Let us all cheer for high oil prices, because it will fuel the creation of alternatives to oil, and thus help bring about the downfall of oil.
However, it will also spur extra drilling for oil and thus bring about a possible drop in oil prices in the future, which would make the Volt a less desirable vehicle for many people. Thus my theory that a minimum gas and diesel price is called for, to ensure oil can not become too cheap - and not die.
Yeah, in the early 80s during the peak of the oil crisis, Saudi Arabia flooded the market with oil to depress prices. Prices plummeted and all thought of using alternative sources of energy were thrown in the trash. While I don’t see oil prices coming down any time soon (if ever), I do agree that an oil floor should be put into place to keep oil prices from dropping below a certain point (maybe $2.50/gallon).
$2.50 a gallon vs. $0.60 a gallon to run the Volt will keep PHEV and future oil alternatives in a state of constant development and advancement and move the Western world away from oil slavery.
I can’t wait to see the updated design once the Aero has been worked out in the wind tunnel.
Mr. Lutz said that it will clearly be a Volt and that it will have much smoother lines. It just keeps getting better!
Thanks Lyle.
Dan D. Says:
November 24th, 2007 at 6:42 pm
If the minimum price on gas and diesel involved varying taxes so they are lower when the prices is high and higher when the price is low fine. If you want to do it any other way you’re asking for trouble.
Dan D. Says:
November 24th, 2007 at 6:46 pm
Of course doing that would reduce price sensitivity to oil which would cause a smaller increase in demand when low and smaller decrease when high. Apparently Europeans sensitivity to oil prices is quite low since crude is actually a small component in the price of gas for them.
Don Says:
November 24th, 2007 at 6:54 pm
Extra oil will, at least, be more expensive to get. It requires going deeper than before, or deep water exploration, or wringing it out of oil shale and sands. Oh it is there still, but the ability to keep up with increasing demand is slowing down, and the cost of doing so is going up.
That said remember that markets tend to re-equilibrate. EVs, especially extended range EVs (okay okay EREVs … but I’m not going to use that silly dash!) will take off … both here and, more importantly for the world, China (which is having its own problems with gas prices - http://economist.com/world/asia/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10184640 ). When they do then demand will decrease while the infrastructure to produce more supply will have already been invested in. If those efforts bear fruit then prices may drop until owning an EREV and an ICE vehicle cost the same over the life of ownership again. Unless, as suggested, it is taxed to keep the price higher. And that is unlikely to happen in America anyway.
Actually, I believe the Saudis flooded the market with oil at the request of president Regan, to help bankrupt the Soviet Union, because it’s much cheaper for the Saudis to extract their oil than it was for the Soviets. But I could be wrong on this.
I agree with Don that a minimum price for fuel is unlikely in America, but if we demand it of the politicians it might be possible. I’m afraid the averge Joe would never understand the strategy. However, I also think China and India will keep up their consumption so it just might not be necessary as long as the world economy keeps going well.
I’d agreee that a fluctuating tax is probably the best way to set a minimum price, otherwise corruption will eat up the price difference.
Drake, thanks for the link to the case for plug in hybrids! I’m going to add it to my Jihad website.
death to oil
Grizzly Says:
November 24th, 2007 at 7:04 pm
[quote comment="16129"]If the minimum price on gas and diesel involved varying taxes so they are lower when the prices is high and higher when the price is low fine. If you want to do it any other way you’re asking for trouble.[/quote]
CAFE shows no signs of repeal, so I’ve got to believe that it may ensure that the Volt is produced. Given the weight of GM’s vehicle distribution is in large SUV’s this is especially likely.
james Says:
November 24th, 2007 at 8:34 pm
now That is a very productive discussion!
and i like the fact that we can all agree to call the volt “electric”, as that is the primary source of power.
also, if the dictator of venezuala (sp) has his way, as a member of opec, oil is going to continue to climb.
however, even if oil falls to around 40 or 50 bucks a barrel, i believe that nanosolar solar painting panels will still make electricity cheaper than gas will be at that point. so the volt and other electric vehicles will have an advantage.
not to mention, the already mentioned facts, that electric vehicles are just plain easier and cheaper to maintain.
RB Says:
November 24th, 2007 at 10:00 pm
What is this video?
Scott H Says:
November 25th, 2007 at 12:25 am
So let me get this straight. Certain people on this site want to PURPOSELY inflate oil and gas prices to get electric vehicles on the road. Simply stunning. That’s got to be THE stupidist thing I’ve heard in a long time. People need relief from high energy prices, and you people WANT to keep them high. Do you people think congress would magicly lower the fuel taxes again when electric cars do hit the road? If you people believe that, I’ve got some lovely beachfront property in Arizona I’d love to sell you. Once taxes are raised, it’s like pulling teeth to lower them again. Artificially raising energy prices is not only anti-free market, it’s un-American. They do that crap in Europe. Look at their economy, double digit unemployment everywhere. If it gets above 5% here, people go ape.
The necessity for EV’s is here right now. They are coming, whether energy prices rise or fall.
Damn, I really hope you people weren’t serious about that stuff. If you were, I feel sorry for you. You need a big dose of reality. Remember this, a country NEVER taxed itself into prosperity. It has the opposite effect.
Jim I Says:
November 25th, 2007 at 1:38 am
Don #8:
There are a couple of holes in your argument that a lower price of oil will slow down or stop E-REV type vehicles:
1. Even though the new oil infrastructure may be in place in the future, if it is not profitable, the companies will shut them down. Oil at $50.00/barrel would not justify all the extra cost of obtaining and refining oil from shale, etc. Look back at how many wells were capped in this country when foreign oil prices dropped. No profit equals no production.
2. You assume that people WANT to drive gasoline engine based vehicles. I do not really think that is the case. It is just a simple fact that at this time, we have no other real mass market choices. If these new technologies are done right, people will abandon the “old” oil based vehicles as fast as they did the horse and buggy. Here is how I came to this opinion: The Ford Model T was introduced in 1908. The last commercially made horse and buggies were produced around 1920. It only took less than 15 years to completely change transportation around the world. I think it can be done again. I guess that makes me an optimist.
3. You also assume that E-REV and other new fuel types will always be higher priced. If history is any guide, once production ramps up, the economies of scale and competition will reduce prices. Many more models will be introduced, which will then make it available to most tastes and vehicle needs.
Fixed Minimum Oil Pricing By The Government:
I have to agree with Scott H #13 on this one. It sounds like a noble idea, but can you imagine any politician trying to sell it? He would be laughed out of Washington. I can just imagine his competitor’s TV ads - A young student not able to get to school, because the school district can not afford the gas prices for the bus, or the school board having to decide if a new math book can be justified, when the cost of heating oil is now so high. Or how about this one - The single mother almost able to get off Welfare, but now has fallen back into the system, because she can not afford to get to her job. One more - the middle class parents telling their child that he/she can not go to college, because the college fund went to the government in new fuel taxes………..
Makes you look at it a bit differently about it, don’t you think?
And lets not forget about the oil lobby. Do you really think for an instant they are just going to look the other way? I sure don’t.
The only way we are truly going to get our independence from fossil fuels is if we can make it a mandate - to kick our national pride back into gear and decide once and for all to figure it out and do it, just like we did with the NASA Space Program of the 1960’s. In fact, GM can have this idea for free. Start advertising these new fuel technologies as what is right for not only America, but for the world. And unlike the space program, everone gets to be a part of it when you drive your new E-REV. The time is now!
I humbly step down off the soapbox now………
Let the comments commence.
Don Says:
November 25th, 2007 at 9:32 am
Jim, thank you fo the comments.
1- I personally think it will be along way before oil is unprofitable. It’s just going to become less profitable. Also, once an industry has invested in infrastructure it is what is called a “sunk cost” - that money is gone. The incremental cost of production is much less and even if it failed to recoup the fixed sunk costs a company is better off producing more so long as it makes more than the incremental costs. Lastly many industries go a long time running year after year losses. Look at American auto manufacturing!
2- I assume that people are motivated by their bottom lines more than much else. If an ICE costs less to both buy and for total ownership lifetime then it is likely to sell more.
3- No, I assume that we are looking at two curves: one is the decrease in costs of EVs (all types) with improvements of technology and scales of production; the other is the cost of gas plus the cost of an ICE vehicle. Right now the first curve is decreasing while the second is on the rise. They will, I believe, soon cross and that will drive the demand of EVs substantially. I am just merely pointing out that these curves are not static entities. Oil is going up because the world is close to demanding more than can be supplied. That is being driven by the rapid rise in demand not by a decrease in supply. Supply just can’t keep up so well. That is a dynamic relationship. Decreasing demand substantially allows supply to be able to meet or exceed demand, ergo prices drop. Yup, at some point companies then have less motivation to invest more in finding harder to get out oil and supply drops in the next cycle. Prices rise again. EVs sell more. Rinse repeat.
4- Oh, I won’t argue for or against a higher gas tax. The emotional reaction by Scott illustrates why it has no chance of happening under any administration. So what do we do instead? We subsidize oil alternatives - tax credits for hybrids and hopefully bigger ones for “EREV”s, and for ethanol. Of course the taxes not paid there have to get into the coffers somewhere so other taxes stay high or go higher to make it up, but never mind that, that doesn’t make it into a TV spot. It allows people to believe that they are getting something for nothing and we like that concept. BTW, Scott, unemployment rate in Europe IS higher than in the US, but it is NOT “double digit everywhere.” Even Spain has dropped into the single digits. ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4640759.stm ) I highly doubt that the cause of Europe’s unemployment rate is their gas tax structure, however. The advantages of America go well beyond cheaper gas.
It does raise another issue. How much money is raised each year by gas taxes currently? What budget impact would dramatically decreased gas tax revenue have?
Mike W. Says:
November 25th, 2007 at 10:00 am
I really wouldn’t worry about any country flooding the world with oil to bring down prices. From what I understand, the IEA is predicting an oil crunch by 2015 and Chris Skrebowski of Petroleum Review agrees with that assessment in his Megaprojects review. He puts the year at 2012 when the dropoff occurs given the projects that are currently in the pipeline. In addition, please realize it takes a number of years between finding and developing a field for production. The amount of production for 2012 is pretty much baked in the cake at this point. Gasoline taxes or a minimum gas price won’t be needed. With a turnover of only 3-4% of the vehicle fleet per year, it would take awhile before EV/EREV/PHEV’s would cause oil prices to collapse.
Having said that, I really hope GM decides to go through with the Volt. The sooner, the better.
big one Says:
November 25th, 2007 at 10:01 am
so if we disregard the emotional issue of more (because we already have many) oil taxes, we can agree that higher oil prices cause greater competion from other, greener energies?
what has happened since the 70s oil embargo, is that every 10 years or so opec cuts the flow of oil and screams oil shortage, we’re running out.
they raise the price substantially, and when it hits a point where americans start screaming “rape” they increase production again, and let the price settle back down, but not to the original price that it was before they had decreased production.
if any of you remembers the 70s oil embargo, everyone was screaming, oh my god, the earth is running out of oil! and then when opec opened the gates back up, everyone forgot about it, and accepted the new higher price, because the new higher price was less than the highest price that had just occured.
the problem with the above scenario, is that everyone stops thinking of alternative energies because the oil price comes down a little. plus, the fact that alternative energies are once again no longer as cheap as oil, so oil wins (Big).
for some reason, opec has not let the price of oil fall back to a more reasonable price, and make no mistake, they could pump more oil to reduce the price. they are not that low on oil yet.
so, what scares me, and some others, is if opec drops the price of oil back to 40 or 50 bucks, then americans will once again become complacent and accept the newer higher (but not highest) oil price. and then once again, little effort is made toward renewable energies.
however, even if oil does fall back to 40/50 dollars, i believe that the new green technologies will still be able to compete, so maybe opec has finally shot itself in the foot. not to mention, as others have, that electric is simpler and cheaper to maintain. And mass production will drive these costs (of green technology) down even further.
as jihadi says “Death to oil”.
Jim I Says:
November 25th, 2007 at 10:08 am
[quote comment="16212"]It does raise another issue. How much money is raised each year by gas taxes currently? What budget impact would dramatically decreased gas tax revenue have?[/quote]
My guess is that we will be ending up with a lot more toll roads, or vehicle license plates will get really expensive……….
