. I am not sure of the exact number, but I believe we ship well over 50 percent of our oil production overseas because Big Oil can get higher prices from China and Japan, among others.
Cheaper gas prices would come not from relaxing EPA regulations, but from keeping more of the oil we produce.

[logroller]

If the U.S. started drilling in Alaska and other wildlife preserves, it would add perhaps one percent of this country's energy needs.
What we REALLY need to do is stop exporting so much of our oil abroad. I am not sure of the exact number, but I believe we ship well over 50 percent of our oil production overseas because Big Oil can get higher prices from China and Japan, among others.
Cheaper gas prices would come not from relaxing EPA regulations, but from keeping more of the oil we produce.

That doesn't follow.

[PostmodernProphet]

If the U.S. started drilling in Alaska and other wildlife preserves, it would add perhaps one percent of this country's energy needs.
What we REALLY need to do is stop exporting so much of our oil abroad. I am not sure of the exact number, but I believe we ship well over 50 percent of our oil production overseas because Big Oil can get higher prices from China and Japan, among others.
Cheaper gas prices would come not from relaxing EPA regulations, but from keeping more of the oil we produce.

given that we import much more crude than we export, your beliefs are obviously absurd......

[darin]

I find it unbelievable that there are some who feel that the rights of businesses to make a profits trumps the right of people to have clean air, clean bodies of water and tighter regulations on food preparation.

Those "rights" are codified where, exactly? Who awards those rights? Who defines 'clean'? Who defines 'goodness' in our food prep regulations?

Nobody has a 'right' to profit, jobs, clean air, clean water, or a certain standard of living. People have the (Gasp! And sorry ahead of time for the vulgarity) RESPONSIBILITY (!!) to themselves and their families to seek out such things - but success is not, nor should not be guaranteed.

[fj1200]

Those "rights" are codified where, exactly? Who awards those rights? Who defines 'clean'? Who defines 'goodness' in our food prep regulations?

Nobody has a 'right' to profit, jobs, clean air, clean water, or a certain standard of living. People have the (Gasp! And sorry ahead of time for the vulgarity) RESPONSIBILITY (!!) to themselves and their families to seek out such things - but success is not, nor should not be guaranteed.

Disagree with part of that. I have the natural right of life, liberty, and property. "Your" pollution may impinge on two of those if I am your neighbor.

[fj1200]

Nice try , but I do believe you're smart enough to realize that I meant partially to blame.

However, I realize this is the cheap sort of debate technique that you enjoy so from now on I will endeavor to be VERY specific when discussing any matter with you. Don't worry though , I still won't correct silly errors you might make...........

Oh brother, 5 posts later and you clarify? Methinks not.

And please correct "silly" errors when/if you come across them. The devil is in the details.

[trobinett]

Funny thread! :dance:

Gas will continue to go up in price until demand goes down, simple economics really.:slap:

[ConHog]

Disagree with part of that. I have the natural right of life, liberty, and property. "Your" pollution may impinge on two of those if I am your neighbor.

you don't have a natural right to property my friend. If that were true, there would be no renters in this country, everyone would own property. Just go on down and demand your rights.

life, liberty, and the PURSUIT of happiness , That is your natural rights. You have the right to pursue property. you don't have the right to property.

[fj1200]

you don't have a natural right to property my friend. If that were true, there would be no renters in this country, everyone would own property. Just go on down and demand your rights.

life, liberty, and the PURSUIT of happiness , That is your natural rights. You have the right to pursue property. you don't have the right to property.

The DoI is force of law now? How about the actual words of the constitution.


... nor be deprived (http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#DEPRIVE) of life, liberty, or property, without due process (http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_duep.html) of law;

Of course no one is granted property upon birth but property as a natural right (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_and_legal_rights) is well recognized, once you own property you should have the right to do with as you please as long as you don't violate the rights of others. Also, I can't imagine that you would downplay your "right to property" as it's your basis for arguing against the Civil Rights Act.

[logroller]

given that we import much more crude than we export, your beliefs are obviously absurd......

She's partially right; we do export Alaskan oil to Asia because its more profitable. She's wrong though, in that were we to not export that oil, the price would be lower. B/C those countries we sell to would be forced to buy more from the market elsewhere at higher prices, driving up the price of what we import. Interestingly, Iran imports refined gas, despite being an petroleum exporter. Economics isn't as simple in practice as it is in theory.

[fj1200]

She's partially right; we do export Alaskan oil to Asia because its more profitable. She's wrong though, in that were we to not export that oil, the price would be lower. B/C those countries we sell to would be forced to buy more from the market elsewhere at higher prices, driving up the price of what we import. Interestingly, Iran imports refined gas, despite being an petroleum exporter. Economics isn't as simple in practice as it is in theory.

Probably because it's cheaper to ship to Asia than transport it down to LA/TX where the refining can occur. I don't think the supply/demand curves would shift much if we didn't export that oil, the same amount is being bought/sold.

[ConHog]

The DoI is force of law now? How about the actual words of the constitution.



Of course no one is granted property upon birth but property as a natural right (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_and_legal_rights) is well recognized, once you own property you should have the right to do with as you please as long as you don't violate the rights of others. Also, I can't imagine that you would downplay your "right to property" as it's your basis for arguing against the Civil Rights Act.

You're the one who wishes to get all technical. YOU said you have a natural right to property. You do not. You Do have the right to not have your property taken or searched by the government without cause, however neither of those is the right to own the property in the first place.

[fj1200]

You're the one who wishes to get all technical. YOU said you have a natural right to property. You do not. You Do have the right to not have your property taken or searched by the government without cause, however neither of those is the right to own the property in the first place.

And I agreed with you on that point. :clap:

[logroller]

Probably because it's cheaper to ship to Asia than transport it down to LA/TX where the refining can occur. I don't think the supply/demand curves would shift much if we didn't export that oil, the same amount is being bought/sold.

Refining capacity/ cost (high regs) is certainly a determining factor. You're right, the supply curve wouldn't shift (if I said that-- oops), but its called a curve for a reason--it's non -linear. In that at $50 a barrel, a quantity is supplied is less than at $100/barrel, but not half as much. The price, of course is duly impacted by demand, which is relatively inelastic with respect to price; more greatly determined by economic and monetary factors: inflation, credit, gdp growth etc. keeping oil here vs export is of no more impact than drilling, for what matters most, in my humble opinion, is the attitude towards investment vs spending. Spending encourages more spending, and that includes drilling. The investment is in retained resources, not increased capacity. I know for fact that wells where i am aren't pumping anywhere near capacity, despite high prices. I can only assume this is an attempt to preserve the resource, ie the investment, in the anticipation of higher prices, no matter the combination of supply and demand. Admittedly the additional wells provide the ability to control domestic price spikes, but it doesn't lower the price in any long-term sense b/c worldwide demand is growing.