Dave B Says:
November 25th, 2007 at 10:08 am
Big one,
I agree completely. However, given today’s geopolitical situation as well as environmental situation, I think more Americans are willing to take a hit in the pocketbook and opt for electric cars. I’m willing. If you talk with someone who only makes decisions based on his or her wallet, remind them that we lose roughly two troops daily to weapons likely funded with oil. And yes, I believe that.
Ross Says:
November 25th, 2007 at 10:10 am
Jim:
I believe that you are correct when you suggest that the EV will replace the ICE very rapidly when the technology and economic curves cross.(Oil prices stay up. EV prices come down.) I do not believe that the majority of people are emotionally connected to ICE vehicles as such.
The fascinating thing about recent ICE car development is the designer’s emphasis on the reduction of NVH (noise, vibration, harshness.) One consequence of this is that the modern small quiet automatic venicle drives very much like EVs always have.
I predict that when the EV is ready it will replace the ICE far quicker than the Ford Model T replaced the horse drawn buggy.
james Says:
November 25th, 2007 at 10:17 am
ross 20, i believe you are correct, ev’s will replace all gas vehicles very quickly.
i know people who are holding their old cars, waiting for the new ev’s.
Don Says:
November 25th, 2007 at 10:29 am
People have referred to revenue generated by additional charges at the pump as a “gas tax.” This is a common misrepresentation. It is an Electric Vehicle Revenue Enhancer. To be referred to as an EV-REV-E (”Eev Revee”). Anyone who says otherwise is just showing their ignorance.
Estero Says:
November 25th, 2007 at 12:31 pm
Dave B #19 said:
“If you talk with someone who only makes decisions based on his or her wallet, remind them that we lose roughly two troops daily to weapons likely funded with oil. And yes, I believe that.”
Believe what you want. Perhaps you also believe in the Tooth Fairy, Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny. Believing something doesn’t make it so!
Estero Says:
November 25th, 2007 at 12:35 pm
Oops! Misread Dave B #19 message. I take back all I just said in #23!
Steven B Says:
November 25th, 2007 at 12:51 pm
Basic fact about taxes: Proper tax policy is designed where undesirable things are taxed. When done properly, the taxed item is then used less in the market place, and the government generates revenue which can be directed towards solving the problems which make the taxed item undesirable.
Basic fact about America: It is not “un-American” to introduce gas taxes as experienced in Europe. Rather what is un-American is using that term as if it is anything less than McCarthyist and expression of American fascism.
Basic fact about oil: Oil is a source a major pain for the American people. It is a source of conflict with other nations and a source of the mandate for American imperialism. It is also the primary revenue source for al-Qaeda (our prime enemy these days), and a major source of pollution, and dependence on it is making our nation weaker and poorer by the day.
We need to get off of oil. We also need to do whatever it takes to do so. Trying to essentially steal it from the Middle East (Iraq) is costing us far more than replacing it with electricity will. Promoting, passively or actively, a continued dependence on it is traitorous. Yeah, I actually used the word. And making every effort feasible to get off it, whether for profit or not, is patriotic.
Scott H Says:
November 25th, 2007 at 1:27 pm
True, we need to get off of oil, but NOT by punishing the populace with high gas taxes. You people just don’t get it.
We need to get off of oil by good ole American ingenuity and get these freakin’ EV’s on the road.
By the way, I never said Europe had high unemployment solely because of high fuel prices. They have many more problems than that. Too many to list here, anyway.
Another thing, extremely high taxes ARE un-American. Period, nuff said.
law Says:
November 25th, 2007 at 1:33 pm
I think we are getting to the point where oil independence and renewable energy is a conservative and liberal issue. My parents are loyal conservatives but they plan to switch over to an E-REV or EV as soon as something good comes out.
We want the critical mass in this way of thinking to occur when a product is already out, purhaps in 2011, which could drive the change over. We don’t want the interest in alternative energy to climax before that.
Scott H Says:
November 25th, 2007 at 1:39 pm
To Jim #14:
Thanks for the backup, chief. I read your comments all the time and usually agree with you too. Great minds think alike.
pstoller78 Says:
November 25th, 2007 at 1:54 pm
“Another thing, extremely high taxes ARE un-American. Period, nuff said.”
Your debate skills are truely amazing.
Statik Says:
November 25th, 2007 at 2:13 pm
I just wanted to come at this from a different angle, because I am a trader by nature.
This ‘oil spike’ is very much unlike the 70s. It has nothing to do (or very little) with the commodity itself. It has to do with the currency it trades in.
The average price per barrel in 2000, was around $33.00. The US dollar index was around 120 (The US dollar index provides a general valuation of the US dollar internationally).
2000 $33.00/brl 120.00 US$ index
2007 $98.18/brl 75.00 US$ index
So just adjusting for the weak dollar, oil price in ‘real monetary value’ is $61.36.
Allowing for simple inflation on the 2000 average of $33.00 would make it worth about $43.00 today.
$61.36 is still a fair amount over it’s adjusted $43.00 2000 value. However, because oil is a speculative commodity, trading in futures, at least half of this remaining surge can surely be attributed to the fact that the value of dollar so preceptiously this year.
If your in another country do you want to sell something in America dollars and get paid for it sometime down the road? Who knows what it will be worth.
Americans need things like the electric car because quite simply it can’t afford to just keep shelling out more and more for the resources of other countries.
My proposal for a minimum gas and diesel price is based on an idea of setting it at the current prices. Maybe a bit lower. Not raising gas prices like somebody accused me of in this thread.
However, I also expect extra oil supply might appear, possibly in a greater amount than the extra demand. Thus prices could fall. Especially if the dollar regains its value. Even if this does not happen, if everybody bought electric vehicles, demand for oil would greatly fall, thus its price would fall, and oil would become a viable alternative to electric cars. This can NOT be allowed to happen.
Thus, setting a minimum price at the current market values will ensure oil can not fight back against alternatives and/or a decrease in demand.
Death to oil, by any practical means necessary, even if it means acting like socialists.
Jimmy Says:
November 25th, 2007 at 5:15 pm
Good point Statik.
We currently have an 800 billion annual trade deficit. About 250 billion is due to is oil. Part of it is imported cars. 230 billion of it is with China who currently import no cars into the US. A lot of our manufacturing base has been sent to China. Why? Because labor is cheaper. If China allowed the yuan to trade on the open market it would be about 30% to 50% stronger vs the US dollar …making their labor not as cheap. They minipulate the value of the yuan vs the dollar buy taking the money we pay them for goods and investing in US Treasurys. How can we fix this situation …buy “made in USA” products and get off of oil.
RB Says:
November 25th, 2007 at 7:03 pm
Does anyone know what the video is, that is shown for this item?
james Says:
November 25th, 2007 at 8:46 pm
statik 30, i’m not certain of your figures, you adjust for the value of the dollar and then adjust again for the precipitousness of the dollar for another 50%, i think the 50% adjustment is rather high.
also, the 10 year cycle of opec tightening the flow of oil until it gets the price that it wants and then opening the spigots again has happened once a decade since the 70s, not just in the 70s.
i agree that the fall of the dollar has made imports cheaper including oil, but, if i remember correctly, gas at the pump started climbing 2 (?) years ago, and oil climbed from $30 (?) to $50 or $60 a barrel before the decline of the dollar, and then has soared even further because of the dollar.
however, i believe that if you look at the flow of oil since the 70s, you will see a similar pattern of once per decade, oil production/supply from opec being cut, and then when the price they are looking for has been passed, they open the spigots again.
my figures above are not precise, as i am do not have time to follow the flow of oil for the last 35 years, but i believe that they are fairly close to what has been happening over that time period.
however, i am glad that most on here can agree that the sooner we get off of the oil habit, the better it will be for america!
death to oil! god bless the chevy volt, god bless nano solar, and God Bless America!
Great discussion here, but again I have to agree with Anti-Oil Jihadi. The OPEC nations will not just sit back and allow their control over the world to be taken away. They enjoy having oil be a requirment for a successful economy. They also enjoy the 3/4 of a trillion (with a ‘t’) dollars that they sap from the world economy each year.
OPEC is a cartel. One of the main goals of a cartel is price-fixing. Price-fixing is not something that belongs in a free market. This cartel needs to be crushed NOW. Too much is at stake.
Once E-REVs and EVs become widely available, they will do everything within their power to depress the price of oil and destroy interest in these new technologies. If the price of gasoline lowered to $1.50/gallon today, demand for the Volt would disappear. We can not allow this to happen.
If keeping gasoline above $2.50/gallon through taxation is required, then so be it. How about we send the revenue generated by the tax to that single mother or poor college student to buy the Volt more cheaply (read: tax credit). Is that un-American?
Death to oil.
Tagamet Says:
November 25th, 2007 at 9:48 pm
Drake:
Yes, artificially inflating the price of gas IS unAmerican. The ends, though noble, do not justify the means.
Personally, I think a LOT of people would still buy a Volf even if the price of gas (manipulated as always by the Cartel) drops. I’d love to shed the shackles of oil and just the THOUGHT of never again going to a gas station really floats my boat.
Tagament - while you sound like a very valiant person that would be willing to voluntarily pay higher transportation costs in order to do your part to free us from oil, the average person would probably not.
The average person is driven by economic factors. If two similar items are priced differently, they will go for the less expensive of the two. It may be illogical, in this case, but it is very human.
People continue to smoke, consume massive amounts of corn syrup, and not exercise even though it will eventually kill them. Humans are far from perfect and money talks.
I wish there were more people in this world like you, but unfortunately there are not.
Tagamet Says:
November 25th, 2007 at 10:53 pm
Drake:
Thanks for the kind words. I like to think that I know a wee bit about the human condition in that I’ve been a “shrink” for the last 35 years. I may well be Polyanish, but I’ve time and time again seen people react in very noble ways when they recognize a moral imperative. Granted, we are most often driven by relatively shallow “wallet” issues, but the time seems ripe for our country to wake up and free ourselves. Please don’t take that to mean that I believe it’s the governments responsibility (or RIGHT) to mandate what consitutes “the right choice”. Whatever morality is, it’s not to be legislated. Look at prohibition. I know, people don’t always (or even often) act in a way that’s in their best interest. ESPECIALLY when the consequences are removed in time from the consequences (e.g. smoking. overeating, etc) But I’d like to think that the country has finally felt the pain at the pump to the point where we are actually, to borrow a phrase, “mad as hell and not going to take it anymore”. We’re at LEAST nearing that tipping point or critical mass where enough of us can make a difference supporting technology that IS in our collective best interest. That’s not something that can or should be legislated.
Whew, sorry for the rant (lol)
Jeff Says:
November 25th, 2007 at 10:56 pm
Raise gasoline taxes and lower other taxes. The last I heard the oil companies were making record profits. I know the President won’t sign-off on that, but it is the right thing to do.
I’m glad GM gave up on trying to put a gasoline reformer in their fuelcell cars. I’d like to hear more from Chairman Wagonner(misspelled I know) on all this.
Dave G Says:
November 25th, 2007 at 11:09 pm
Shall I jump into this mosh pit?
As I understand it, the current oil and gas taxes are not enough to pay for maintaining our roads and bridges. In other words, we have to use income taxes to maintain our infrastructure. This is actually a form of a oil subsidy.
I don’t think that’s right, especially when we are borrowing trillions from China. I think we sould eliminate all oil and gas subsidies, and this would probably lead to an increase in the gas tax to pay for our roads. But as Ronald Regan once said “It’s not a tax, it’s a user fee”.
Butters Says:
November 25th, 2007 at 11:43 pm
What? Americans pay a HUGE tax on gasoline. The only problem is that it’s not levied in a way that reduces consumption. We pay a hidden tax through our national defense appropriations, military aid to prop up Saudi Arabia’s corrupt monarchy, and corporate welfare subsidies for oil barons.
Of course, we don’t even pay for much of this, instead putting it on the national charge card for our children and grandchildren to pay off later. And that’s not even factoring in the externalized costs of gasoline including the negative impact on the environment, our national security, and the integrity of our democratic discourse.
We pay a lot more for gasoline than we think. We pay with our federal income taxes, our economic sustainability, and our societal sustainability. But we don’t see it at the pump, so we continue to consume. This is the paradox of the free market, a self-contradictory idea that doesn’t work because it can’t happen.
The goal of the corporation in a so-called free market is to externalize as much as possible in order to provide the best superficial value. Wal-Mart is the ultimate example of how Americans trade their future for a 72-cent pair of tube socks. Pitch us an idea to squash the American Dream in favor of cheaper gasoline, and we’re on board.
If the not-so-free market won’t make us pay the actual price of gasoline, then some larger force needs to make sure that we value our purchasing decisions appropriately, and that’s where the government has to step in. It’s not right that gasoline is cheaper than milk. It doesn’t make sense from a supply standpoint, and it certainly doesn’t make sense from the demand side.
Petroleum is extremely valuable, finite in supply, and causes side-effects that are expensive to address. Gasoline should cost at least $10 per gallon. I’m not excited by the prospect of $10 gas, but we have to face up to the reality of the situation. By not paying now, we’re screwing over our children and grandchildren, and we’re threatening the long-term survival of the human species.
Free societies abhor the outright banning of products, except in extreme cases (e.g. methamphetamines). The thing about taxes is that in a free society, they are one of the only effective ways to steer the public away from things that are severely detrimental to that society.
Without higher taxes on tobacco products, for example, tens of thousands more would die each year from tobacco-related illnesses. For this reason, I believe few would prefer all taxes be removed from tobacco products. Why shouldn’t the same be true for gasoline?
Would you be willing to accept a $2.50/gallon floor be placed on gasoline if it meant that you would receive a $15,000 tax credit for buying an EREV vehicle (resulting in the total cost of your Volt being only $15,000)? I would.
We are not speaking of taxes in the old-fashioned sense of taxing to gain revenue for more government programs. We are only looking at ideas to steer the public in a direction that is good for them, without implementing policies that would be more suited to a dictatorship.
Tagamet Says:
November 26th, 2007 at 12:07 am
Butters: If I understand your post, you’re saying that the government which has so thouroughly screwed things up, should be relied upon to solve this mess? I’m obviously missing something (not unusual).
Personally, I’d like the government to pick up the garbage and protect the country’s borders. MAYBE throw in some bucks to sponsor technology R&D. Anything else amounts to excuses for redistrubution of wealth (which is already at outrageous levels). Over and over I see people in this thread positing that government intervention is somehow the solution. I’m sorry, but exactly which gov’t program can we point to that has actually HELPED. The CCC programs back in the depression did some good, and we DID get to the moon and back. I just don’t see the history that says “When there’s a major national problem, the Gov’T will efficiently jump right in, fix the problem in a cost effective manner and THEN GET OUT.
Somebody, ANYBODY,please help me understand the rationale that supports the “we’re from the Govt and we’re here to help” fantasy.
Don Says:
November 26th, 2007 at 12:17 am
Let us just assume for the sake of discussion that the most effective way, perhaps the only way, to get America weaned off of its dependency on foreign oil was to raise gas taxes such that alternatives (such as, but not limited to EREVs) were markedly incentivized. Of course the revenue generated by these “user fees” would also underwrite continued and substantial tax credits to the purchase of new vehicles. Hypothetically is al I’m saying.
Would using that tool to get us weaned off of our dependency on despotic regiemes in the ME be unpatriotic or un-American or very patriotic and freedom loving? How about once most of the new cheap oil is coming from Russia*?
Excuse my crudeness, and I am very motivated by global climate changes too, but we cannot let the Arab world and Russia too (!?!) have us by the gonads. IF, and yes that’s a big if, battery technology price decreases are outpaced by (transient) drops in oil costs, then economic incentives to keep weaning us off of oil need to be created. A clear cut “tax increase” on gas would be a hard sell, maybe an impossible sell, but any way you cut it,
you pay. If you give up tax revenue with tax credits and rebates to help sell them you have to make it up somewhere else. The theft from Peter may end up being more of an embezzelment that never gets clearly spelled out, but Paul doesn’t get it without it coming from somewhere else folks.
Me? I’d go with a straight forward carbon tax including on gas usage. Let the market come up with the best answer from there. But I’d never get elected.
Don Says:
November 26th, 2007 at 12:24 am
And I take back my EV-REVE name. How about a User Fee Revenue Enhancer (U-FRE .. pronounced “You Free!” That we can sell! “It’s here so you can be free of foreign oil …. You. Free!”)
james Says:
November 26th, 2007 at 12:28 am
i don’t remember the exact time line, but sometime within the past couple of years, gas hit 3 to 3.50 at the pump. people were bitching. then, the spigots were opened (for a while) and the price was back to, i think, 2.50, and everyone was greatly relieved that gas was finally cheap. even though the price at the pump before that was what 1.50 or so?
point is once gas falls below a certain point, probably 2.95 at this point, everyone forgets buying green techs, and goes back to the gas pump.
this really isn’t an evil thing, it’s just that most are trying to work, raise a family, etc., they just don’t have time (or at least think they don’t) to screw around with green tech stuff, unless there is sufficient dollar pressure to persuade them to.
i am not advocating a tax, i’m with tagamet on that, but i do hope, that somehow or another, the price at the pump does not fall below 3 bucks, or at least doesn’t stay there for long.
if the price stays high long enough, then more people will go green, and once the green tech kicks in, it will be impossible for opec to stop it. since, as green tech progresses, it Will get Much cheaper.
death to oil, god bless the volt, god bless nano solar and God Bless America!
Butters Says:
November 26th, 2007 at 12:34 am
Oh, and more on topic, I can definitely see how the Volt could do better in the wind tunnel if turned backwards. It combines a blunt front-end with a flat hood. You can only have one of these elements and retain good aerodynamics.
If the Volt wants to have a profile that dives down just ahead of the front wheel wells, then the hood and windshield need to form a smoother curve from the canopy to the front wheels (e.g. 2007 Civic). If it wants to have a long and flat hood, then the profile needs to be more wedge-shaped at the leading edge (e.g. Corvette).
To the air, the current Volt body looks rather like a dwarf SUV. It looks a lot more like a Civic from the back.
james Says:
November 26th, 2007 at 12:37 am
don 45, “Me? I’d go with a straight forward carbon tax including on gas usage. Let the market come up with the best answer from there. But I’d never get elected.”
don, good point, i might even vote for something like that…but i’ve gotta admit that you are right that you will probably not get elected on that platform.
however, it is an interesting idea to help us cut off our oil dependency.
Scott H Says:
November 26th, 2007 at 1:05 am
To Tagamet and Jim:
We’re all alone brothers. Now they’re suggesting $10/gal and even a freakin’ carbon tax now! That’s it, I’m only talking with you guys from now on. They’ve got us boxed in, and they’re exhausting my energy (pun intended!). Later.
Tagamet Says:
November 26th, 2007 at 1:15 am
Drake 43 your suggestion that taxes that penalize behaviors rhat are destructive to the individual or to society as a whole e.g. smoking, at first blush sound reasonable. The HUGE deal breaker there is “Just WHO within the government do you trust to make those judgement calls. Let’s say I’ll decide for you and you decide for me. Ok, you don”t smoke, but you are obviously a bit over weight. $5./pound overwieght/month seems about right (with the money going to the gym and heart associatiion. Weigh ins the fisrt of every month. My family has a horrible history of heart attacks so every male dies by age 55 (5 uncles, my sister, and my father). Obviously, my cholesterol needs to be monitored monthly and I’ll be fined, er, I mean , er assessed $3/point over the recommended cholesterol total and ratio o HDH and LDL. I think you see where is going. The WHO decides what’s in our best interst should be US. Not an inefficient, bloated, and often flat out WRONG government. There”s one thing I agree on with your’s and other “govt is the fix” posts is that you admit that it’s not an electable platform (I think for good reasons)
PS Knowing that I shouldn’t carry high cholesterol, I’ve kept it very low - just like the govt would have liked. Now I’m the very first person in my entire family who has lived long enough to get cancer.
Scott H Says:
November 26th, 2007 at 1:23 am
Ditto.
“I don’t believe in a government that protects us from ourselves.”
Ronald Reagan
james Says:
November 26th, 2007 at 1:27 am
tagamet 51, there is a difference between your points about smoking and being fat, and oil. the first two are personal, while the oil thing is definitely a national problem.
i am the last one to advocate taxes, but i am just considering the possiblity that in this case it may be an option.
we are at war (not with iraq, but with al qaudi (sp.), and national steps may be needed to cut this oil problem off.
Jim I Says:
November 26th, 2007 at 1:49 am
Taxes to artifically inflate the cost of oil or to keep it at some arbitrary level just won’t work. Even if they could somehow pass such legislation, our elected officals will just hand it back to the oil companies as subsidies for their “lost revenue”, even though most people with any common sense would think that to be ridiculous. But how much pork is in the federal budget??? And why can’t they pass a mandated balanced budget act??? Becuase they don’t really care what is going on in the world of average working people.
james Says:
November 26th, 2007 at 4:10 am
higher gas prices, no matter what the cause, a carbon tax, or opec cutting off the spigots, will keep the green tech thing moving. lower gas prices will cut it’s throat.
except hopefully in the case of nano solar and other greens that are actually cheaper than gas is at 2.50 to 3 bucks a gallon.
scott h 50, exactly who are “they” that you qoute as wanting ten dollars at the pump?
reading back through, i only see one person mentioning that, and i believe his point is that at $10 a gallon, EveryOne will want an
E-Rev electric volt.
and please don’t quote me as saying i want $10 gas, i’m referring to others comments…
This just seems like that video where someone asks to an American to point France on the map and he points to Australia!!!! In Europe we tend to look to the overall, not only to our pockets or to our backyard… yes, we drive smaller cars… yes, we pay more for gas… but we are not responsible for 25% of all emissions of CO2.
I would like to see the Volt with a solar panel to extend its mileage… I would pay more for it
Tagamet Says:
November 26th, 2007 at 10:39 am
“there is a difference between your points about smoking and being fat, and oil. the first two are personal, while the oil thing is definitely a national problem.”
Lung cancer and obesity ARE national problems and are also symptoms of personal choice. People just don’t link filling up at the pump with putting $ in some very unsavory (read lethal) people. Artificially inflating the price will just direct their anger at politicians (who can be just as unsavory)
pstoller78 Says:
November 26th, 2007 at 11:00 am
For those on this board who feel taxation is not the answer to keeping alt fuels viable in the case of reduced oil prices, how would you ensure that this technology does not get dropped in that unlikely event.
I do not want to pay any more taxes than necessary, but I also do not want to see this promising technology abandoned again.
Tagamet Says:
November 26th, 2007 at 11:30 am
“there is a difference between your points about smoking and being fat, and oil. the first two are personal, while the oil thing is definitely a national problem.”
Other than gov’t R&D funding, personally, I don’t see much of a gov’t role. Capitalists (GASP) are waking up to the fact that going Green = profits AND good PR.
GM’s transparency in the development of the Volt is a great example. I’d hope that even if the price of gas drops, GMs commitment almost HAS to continue (especially after the EV-1 debacle)
Once electric vehicles get a toe-hold, I’ll be driving (silently) through gas stations waving at people filling up their cars. Even if the gas is “more reasonablly priced”, that’s still gotta PINCH
Tagamet Says:
November 26th, 2007 at 11:34 am
Evil grin
Jim I Says:
November 26th, 2007 at 11:39 am
pstoller78:
There seems to be a general concensus that the price for oil is going to drop back down. Where is the proof that this is going to happen? I just don’t see it. The demand in the rest of the world is rising rapidly, so where is the justification for OPEC do the USA a favor? And don’t forget that the prices we pay are already artifically lower that what is being paid around the world. There are posters here from other countries that say they are already paying $6.00+ per gallon.
The price for gasoline has already hit the tipping point. People are looking for alternatives. At this point in time, I am onboard for the new technologies, unless the price of gasoline went back below $1.00 per gallon. Do any of you see that happenning? I sure don’t……….
My personal opinion is that OPEC sees the writing on the wall, and they are just going to squeeze every last penney they can.
And lets not forget that oil is used in all kinds of other products, so it is not like we will be shutting down the wells and refineries. Hopefully, just the gas stations………
So it is a waste of time to be talking about increasing taxes. Lets not give the politicians any more ideas for “revenue enhancements”.
I have always believed that I have a better idea on where to spend my money, than some government official telling me!
Scott H Says:
November 26th, 2007 at 12:29 pm
James:
Nobody’s quoting you, chief. Relax, I’m doing my best to ignore you.
Scott H Says:
November 26th, 2007 at 12:43 pm
Tagamet:
I liked your little joke on #58. Sadly these guys don’t like free market capitalism. They want TAX, TAX, TAX, GOVERNMENT, GOVERNMENT, GOVERNMENT!
Sad.
james Says:
November 26th, 2007 at 12:48 pm
scott h. 61; “To Tagamet and Jim: We’re all alone brothers. Now they’re suggesting $10/gal and even a freakin’ carbon tax now! That’s it, I’m only talking with you guys from now on. They’ve got us boxed in, and they’re exhausting my energy (pun intended!). Later.”
scott, relax yourself, you’re above statement states that anyone on the board, other than yourself and two others, is suggesting a $10 pump price.
and please ignore me all you like, it’s you’re right.
but quoting reagan, whom i voted for twice, to justify your inability to think openly, well that’s just silly.
what do you think is paying the bill in iraq? taxes or the tooth fairy, chief? we are at war with alquadi, which is depenedent on Oil Dollars, so a tax may be necessary to help cut us off from oil and help defeat these a*sholes.
i’ve stated it several times, i, of all people abhor big government and taxes, but in this case i am open to any suggestions that may kill oil and alquadi.
i now give you the super power to iggy me chief, so please feel free to do so from this point on.
Tagamet Says:
November 26th, 2007 at 12:53 pm
Ohmmmmmmmm (pun intended)
james Says:
November 26th, 2007 at 12:54 pm
58, the profits for green and the green capitalists are only there as long as gas is above $3 a gallon. when gas drops, so will the green wake up of capitalism.
i should know i’m an investor myself, and follow the green stories closely.
james Says:
November 26th, 2007 at 12:58 pm
jim l- 60, there’s an old saying in the futures markets, “when the shoe clerks start yelling “it” (whatever commodity is at a really high price) is going to go through the roof (climb even higher than it’s already dizzying height), then you’d better be ready to sell.
am i right on oil, i don’t know, but i’d watch for the top…
Tagamet Says:
November 26th, 2007 at 1:00 pm
james:
“when gas drops, so will the green wake up of capitalism.
”
One question: If gas drops to $2, will GM cancel the Volt?
james Says:
November 26th, 2007 at 1:08 pm
i don’t know what gm will do, they have the ev-1 problem, so maybe they will continue with the volt.
but, as i’ve stated before, if gas drops below, probably, $2.95 at the pump, mr and mrs america will find that a volt is more of a novelty than a necessity, so demand will be sharply curved, and if gas drops to $2, as you suggested, not me, lol, then there will be little demand for the volt. as i said the average american is thinking more about making a living, taking care of the kids, and what is better for their situation, it’s not an evil thing, it’s just life.
pstoller78 Says:
November 26th, 2007 at 1:11 pm
#60
Jim,
I also suspect the talk of taxation is probably a moot point as I don’t personally think that oil prices will come down significantly in the next decade, but that doesn’t mean I don’t fear the consequences if they do happen to fall (unexpected oil finds or world wide economic downturn could cause this).
I hope my fear is unfounded.
james Says:
November 26th, 2007 at 1:18 pm
69- gas only needs to drop 35 cents in my area to break the $2.95 barrier, it won’t take much of an oil supply increase by opec to make that price drop happen.
and the funny thing about futures markets is, they can crumble in a day, lol.
however, there is the south american dictator opec problem, but i’ve read he may have a problem holding onto his power.
Tagamet Says:
November 26th, 2007 at 1:19 pm
james 68
You may well be correct.
PS I’d just like to compliment this group for such CIVIL converstaion covering such a potentially abrasive mix of vastly differing points of view!
james Says:
November 26th, 2007 at 1:22 pm
71, yep, it’s great, no trolls…
Scott H Says:
November 26th, 2007 at 1:34 pm
I don’t think openly, huh? I’m nothing but open, I’m TRYING to point out different points of view. So who’s the close minded one?
(not here)
james Says:
November 26th, 2007 at 1:41 pm
scott your posts are generally insulting…
please Relax chief, as you would put it.
i have not stated that a “tax” is the answer, i have only pointed out that it is one possible option. you seem to get very heated about it, and insulting, so i would say that you are not at all being open minded about it.
please scott in the future feel free to iggy me, cause i sure as hell am going to iggy your a*s.
god bless the e-rev electric chevy volt, god bless nano solar, and God Bless the USA
Mike756 Says:
November 26th, 2007 at 1:48 pm
I don’t think we will need to, but I would be in favor of a tax to keep gas prices high if they start to fall. I’m sure there are some people that need relief from high gas/energy prices and those people should be helped, but it is essential that we transition to primarily electric transportation.
Tagamet Says:
November 26th, 2007 at 1:57 pm
Mike756
We agree on the goal, but necesarry as it may be, the ends don’t justify the means (taxes and government intervention). More money in the gov’t coffers is just less money in our pockets - not a solution to stimulate technology or even to cut consumption. The price is high NOW and I don’t see any data that says we are driving less. Can you please point me to some?
TIA
Don Says:
November 26th, 2007 at 2:01 pm
Just one more small point to make about the user fee for gas consumption:
Fed gas tax has been 18.4 cents/gal since 1993 when gas was just over a dollar a gallon. Gas is now three time that and the tax is the same. Taxes are usually a percent of the total and by that metric this tax has decreased by 2/3 s since 1993. In absolute terms obviously this fee has not kept up with the inflationary increases in infrastructure maintainance that it was designed to fund. Meanwhile you’ve paid the same percent in tax for milk and three times as much in absolute terms! By any measure other than pandering to voters this fee should be substabtially increased. It won’t be, but that is no tribute to the greatness of the American Way.
Mike756 Says:
November 26th, 2007 at 2:03 pm
Tagamet,
No, I can’t and I don’t think the price will go down, and in general I am of the same view about taxes and government. Maybe the proceeds of the tax could be used for a rebate on an E-REV. I wouldn’t be in favor of just a general tax that the government could do whatever they wanted with it.
james Says:
November 26th, 2007 at 2:05 pm
76, ah but tagamet, let’s say that this supposed tax at the pump, if gas falls below whatever the pain threshold is for the average american, persuades more people to go green.
and they then own a volt or other electric vehicle, and they buy solar panels from nano solar for “free” energy. then they will be driving for “free” and there will be much more money in their pockets.
however, as i’ve stated many times, i am not in favor of this tax, i am considering it as an option.
When President Carter vowed to not allow the foreign importation of oil to EVER increase again in the US, he was just blowing hot air. Mere words are no substitute for force of law. And mere taxes won’t necessarily stop the situation either (money goes back to oil companies as corporate welfare, population continues to increase, etc).
So, how to reduce dependence on foreign oil? Automakers make electric vehicles so attractive that it becomes impossible to choose a gas-powered one.
Alternatively, oil companies are simply banned by law from importing oil and are met by US Marines off the coast if that’s what it takes. i.e. make the conditions so painful that it becomes impossible to do anything else.
Tagamet Says:
November 26th, 2007 at 2:14 pm
Don
So the “user consumption fee” (which sounds a LOT like a tax) is only adjusted “in absolute terms” for milk??? Hasn’t the Dollar itself gotten weaker over that period? Sorry, but techno-babble with stats is just like nails on the blackboard to me.
Jim I Says:
November 26th, 2007 at 2:14 pm
Ideas and opinions. Everyone has them. You can agree, you can disagree. But I will not make it personal. That accomplishes nothing. How can we solve the world’s problems if we just resort to calling each other names?
OK, back to topic:
I guess everyone has their own dollar amount tipping point on when an alternative powered vehicle makes sense to them.
Mine was at $2.00. That was when I started to look at electric car conversions and some of these small start up companies. But I do not have the time to build and maintain one myself, and I was even more worried about trying to get maintenance from some small company based in CA, when I am in OH. Plus most of these have very limited range, or are really enclosed electric motorcycles.
And the existing hybrids were not what I was looking for. I wanted fully electric, with charging at home.
So that was why I became so excited to see a “real” auto manufacturer step up to the plate with plans for a car that has the right idea. And the Volt was exactly what I am looking for. Regular daily travel would be all electric, but long trips possible, still with great mileage.
Even if OPEC tried to crush these ideas with short term price drops, I would still buy a Volt, assuming GM sticks with the program and does the car right. We have to start somewhere, and I am ready!
Tagamet Says:
November 26th, 2007 at 2:27 pm
Jim I
Is there any chance that we were twins seperated at birth? (just kidding, but I AM in a neighbor state - Penna) Basically, I share your experiences in my “interest in the Volt”
james Says:
November 26th, 2007 at 2:29 pm
81-
Don-So the “user consumption fee” (which sounds a LOT like a tax) is only adjusted “in absolute terms” for milk??? Hasn’t the Dollar itself gotten weaker over that period? Sorry, but techno-babble with stats is just like nails on the blackboard to me.
tagamet, that is only one option of what some sort of tax would be or do.
82-jim l, your threshold was 2 bucks, but the average joe’s is whatever the current high price of the decade is minus about 20 to 50 cents. seen it happen for 4 decades and it’s always the same. the only thing different this time, is that the high price has come back a second time. so everyone is green, but if the price falls below the threshold, green doesn’t look as good to that average guy gal.
Don Says:
November 26th, 2007 at 2:43 pm
By ANY metric taxes on food and most other goods have either stayed the same or increased over the course of time.
No babble.
Gas tax/user fee (Reagan’s term) has stayed the same dollar cent amount which means that since gas is three times higher, it has decreased as a percent tax. It has not been adjusted for inflation. Sales tax has stayed the same percent which means that with inflation people are paying three times as much. Yes, you can say it is the same for milk in “real dollars” but to do so you must recognize that the gas tax is only 1/3 as much in real dollars as well. While the service it was designed to pay for, road maintainance, have had tremendous inflationary increases. Fed gas tax was about 18% when it was created; now it is about 6% of your total gas bill.
Tagamet Says:
November 26th, 2007 at 2:55 pm
Don
So then a reasonable solution to make things equitable is to reduce all the other taxes by 2/3.
I could live with that.
james Says:
November 26th, 2007 at 2:55 pm
don, i agree that is not babble, it does make sense. and while i am still not in favor of such an increase in, or a new, gas tax. i believe that the option must be looked at.
as i said, when everyone says a commodity is going to go through the roof, it generally falls back.
not necesserally this time, because there are different factors, but it generally holds true.
james Says:
November 26th, 2007 at 2:59 pm
86, sarcasm is generally considered a lesser form of open discussion.
OptimisticMF Says:
November 26th, 2007 at 3:57 pm
Scott H,
Our government is supposed to be “of the people, by the people and for the people”. Maybe if we had more accountability, we wouldn’t have such incompetence. Knocking down the idea of the government as a potential solution to a problem illustrates your lack of faith in the American people.
Scott H Says:
November 26th, 2007 at 4:17 pm
OptimisticMF,
My knocking down the government as a potential solution IS my illustration IN my faith for the American people. You have faith in government, I don’t. As Tagamet has said before, when have you EVER seen a government program go right? That’s right, never, or rarely at best.
Government used to be “of the people, by the people, for the people”, but politicians nowadays have their own agendas and care little about their constituency. Can we agree on that? I think we can.
My faith in our innovation and technology, with or without “big brothers” help, will see us through. So help us, God.
OptimisticMF Says:
November 26th, 2007 at 4:34 pm
Scott, its a pretty big leap from government initiative to “big brother”.
I guess we agree on the idea that the initiative and the resources of the American people are the key to this solution, but government has to play a role. Regardless of how effective it is or is not, currently, government is part of the equation. I don’t inherently trust government, but I understand that it will take a combination of government and free enterprise to bring about change on the scale required.
As to Tagamet’s question, have I ever seen a government program go right? Do you get your mail delivered? Is the water that comes out of your tap potable? Do the traffic lights work in your town? Government programs work all the time, stop drinking the Kool Aid man!
Lyle: You should archive this discussion under a “best discussions” category. This is good stuff. I’m honored to be among these people.
Scott H, and the others with your view:
I am generally against big government programs. I’m against the concept of the government ‘taking care’ of us. I despise what Britain has become. I am best described as a conservative Republican Jihadi with respect for business and economics and human nature.
The government is oftentimes incompetent, hires losers, and panders to political issues instead of market issues. The thought of socialized health care makes me shiver with fear.
However, this does not mean the government cannot be a useful tool in killing oil. Remember, the government has some dramatic success stories: nuclear power, the interstate highway system, the internet, etc. To just blindly claim that the same government should not be utilized to accomplish a goal is simply closed minded, in my opinion. Instead, I believe the government should be utilized correctly.
There’s many ways to fail at our mission, but that does not mean all paths lead of failure. The government is a tool. One that we the people have control over.
We here on this website must spread the word of how to kill oil, why it should be killed, and the benefits of doing so. This website needs to be the beginning of a grass roots effort. You may laugh at these words, but major efforts have begun this way before. The end of slavery was begun by the formation of the republican party as a grass roots effort. They never intended to be a permanent political party.
For me, killing oil is SUCH a priority that I’m willing to accept drastic actions to accomplish it. Not $10 a gallon fuel, but certainly something that can be accepted by the people, along with some education / propaganda / manipulation.
It’s in our national security interests, financial interests, and environmental interests. With one stone we can take out 3 birds. Where do the Saudis get the money to fund the spread of their twisted version of Islam? The Iranians to pursue nukes and fund hezbollah? Venezuela, Russia, Saddam Hussein, etc.
Oil is a strong and entrenched enemy, one that has successfully defeated alternatives before. To believe we can achieve a quick victory with a hands off approach is something I don’t believe. An organized and well thought out battle plan is needed. One weapon is a minimum price, and it should be considered. Yeah, it’s possibly a page from the socialists, but so what?
When Arabia and Persia have returned to their natural state, like that of Africa, nobody will really care if we utilized socialist anti-free market tactics.
I’d be more than happy to pay more for fuel than what the free market is willing to sell it to me for, if it means:
1. The death of oil
2. The bankruptcy of our enemies
3. A great reduction in our trade deficit
4. A big step towards helping the environment.
My basic argument with your pricing threshold of the average Joe, is that there are no alternatives available, so what options do they have but to accept the situation?
If GM, Chrysler, Ford, Toyota, Honda, Hyundai, Subaru, Mercedes, BMW, Volvo, Lexus, etc, etc, etc, produce some of these new technology vehicles, I really believe they will sell, not only to the techies, but to that average Joe that is really unhappy about seeing his hard earned cash being sent to countries that hate us.
GM is gambling on this. If it is successful, and I think it will be wildly successful, then you will see many more models introduced very quickly, and the average Joe will be able to speak (make that scream!) with his wallet.
Tagamet Says:
November 26th, 2007 at 5:44 pm
PS I’d just like to compliment this group for such CIVIL converstaion covering such a potentially abrasive mix of vastly differing points of view!
I agree with Jim, however the average Joe will also cause a drop in demand for oil when he buys an electric vehicle. Thus the price of oil will drop, and the next group of average Joe’s will have a more difficult time justifying an electric vehicle.
A drop in demand = a drop in price.
A drop in price is oil’s counter attack.
A minimum price would successfully defeat that counter attack.
A drop in fuel prices may very well never occur, because China and India might suck up all the excess. However, that just means that the minimum price threshold would not be reached. I’d be more than happy to see this tool never utilized, than to see it not exist when/if needed.
death to oil
Scott H Says:
November 26th, 2007 at 6:15 pm
I’m not the Kool-Aid drinker.
james Says:
November 26th, 2007 at 6:30 pm
jim l-92, the average joe will have the choice, when/if the pump price falls to his “painless” threshold. that is, his choice will be that now that gas is cheap, why should i spend money on a new green vehicle, since gas is now cheap again.
even supposing that i am wrong about the threshold, anti-oil jihadi has it right, the next group of average joe’s will not have an incentive to buy green, when (and it will) oil falls because of all of the green tech.
however, the first will hold true, when oil drops most will not go green.
we in this room want green to work. but try asking twenty people on the street what they think and the reaction is generally, really, a real electric car is coming out soon? or how much is it going to cost? or, it will never really happen. or, how much will it save me over gas (and if gas is below the threshold, our answer is, sorry not much at this point).
and remember, china’s thirst for oil will be curbed when/if this green tech becomes profitable against oil, again dropping the price. but at that point, we won’t care what the h*ll the price of oil is, because we will be green, lol…
Death to Oil, god bless the E-Rev Electric Chevy Volt, god bless nano solar, and God Bless America!
james Says:
November 26th, 2007 at 6:39 pm
94 anti oil jihadi says;
“A drop in demand = a drop in price.
A drop in price is oil’s counter attack.”
yep, that’s how it’s worked for 4 decades, let’s see if it continues…
Just wanted to point out that my large recent post was delayed for approval, and it appears to have thrown off the post/comment numbers.
That’s why some of the post references won’t make sense.
death to oil
Scott H Says:
November 26th, 2007 at 9:56 pm
To Anti-Oil Jihadi:
I love your post #93. Your my hero, dude. It looked like I wrote it myself.
OK, I’ll give in, I’ll support a government role, but a limited one only. “Uncle Slappy” needs to be watched like a bunch of kids, sometimes they get out of control.
Death to oil, later.
james Says:
November 26th, 2007 at 10:13 pm
that they do, as the old saying goes, absolute power corrupts absolutely.
fortunately we have what the original fathers of our nation set up as the bloodless revolution (voting every two years on major members) to try to keep things in check.
i’m conservative, but, liberals and conservatives have been caught with their hands in the til. fortunately they don’t get to stay, lol.
josh Says:
November 26th, 2007 at 11:43 pm
i don’t see much point in showing off the interior of the concept vehicle. the production car will be very different. think grey plastic. but also think airbags…
Jim I Says:
November 27th, 2007 at 12:07 am
james #98:
If this is advertised right, it won’t just be about the price difference for fuel. This can be sold as a national pride issue.
Build a stong America - Do you want your legacy to your children to be that of black smoke and black oil, or the beginning of the green movement to save the planet?
Or advertise it as the next “it” thing to have. People spent a lot of money on huge Hummers, because they were sold as being really cool. If the public sees Brad Pitt in a Volt, do you have any idea how many that would sell???
And yes, at this time, the general public is not aware of the emerging technologies. But GM and their massive ad budgets have three years to to educate the masses and change all that. I have no doubt they will be successful.
Probably by the time the Volt hits the showrooms and hopefully we all have one in our garages, we will be here discussing the Gen-4 software updates and arguing about the placements of our solar charging arrays………
Now for the big one - the government:
I was going to go into a long statement about what we were really supposed to get from our government, based on the Articles of the Constitution, especially Article 1, Section 8. But this is not the place for that.
So here is my boiled down version: In my opinion, you just can’t force people to do the “right” thing through legislation or taxation. We have hundreds of thousands of laws. Some people will agree with and obey most of them. Some people will disagree and not obey some of them. When you get to live in a country where people have the right to choose, that is exactly what they will do. In the simplest terms, you can’t take away the right for someone to be an idiot, without taking the same right away from yourself.
Why does this site make me go up on that soapbox so often???? I apologize in advance for being so wordy and going so far off topic!
“In my opinion, you just can’t force people to do the “right” thing through legislation or taxation.”
The government forces each of us to pay tax on every gallon of fuel we buy. I doubt many people ‘chose’ not to pay it. The government forces us to pay taxes on our alcohol and cigarettes.
Thus your assertion that the government can not force us to do the right thing thru taxes or legislation is false. However, I don’t claim the government can always succeed. It depends upon the issue. Ban alcohol? Nope. Set a minimum price for gas and diesel at $2.95 a gallon? I say it would probably work, especially if the public was educated about the reason for it for a decade or more. Heck, many people now use seat belts.
death to oil
Tagamet Says:
November 27th, 2007 at 1:07 am
Jim and to some extent Jihadi, I don’t doubt that government can “encourage” it’s citizens to do “the right thing” My problem is that if history is any indication, our government hasn’t done a very good job selecting what it is that constitutes “right”. Vested interests and lobbyists can and do effect those decisions. Inter-racial marriage was “wrong”. Women even having the right to vote was wrong (ok, that one is debatable), and how many “nanny state” laws are on the books that stifle inovation.
Be well and God Bless,
Tagamet
james Says:
November 27th, 2007 at 2:23 am
107 jim l,you make valid points, the brad pitt or other kool celeb pitching the volt will be good for the volt. but, i’m still fairly convinced if the pump falls much below the pain threshold, the ave joe ain’t goin’ for it.
i hope i’m wrong, but, it’s basically what i’ve seen in life. your hummer makes a good point, everybody wants one, but how many actually buy them?
a min. price for gas? h*ll the feds, states and locals do all kinds of price fixing, so what’s one more, when the stakes are this high?
Mike756 Says:
November 27th, 2007 at 7:02 am
The only thing some people care about is the price. A while ago, after doing a great deal of research on PHEVs, (sorry, I didn’t know about E-REVs at the time) I told my sister I was going to buy one. She practically screamed at me, telling me that I hadn’t done my research. For E-REVs to be successful they need to be cool and their cost of ownership needs to be comparable to a traditional ICE with a similiar level of performance.
Jim I Says:
November 27th, 2007 at 7:34 am
The government has taxed cigarettes and alcohol to try to curb consumption. Did it work? No!!!!
So what makes you think that forcing a higher price for gasoline will be any different?
Until the majority of people decide for whatever reason that using and ICE with gasoline for transportation is the wrong approach, you can make the price of gasoline whatever you want and they will still buy it. Why do you think that after the last price surge it did not do back down all that much, and now it is on the rise again so soon? We can all moan about it, but in the end, we will go to the pump to fuel up. We all have to go to work, don’t we? OPEC knows this and could care less.
I just do not see this drastic price drop happening. Worldwide demand is way up. They will just sell it somewhere else.
And Mile756 - Your sister is right - The Volt HAS to be cool, and if used as designed, the cost of ownership WILL be less that an ICE based vehicle. I already worked those numbers.
Scott H Says:
November 27th, 2007 at 10:39 am
You’re right, Jim. Cigarettes and alcohol with their so called “sin taxes” added has done little to nothing. So buying fuel is a sin also when everyone uses it? The answer is of course, no. So adding taxes to fuel would solidify governments greed for more tax revenue and in my opinion severely “price gouge” a necessary commodity. That’s why it would be a crime in my mind. But, so many people here are for it. That really pains me. Here’s another example. Sometimes during summer months there are water shortages, right? So would you be for a 50 cent tax on every gallon of water used during a drought? Do you actually think they should have the right to do that? I should hope not. Remember, a certain country (this one) was born from it’s anger with wrongful taxation from a tyrannical government. I’m not saying it would go that far, I’m just illustrating how wrong it is. If you approve of one excessive tax, what’s to stop them from taxing other things? When does it stop? OK, I’m done for now.
Tagamet Says:
November 27th, 2007 at 11:06 am
Go gettum Scott H. but my guess is that this horse ain’t goin to move no more.
OptimisticMF Says:
November 27th, 2007 at 12:50 pm
Scott H,
While I agree with you in spirit on certain aspects of your posts, I sincerely question you on others. For instance, I’m not sure how an additional tax on fuel constitutes a “crime”?
Just because some politicians are greedy, some laws are stupid and some taxes are wasteful doesn’t mean that the entire system is without merit. Some taxes are good, for instance, I’m happy to pay the property and sales taxes in my community that pay for police and fire protection. On the other hand, I agree that government waste is a real problem. I suggest that updating the fuel tax could be part of the solution, provided that the revenue collected from the tax be applied to advancing technologies and services that reduce our dependence on oil. I don’t think anyone is suggesting that a big, fat tax will solve our problems any more than I believe that you are suggesting that we should overthrow the government since all taxes are criminal.
Like it or not, we live in a complex society with scarce resources and we have to make compromises to provide for the general welfare. When this coutry was founded, government was not very effective at enforcing laws, so it was up to individuals to fend for themselves. While I admire that ethic, its just not reasonable to assume that you can use up as much water (or any other resource) as you want, just because you want to. At some point, waste affects the common good, and must be curtailed. Using oil to the degree that we do, represents waste, since it depletes our economy and our environment. Is it unfortunate that we need to tax certain resources because some people don’t act in the common interest? Yes, but its a fact of life.
Scott H Says:
November 27th, 2007 at 1:36 pm
You people are overanalyzing every word I say and taking things too literally and completely out of context. I’m giving hypothetical EXAMPLES, not suggestions!
Scott, if the extra taxes were diverted towards ethanol and nuclear power, not into the governments pockets, would you be for it then? I’m not saying our roads and highways don’t need improvement, they do. However, increasing taxes (if the price drops to a certain level) is only part of the issue.
How that money is spent is the other part.
death to oil
james Says:
November 27th, 2007 at 7:03 pm
actually, i known of a lot of people who smoke one pack a day instead of two or three because the price is high.
i know one guy who was going to buy duty free smokes, and then decided against it, because, since they would be so cheap he would smoke more.
a gas tax wouldn’t be a sin tax, that’s just silly, but a minimum gas price by tax or whatever, would stimulate more green tech. the price of the car is only one aspect.
aniti -oil, while i agree that a “gas” tax may work, i am doubtful as to whether the feds would actually divert the funds to the places they are needed. but, still think the plan may be valid to help bring green tech to the front.
they do curtail use of water when there are shortages. and you get fined if you use more than you are supposed to.
james Says:
November 27th, 2007 at 7:04 pm
that should have read because the price of smokes is high, due to taxes.
Leon Says:
November 28th, 2007 at 10:30 am
I’m a conservative, generally against the global-warming crowd (a topic for another discussion), but I am totally for the Volt. I feel we need to get off oil for political and economic reasons (have you seen the Island that the UEA is building, from scratch, on oil money — sick).
Anyway, I think this will go down like this: Both the supply and demand for oil is very inelastic (except supply can be elastic in the down direction, as oil wells can be shut off if not profitable) meaning that a small change in either supply or demand will have a big impact on price.
That said, if the Volt (and its ilk) is successful (by success I mean replacing 1-2% of passenger vehicles) the price of oil will drop dramatically. But with the specs I’ve seen, the Volt can still be competitive even when compared to cheap gas. But it’s going to be a balancing act, when oil prices spike, Electrics will be more favorable and will help drive the price of oil back down.
Has anyone checked out the MDI compressed air powered car? Very interesting.
Someone (or a couple people) earlier compared ICE vehicles to horse and buggy, predicting that once electrics take hold the ICE vehicles will die out quickly. I don’t think it’ll be that fast, as electrics are not anywhere near able to pull loads (think horse trailers, utility vehicles, 18-wheelers, trains, airplanes, etc). So ICE will be ar
Loading ...
November 24th, 2007 at 2:47 pm
That should be the song in every Volt commercial from now on. Awesome.
November 24th, 2007 at 3:28 pm
Cool video.
I ran across an interesting article today.
“How $100 a barrel oil could help”
http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/nov2007/db20071120_632522.htm?campaign_id=rss_daily
Let us all cheer for high oil prices, because it will fuel the creation of alternatives to oil, and thus help bring about the downfall of oil.
However, it will also spur extra drilling for oil and thus bring about a possible drop in oil prices in the future, which would make the Volt a less desirable vehicle for many people. Thus my theory that a minimum gas and diesel price is called for, to ensure oil can not become too cheap - and not die.
http://www.oiljihad.org
November 24th, 2007 at 4:30 pm
Yeah, in the early 80s during the peak of the oil crisis, Saudi Arabia flooded the market with oil to depress prices. Prices plummeted and all thought of using alternative sources of energy were thrown in the trash. While I don’t see oil prices coming down any time soon (if ever), I do agree that an oil floor should be put into place to keep oil prices from dropping below a certain point (maybe $2.50/gallon).
$2.50 a gallon vs. $0.60 a gallon to run the Volt will keep PHEV and future oil alternatives in a state of constant development and advancement and move the Western world away from oil slavery.
November 24th, 2007 at 4:37 pm
P.S.
http://www.thecaseforpluginhybrids.com/
November 24th, 2007 at 6:21 pm
I can’t wait to see the updated design once the Aero has been worked out in the wind tunnel.
Mr. Lutz said that it will clearly be a Volt and that it will have much smoother lines. It just keeps getting better!
Thanks Lyle.
November 24th, 2007 at 6:42 pm
If the minimum price on gas and diesel involved varying taxes so they are lower when the prices is high and higher when the price is low fine. If you want to do it any other way you’re asking for trouble.
November 24th, 2007 at 6:46 pm
Of course doing that would reduce price sensitivity to oil which would cause a smaller increase in demand when low and smaller decrease when high. Apparently Europeans sensitivity to oil prices is quite low since crude is actually a small component in the price of gas for them.
November 24th, 2007 at 6:54 pm
Extra oil will, at least, be more expensive to get. It requires going deeper than before, or deep water exploration, or wringing it out of oil shale and sands. Oh it is there still, but the ability to keep up with increasing demand is slowing down, and the cost of doing so is going up.
That said remember that markets tend to re-equilibrate. EVs, especially extended range EVs (okay okay EREVs … but I’m not going to use that silly dash!) will take off … both here and, more importantly for the world, China (which is having its own problems with gas prices - http://economist.com/world/asia/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10184640 ). When they do then demand will decrease while the infrastructure to produce more supply will have already been invested in. If those efforts bear fruit then prices may drop until owning an EREV and an ICE vehicle cost the same over the life of ownership again. Unless, as suggested, it is taxed to keep the price higher. And that is unlikely to happen in America anyway.
November 24th, 2007 at 7:01 pm
Actually, I believe the Saudis flooded the market with oil at the request of president Regan, to help bankrupt the Soviet Union, because it’s much cheaper for the Saudis to extract their oil than it was for the Soviets. But I could be wrong on this.
I agree with Don that a minimum price for fuel is unlikely in America, but if we demand it of the politicians it might be possible. I’m afraid the averge Joe would never understand the strategy. However, I also think China and India will keep up their consumption so it just might not be necessary as long as the world economy keeps going well.
I’d agreee that a fluctuating tax is probably the best way to set a minimum price, otherwise corruption will eat up the price difference.
Drake, thanks for the link to the case for plug in hybrids! I’m going to add it to my Jihad website.
death to oil
November 24th, 2007 at 7:04 pm
[quote comment="16129"]If the minimum price on gas and diesel involved varying taxes so they are lower when the prices is high and higher when the price is low fine. If you want to do it any other way you’re asking for trouble.[/quote]
CAFE shows no signs of repeal, so I’ve got to believe that it may ensure that the Volt is produced. Given the weight of GM’s vehicle distribution is in large SUV’s this is especially likely.
November 24th, 2007 at 8:34 pm
now That is a very productive discussion!
and i like the fact that we can all agree to call the volt “electric”, as that is the primary source of power.
also, if the dictator of venezuala (sp) has his way, as a member of opec, oil is going to continue to climb.
however, even if oil falls to around 40 or 50 bucks a barrel, i believe that nanosolar solar painting panels will still make electricity cheaper than gas will be at that point. so the volt and other electric vehicles will have an advantage.
not to mention, the already mentioned facts, that electric vehicles are just plain easier and cheaper to maintain.
November 24th, 2007 at 10:00 pm
What is this video?
November 25th, 2007 at 12:25 am
So let me get this straight. Certain people on this site want to PURPOSELY inflate oil and gas prices to get electric vehicles on the road. Simply stunning. That’s got to be THE stupidist thing I’ve heard in a long time. People need relief from high energy prices, and you people WANT to keep them high. Do you people think congress would magicly lower the fuel taxes again when electric cars do hit the road? If you people believe that, I’ve got some lovely beachfront property in Arizona I’d love to sell you. Once taxes are raised, it’s like pulling teeth to lower them again. Artificially raising energy prices is not only anti-free market, it’s un-American. They do that crap in Europe. Look at their economy, double digit unemployment everywhere. If it gets above 5% here, people go ape.
The necessity for EV’s is here right now. They are coming, whether energy prices rise or fall.
Damn, I really hope you people weren’t serious about that stuff. If you were, I feel sorry for you. You need a big dose of reality. Remember this, a country NEVER taxed itself into prosperity. It has the opposite effect.
November 25th, 2007 at 1:38 am
Don #8:
There are a couple of holes in your argument that a lower price of oil will slow down or stop E-REV type vehicles:
1. Even though the new oil infrastructure may be in place in the future, if it is not profitable, the companies will shut them down. Oil at $50.00/barrel would not justify all the extra cost of obtaining and refining oil from shale, etc. Look back at how many wells were capped in this country when foreign oil prices dropped. No profit equals no production.
2. You assume that people WANT to drive gasoline engine based vehicles. I do not really think that is the case. It is just a simple fact that at this time, we have no other real mass market choices. If these new technologies are done right, people will abandon the “old” oil based vehicles as fast as they did the horse and buggy. Here is how I came to this opinion: The Ford Model T was introduced in 1908. The last commercially made horse and buggies were produced around 1920. It only took less than 15 years to completely change transportation around the world. I think it can be done again. I guess that makes me an optimist.
3. You also assume that E-REV and other new fuel types will always be higher priced. If history is any guide, once production ramps up, the economies of scale and competition will reduce prices. Many more models will be introduced, which will then make it available to most tastes and vehicle needs.
Fixed Minimum Oil Pricing By The Government:
I have to agree with Scott H #13 on this one. It sounds like a noble idea, but can you imagine any politician trying to sell it? He would be laughed out of Washington. I can just imagine his competitor’s TV ads - A young student not able to get to school, because the school district can not afford the gas prices for the bus, or the school board having to decide if a new math book can be justified, when the cost of heating oil is now so high. Or how about this one - The single mother almost able to get off Welfare, but now has fallen back into the system, because she can not afford to get to her job. One more - the middle class parents telling their child that he/she can not go to college, because the college fund went to the government in new fuel taxes………..
Makes you look at it a bit differently about it, don’t you think?
And lets not forget about the oil lobby. Do you really think for an instant they are just going to look the other way? I sure don’t.
The only way we are truly going to get our independence from fossil fuels is if we can make it a mandate - to kick our national pride back into gear and decide once and for all to figure it out and do it, just like we did with the NASA Space Program of the 1960’s. In fact, GM can have this idea for free. Start advertising these new fuel technologies as what is right for not only America, but for the world. And unlike the space program, everone gets to be a part of it when you drive your new E-REV. The time is now!
I humbly step down off the soapbox now………
Let the comments commence.
November 25th, 2007 at 9:32 am
Jim, thank you fo the comments.
1- I personally think it will be along way before oil is unprofitable. It’s just going to become less profitable. Also, once an industry has invested in infrastructure it is what is called a “sunk cost” - that money is gone. The incremental cost of production is much less and even if it failed to recoup the fixed sunk costs a company is better off producing more so long as it makes more than the incremental costs. Lastly many industries go a long time running year after year losses. Look at American auto manufacturing!
2- I assume that people are motivated by their bottom lines more than much else. If an ICE costs less to both buy and for total ownership lifetime then it is likely to sell more.
3- No, I assume that we are looking at two curves: one is the decrease in costs of EVs (all types) with improvements of technology and scales of production; the other is the cost of gas plus the cost of an ICE vehicle. Right now the first curve is decreasing while the second is on the rise. They will, I believe, soon cross and that will drive the demand of EVs substantially. I am just merely pointing out that these curves are not static entities. Oil is going up because the world is close to demanding more than can be supplied. That is being driven by the rapid rise in demand not by a decrease in supply. Supply just can’t keep up so well. That is a dynamic relationship. Decreasing demand substantially allows supply to be able to meet or exceed demand, ergo prices drop. Yup, at some point companies then have less motivation to invest more in finding harder to get out oil and supply drops in the next cycle. Prices rise again. EVs sell more. Rinse repeat.
4- Oh, I won’t argue for or against a higher gas tax. The emotional reaction by Scott illustrates why it has no chance of happening under any administration. So what do we do instead? We subsidize oil alternatives - tax credits for hybrids and hopefully bigger ones for “EREV”s, and for ethanol. Of course the taxes not paid there have to get into the coffers somewhere so other taxes stay high or go higher to make it up, but never mind that, that doesn’t make it into a TV spot. It allows people to believe that they are getting something for nothing and we like that concept. BTW, Scott, unemployment rate in Europe IS higher than in the US, but it is NOT “double digit everywhere.” Even Spain has dropped into the single digits. ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4640759.stm ) I highly doubt that the cause of Europe’s unemployment rate is their gas tax structure, however. The advantages of America go well beyond cheaper gas.
It does raise another issue. How much money is raised each year by gas taxes currently? What budget impact would dramatically decreased gas tax revenue have?
November 25th, 2007 at 10:00 am
I really wouldn’t worry about any country flooding the world with oil to bring down prices. From what I understand, the IEA is predicting an oil crunch by 2015 and Chris Skrebowski of Petroleum Review agrees with that assessment in his Megaprojects review. He puts the year at 2012 when the dropoff occurs given the projects that are currently in the pipeline. In addition, please realize it takes a number of years between finding and developing a field for production. The amount of production for 2012 is pretty much baked in the cake at this point. Gasoline taxes or a minimum gas price won’t be needed. With a turnover of only 3-4% of the vehicle fleet per year, it would take awhile before EV/EREV/PHEV’s would cause oil prices to collapse.
Having said that, I really hope GM decides to go through with the Volt. The sooner, the better.
November 25th, 2007 at 10:01 am
so if we disregard the emotional issue of more (because we already have many) oil taxes, we can agree that higher oil prices cause greater competion from other, greener energies?
what has happened since the 70s oil embargo, is that every 10 years or so opec cuts the flow of oil and screams oil shortage, we’re running out.
they raise the price substantially, and when it hits a point where americans start screaming “rape” they increase production again, and let the price settle back down, but not to the original price that it was before they had decreased production.
if any of you remembers the 70s oil embargo, everyone was screaming, oh my god, the earth is running out of oil! and then when opec opened the gates back up, everyone forgot about it, and accepted the new higher price, because the new higher price was less than the highest price that had just occured.
the problem with the above scenario, is that everyone stops thinking of alternative energies because the oil price comes down a little. plus, the fact that alternative energies are once again no longer as cheap as oil, so oil wins (Big).
for some reason, opec has not let the price of oil fall back to a more reasonable price, and make no mistake, they could pump more oil to reduce the price. they are not that low on oil yet.
so, what scares me, and some others, is if opec drops the price of oil back to 40 or 50 bucks, then americans will once again become complacent and accept the newer higher (but not highest) oil price. and then once again, little effort is made toward renewable energies.
however, even if oil does fall back to 40/50 dollars, i believe that the new green technologies will still be able to compete, so maybe opec has finally shot itself in the foot. not to mention, as others have, that electric is simpler and cheaper to maintain. And mass production will drive these costs (of green technology) down even further.
as jihadi says “Death to oil”.
November 25th, 2007 at 10:08 am
[quote comment="16212"]It does raise another issue. How much money is raised each year by gas taxes currently? What budget impact would dramatically decreased gas tax revenue have?[/quote]
My guess is that we will be ending up with a lot more toll roads, or vehicle license plates will get really expensive……….
November 25th, 2007 at 10:08 am
Big one,
I agree completely. However, given today’s geopolitical situation as well as environmental situation, I think more Americans are willing to take a hit in the pocketbook and opt for electric cars. I’m willing. If you talk with someone who only makes decisions based on his or her wallet, remind them that we lose roughly two troops daily to weapons likely funded with oil. And yes, I believe that.
November 25th, 2007 at 10:10 am
Jim:
I believe that you are correct when you suggest that the EV will replace the ICE very rapidly when the technology and economic curves cross.(Oil prices stay up. EV prices come down.) I do not believe that the majority of people are emotionally connected to ICE vehicles as such.
The fascinating thing about recent ICE car development is the designer’s emphasis on the reduction of NVH (noise, vibration, harshness.) One consequence of this is that the modern small quiet automatic venicle drives very much like EVs always have.
I predict that when the EV is ready it will replace the ICE far quicker than the Ford Model T replaced the horse drawn buggy.
November 25th, 2007 at 10:17 am
ross 20, i believe you are correct, ev’s will replace all gas vehicles very quickly.
i know people who are holding their old cars, waiting for the new ev’s.
November 25th, 2007 at 10:29 am
People have referred to revenue generated by additional charges at the pump as a “gas tax.” This is a common misrepresentation. It is an Electric Vehicle Revenue Enhancer. To be referred to as an EV-REV-E (”Eev Revee”). Anyone who says otherwise is just showing their ignorance.
November 25th, 2007 at 12:31 pm
Dave B #19 said:
“If you talk with someone who only makes decisions based on his or her wallet, remind them that we lose roughly two troops daily to weapons likely funded with oil. And yes, I believe that.”
Believe what you want. Perhaps you also believe in the Tooth Fairy, Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny. Believing something doesn’t make it so!
November 25th, 2007 at 12:35 pm
Oops! Misread Dave B #19 message. I take back all I just said in #23!
November 25th, 2007 at 12:51 pm
Basic fact about taxes: Proper tax policy is designed where undesirable things are taxed. When done properly, the taxed item is then used less in the market place, and the government generates revenue which can be directed towards solving the problems which make the taxed item undesirable.
Basic fact about America: It is not “un-American” to introduce gas taxes as experienced in Europe. Rather what is un-American is using that term as if it is anything less than McCarthyist and expression of American fascism.
Basic fact about oil: Oil is a source a major pain for the American people. It is a source of conflict with other nations and a source of the mandate for American imperialism. It is also the primary revenue source for al-Qaeda (our prime enemy these days), and a major source of pollution, and dependence on it is making our nation weaker and poorer by the day.
We need to get off of oil. We also need to do whatever it takes to do so. Trying to essentially steal it from the Middle East (Iraq) is costing us far more than replacing it with electricity will. Promoting, passively or actively, a continued dependence on it is traitorous. Yeah, I actually used the word. And making every effort feasible to get off it, whether for profit or not, is patriotic.
November 25th, 2007 at 1:27 pm
True, we need to get off of oil, but NOT by punishing the populace with high gas taxes. You people just don’t get it.
We need to get off of oil by good ole American ingenuity and get these freakin’ EV’s on the road.
By the way, I never said Europe had high unemployment solely because of high fuel prices. They have many more problems than that. Too many to list here, anyway.
Another thing, extremely high taxes ARE un-American. Period, nuff said.
November 25th, 2007 at 1:33 pm
I think we are getting to the point where oil independence and renewable energy is a conservative and liberal issue. My parents are loyal conservatives but they plan to switch over to an E-REV or EV as soon as something good comes out.
We want the critical mass in this way of thinking to occur when a product is already out, purhaps in 2011, which could drive the change over. We don’t want the interest in alternative energy to climax before that.
November 25th, 2007 at 1:39 pm
To Jim #14:
Thanks for the backup, chief. I read your comments all the time and usually agree with you too. Great minds think alike.
November 25th, 2007 at 1:54 pm
“Another thing, extremely high taxes ARE un-American. Period, nuff said.”
Your debate skills are truely amazing.
November 25th, 2007 at 2:13 pm
I just wanted to come at this from a different angle, because I am a trader by nature.
This ‘oil spike’ is very much unlike the 70s. It has nothing to do (or very little) with the commodity itself. It has to do with the currency it trades in.
The average price per barrel in 2000, was around $33.00. The US dollar index was around 120 (The US dollar index provides a general valuation of the US dollar internationally).
2000 $33.00/brl 120.00 US$ index
2007 $98.18/brl 75.00 US$ index
So just adjusting for the weak dollar, oil price in ‘real monetary value’ is $61.36.
Allowing for simple inflation on the 2000 average of $33.00 would make it worth about $43.00 today.
$61.36 is still a fair amount over it’s adjusted $43.00 2000 value. However, because oil is a speculative commodity, trading in futures, at least half of this remaining surge can surely be attributed to the fact that the value of dollar so preceptiously this year.
If your in another country do you want to sell something in America dollars and get paid for it sometime down the road? Who knows what it will be worth.
Americans need things like the electric car because quite simply it can’t afford to just keep shelling out more and more for the resources of other countries.
November 25th, 2007 at 4:23 pm
I’m thankful to find like minded people here.
My proposal for a minimum gas and diesel price is based on an idea of setting it at the current prices. Maybe a bit lower. Not raising gas prices like somebody accused me of in this thread.
However, I also expect extra oil supply might appear, possibly in a greater amount than the extra demand. Thus prices could fall. Especially if the dollar regains its value. Even if this does not happen, if everybody bought electric vehicles, demand for oil would greatly fall, thus its price would fall, and oil would become a viable alternative to electric cars. This can NOT be allowed to happen.
Thus, setting a minimum price at the current market values will ensure oil can not fight back against alternatives and/or a decrease in demand.
Death to oil, by any practical means necessary, even if it means acting like socialists.
November 25th, 2007 at 5:15 pm
Good point Statik.
We currently have an 800 billion annual trade deficit. About 250 billion is due to is oil. Part of it is imported cars. 230 billion of it is with China who currently import no cars into the US. A lot of our manufacturing base has been sent to China. Why? Because labor is cheaper. If China allowed the yuan to trade on the open market it would be about 30% to 50% stronger vs the US dollar …making their labor not as cheap. They minipulate the value of the yuan vs the dollar buy taking the money we pay them for goods and investing in US Treasurys. How can we fix this situation …buy “made in USA” products and get off of oil.
November 25th, 2007 at 7:03 pm
Does anyone know what the video is, that is shown for this item?
November 25th, 2007 at 8:46 pm
statik 30, i’m not certain of your figures, you adjust for the value of the dollar and then adjust again for the precipitousness of the dollar for another 50%, i think the 50% adjustment is rather high.
also, the 10 year cycle of opec tightening the flow of oil until it gets the price that it wants and then opening the spigots again has happened once a decade since the 70s, not just in the 70s.
i agree that the fall of the dollar has made imports cheaper including oil, but, if i remember correctly, gas at the pump started climbing 2 (?) years ago, and oil climbed from $30 (?) to $50 or $60 a barrel before the decline of the dollar, and then has soared even further because of the dollar.
however, i believe that if you look at the flow of oil since the 70s, you will see a similar pattern of once per decade, oil production/supply from opec being cut, and then when the price they are looking for has been passed, they open the spigots again.
my figures above are not precise, as i am do not have time to follow the flow of oil for the last 35 years, but i believe that they are fairly close to what has been happening over that time period.
however, i am glad that most on here can agree that the sooner we get off of the oil habit, the better it will be for america!
death to oil! god bless the chevy volt, god bless nano solar, and God Bless America!
November 25th, 2007 at 9:24 pm
I’m with Scott and Jim.
‘Nuff said.
November 25th, 2007 at 9:39 pm
Great discussion here, but again I have to agree with Anti-Oil Jihadi. The OPEC nations will not just sit back and allow their control over the world to be taken away. They enjoy having oil be a requirment for a successful economy. They also enjoy the 3/4 of a trillion (with a ‘t’) dollars that they sap from the world economy each year.
OPEC is a cartel. One of the main goals of a cartel is price-fixing. Price-fixing is not something that belongs in a free market. This cartel needs to be crushed NOW. Too much is at stake.
Once E-REVs and EVs become widely available, they will do everything within their power to depress the price of oil and destroy interest in these new technologies. If the price of gasoline lowered to $1.50/gallon today, demand for the Volt would disappear. We can not allow this to happen.
If keeping gasoline above $2.50/gallon through taxation is required, then so be it. How about we send the revenue generated by the tax to that single mother or poor college student to buy the Volt more cheaply (read: tax credit). Is that un-American?
Death to oil.
November 25th, 2007 at 9:48 pm
Drake:
Yes, artificially inflating the price of gas IS unAmerican. The ends, though noble, do not justify the means.
Personally, I think a LOT of people would still buy a Volf even if the price of gas (manipulated as always by the Cartel) drops. I’d love to shed the shackles of oil and just the THOUGHT of never again going to a gas station really floats my boat.
November 25th, 2007 at 10:15 pm
Tagament - while you sound like a very valiant person that would be willing to voluntarily pay higher transportation costs in order to do your part to free us from oil, the average person would probably not.
The average person is driven by economic factors. If two similar items are priced differently, they will go for the less expensive of the two. It may be illogical, in this case, but it is very human.
People continue to smoke, consume massive amounts of corn syrup, and not exercise even though it will eventually kill them. Humans are far from perfect and money talks.
I wish there were more people in this world like you, but unfortunately there are not.
November 25th, 2007 at 10:53 pm
Drake:
Thanks for the kind words. I like to think that I know a wee bit about the human condition in that I’ve been a “shrink” for the last 35 years. I may well be Polyanish, but I’ve time and time again seen people react in very noble ways when they recognize a moral imperative. Granted, we are most often driven by relatively shallow “wallet” issues, but the time seems ripe for our country to wake up and free ourselves. Please don’t take that to mean that I believe it’s the governments responsibility (or RIGHT) to mandate what consitutes “the right choice”. Whatever morality is, it’s not to be legislated. Look at prohibition. I know, people don’t always (or even often) act in a way that’s in their best interest. ESPECIALLY when the consequences are removed in time from the consequences (e.g. smoking. overeating, etc) But I’d like to think that the country has finally felt the pain at the pump to the point where we are actually, to borrow a phrase, “mad as hell and not going to take it anymore”. We’re at LEAST nearing that tipping point or critical mass where enough of us can make a difference supporting technology that IS in our collective best interest. That’s not something that can or should be legislated.
Whew, sorry for the rant (lol)
November 25th, 2007 at 10:56 pm
Raise gasoline taxes and lower other taxes. The last I heard the oil companies were making record profits. I know the President won’t sign-off on that, but it is the right thing to do.
I’m glad GM gave up on trying to put a gasoline reformer in their fuelcell cars. I’d like to hear more from Chairman Wagonner(misspelled I know) on all this.
November 25th, 2007 at 11:09 pm
Shall I jump into this mosh pit?
As I understand it, the current oil and gas taxes are not enough to pay for maintaining our roads and bridges. In other words, we have to use income taxes to maintain our infrastructure. This is actually a form of a oil subsidy.
I don’t think that’s right, especially when we are borrowing trillions from China. I think we sould eliminate all oil and gas subsidies, and this would probably lead to an increase in the gas tax to pay for our roads. But as Ronald Regan once said “It’s not a tax, it’s a user fee”.
November 25th, 2007 at 11:43 pm
What? Americans pay a HUGE tax on gasoline. The only problem is that it’s not levied in a way that reduces consumption. We pay a hidden tax through our national defense appropriations, military aid to prop up Saudi Arabia’s corrupt monarchy, and corporate welfare subsidies for oil barons.
Of course, we don’t even pay for much of this, instead putting it on the national charge card for our children and grandchildren to pay off later. And that’s not even factoring in the externalized costs of gasoline including the negative impact on the environment, our national security, and the integrity of our democratic discourse.
We pay a lot more for gasoline than we think. We pay with our federal income taxes, our economic sustainability, and our societal sustainability. But we don’t see it at the pump, so we continue to consume. This is the paradox of the free market, a self-contradictory idea that doesn’t work because it can’t happen.
The goal of the corporation in a so-called free market is to externalize as much as possible in order to provide the best superficial value. Wal-Mart is the ultimate example of how Americans trade their future for a 72-cent pair of tube socks. Pitch us an idea to squash the American Dream in favor of cheaper gasoline, and we’re on board.
If the not-so-free market won’t make us pay the actual price of gasoline, then some larger force needs to make sure that we value our purchasing decisions appropriately, and that’s where the government has to step in. It’s not right that gasoline is cheaper than milk. It doesn’t make sense from a supply standpoint, and it certainly doesn’t make sense from the demand side.
Petroleum is extremely valuable, finite in supply, and causes side-effects that are expensive to address. Gasoline should cost at least $10 per gallon. I’m not excited by the prospect of $10 gas, but we have to face up to the reality of the situation. By not paying now, we’re screwing over our children and grandchildren, and we’re threatening the long-term survival of the human species.
November 25th, 2007 at 11:59 pm
Free societies abhor the outright banning of products, except in extreme cases (e.g. methamphetamines). The thing about taxes is that in a free society, they are one of the only effective ways to steer the public away from things that are severely detrimental to that society.
Without higher taxes on tobacco products, for example, tens of thousands more would die each year from tobacco-related illnesses. For this reason, I believe few would prefer all taxes be removed from tobacco products. Why shouldn’t the same be true for gasoline?
Would you be willing to accept a $2.50/gallon floor be placed on gasoline if it meant that you would receive a $15,000 tax credit for buying an EREV vehicle (resulting in the total cost of your Volt being only $15,000)? I would.
We are not speaking of taxes in the old-fashioned sense of taxing to gain revenue for more government programs. We are only looking at ideas to steer the public in a direction that is good for them, without implementing policies that would be more suited to a dictatorship.
November 26th, 2007 at 12:07 am
Butters: If I understand your post, you’re saying that the government which has so thouroughly screwed things up, should be relied upon to solve this mess? I’m obviously missing something (not unusual).
Personally, I’d like the government to pick up the garbage and protect the country’s borders. MAYBE throw in some bucks to sponsor technology R&D. Anything else amounts to excuses for redistrubution of wealth (which is already at outrageous levels). Over and over I see people in this thread positing that government intervention is somehow the solution. I’m sorry, but exactly which gov’t program can we point to that has actually HELPED. The CCC programs back in the depression did some good, and we DID get to the moon and back. I just don’t see the history that says “When there’s a major national problem, the Gov’T will efficiently jump right in, fix the problem in a cost effective manner and THEN GET OUT.
Somebody, ANYBODY,please help me understand the rationale that supports the “we’re from the Govt and we’re here to help” fantasy.
November 26th, 2007 at 12:17 am
Let us just assume for the sake of discussion that the most effective way, perhaps the only way, to get America weaned off of its dependency on foreign oil was to raise gas taxes such that alternatives (such as, but not limited to EREVs) were markedly incentivized. Of course the revenue generated by these “user fees” would also underwrite continued and substantial tax credits to the purchase of new vehicles. Hypothetically is al I’m saying.
Would using that tool to get us weaned off of our dependency on despotic regiemes in the ME be unpatriotic or un-American or very patriotic and freedom loving? How about once most of the new cheap oil is coming from Russia*?
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2007/11/usgs-estimates.html#more
Excuse my crudeness, and I am very motivated by global climate changes too, but we cannot let the Arab world and Russia too (!?!) have us by the gonads. IF, and yes that’s a big if, battery technology price decreases are outpaced by (transient) drops in oil costs, then economic incentives to keep weaning us off of oil need to be created. A clear cut “tax increase” on gas would be a hard sell, maybe an impossible sell, but any way you cut it,
you pay. If you give up tax revenue with tax credits and rebates to help sell them you have to make it up somewhere else. The theft from Peter may end up being more of an embezzelment that never gets clearly spelled out, but Paul doesn’t get it without it coming from somewhere else folks.
Me? I’d go with a straight forward carbon tax including on gas usage. Let the market come up with the best answer from there. But I’d never get elected.
November 26th, 2007 at 12:24 am
And I take back my EV-REVE name. How about a User Fee Revenue Enhancer (U-FRE .. pronounced “You Free!” That we can sell! “It’s here so you can be free of foreign oil …. You. Free!”)
November 26th, 2007 at 12:28 am
i don’t remember the exact time line, but sometime within the past couple of years, gas hit 3 to 3.50 at the pump. people were bitching. then, the spigots were opened (for a while) and the price was back to, i think, 2.50, and everyone was greatly relieved that gas was finally cheap. even though the price at the pump before that was what 1.50 or so?
point is once gas falls below a certain point, probably 2.95 at this point, everyone forgets buying green techs, and goes back to the gas pump.
this really isn’t an evil thing, it’s just that most are trying to work, raise a family, etc., they just don’t have time (or at least think they don’t) to screw around with green tech stuff, unless there is sufficient dollar pressure to persuade them to.
i am not advocating a tax, i’m with tagamet on that, but i do hope, that somehow or another, the price at the pump does not fall below 3 bucks, or at least doesn’t stay there for long.
if the price stays high long enough, then more people will go green, and once the green tech kicks in, it will be impossible for opec to stop it. since, as green tech progresses, it Will get Much cheaper.
death to oil, god bless the volt, god bless nano solar and God Bless America!
November 26th, 2007 at 12:34 am
Oh, and more on topic, I can definitely see how the Volt could do better in the wind tunnel if turned backwards. It combines a blunt front-end with a flat hood. You can only have one of these elements and retain good aerodynamics.
If the Volt wants to have a profile that dives down just ahead of the front wheel wells, then the hood and windshield need to form a smoother curve from the canopy to the front wheels (e.g. 2007 Civic). If it wants to have a long and flat hood, then the profile needs to be more wedge-shaped at the leading edge (e.g. Corvette).
To the air, the current Volt body looks rather like a dwarf SUV. It looks a lot more like a Civic from the back.
November 26th, 2007 at 12:37 am
don 45, “Me? I’d go with a straight forward carbon tax including on gas usage. Let the market come up with the best answer from there. But I’d never get elected.”
don, good point, i might even vote for something like that…but i’ve gotta admit that you are right that you will probably not get elected on that platform.
however, it is an interesting idea to help us cut off our oil dependency.
November 26th, 2007 at 1:05 am
To Tagamet and Jim:
We’re all alone brothers. Now they’re suggesting $10/gal and even a freakin’ carbon tax now! That’s it, I’m only talking with you guys from now on. They’ve got us boxed in, and they’re exhausting my energy (pun intended!). Later.
November 26th, 2007 at 1:15 am
Drake 43 your suggestion that taxes that penalize behaviors rhat are destructive to the individual or to society as a whole e.g. smoking, at first blush sound reasonable. The HUGE deal breaker there is “Just WHO within the government do you trust to make those judgement calls. Let’s say I’ll decide for you and you decide for me. Ok, you don”t smoke, but you are obviously a bit over weight. $5./pound overwieght/month seems about right (with the money going to the gym and heart associatiion. Weigh ins the fisrt of every month. My family has a horrible history of heart attacks so every male dies by age 55 (5 uncles, my sister, and my father). Obviously, my cholesterol needs to be monitored monthly and I’ll be fined, er, I mean , er assessed $3/point over the recommended cholesterol total and ratio o HDH and LDL. I think you see where is going. The WHO decides what’s in our best interst should be US. Not an inefficient, bloated, and often flat out WRONG government. There”s one thing I agree on with your’s and other “govt is the fix” posts is that you admit that it’s not an electable platform (I think for good reasons)
PS Knowing that I shouldn’t carry high cholesterol, I’ve kept it very low - just like the govt would have liked. Now I’m the very first person in my entire family who has lived long enough to get cancer.
November 26th, 2007 at 1:23 am
Ditto.
“I don’t believe in a government that protects us from ourselves.”
Ronald Reagan
November 26th, 2007 at 1:27 am
tagamet 51, there is a difference between your points about smoking and being fat, and oil. the first two are personal, while the oil thing is definitely a national problem.
i am the last one to advocate taxes, but i am just considering the possiblity that in this case it may be an option.
we are at war (not with iraq, but with al qaudi (sp.), and national steps may be needed to cut this oil problem off.
November 26th, 2007 at 1:49 am
Taxes to artifically inflate the cost of oil or to keep it at some arbitrary level just won’t work. Even if they could somehow pass such legislation, our elected officals will just hand it back to the oil companies as subsidies for their “lost revenue”, even though most people with any common sense would think that to be ridiculous. But how much pork is in the federal budget??? And why can’t they pass a mandated balanced budget act??? Becuase they don’t really care what is going on in the world of average working people.
November 26th, 2007 at 4:10 am
higher gas prices, no matter what the cause, a carbon tax, or opec cutting off the spigots, will keep the green tech thing moving. lower gas prices will cut it’s throat.
except hopefully in the case of nano solar and other greens that are actually cheaper than gas is at 2.50 to 3 bucks a gallon.
scott h 50, exactly who are “they” that you qoute as wanting ten dollars at the pump?
reading back through, i only see one person mentioning that, and i believe his point is that at $10 a gallon, EveryOne will want an
E-Rev electric volt.
and please don’t quote me as saying i want $10 gas, i’m referring to others comments…
November 26th, 2007 at 7:37 am
What is the unemployment rate in Europe?? Before you try to guess it, please, but… really, please go and gather some information..
http://www.eubusiness.com/Employment/eu-jobless.67/
This just seems like that video where someone asks to an American to point France on the map and he points to Australia!!!! In Europe we tend to look to the overall, not only to our pockets or to our backyard… yes, we drive smaller cars… yes, we pay more for gas… but we are not responsible for 25% of all emissions of CO2.
By the way, in Europe there is also the Opel Flextreme http://www.zercustoms.com/news/Opel-Flextreme.html , it seems like it is connected somehow with GM, but…. I really don’t know… is it?
I would like to see the Volt with a solar panel to extend its mileage… I would pay more for it
November 26th, 2007 at 10:39 am
“there is a difference between your points about smoking and being fat, and oil. the first two are personal, while the oil thing is definitely a national problem.”
Lung cancer and obesity ARE national problems and are also symptoms of personal choice. People just don’t link filling up at the pump with putting $ in some very unsavory (read lethal) people. Artificially inflating the price will just direct their anger at politicians (who can be just as unsavory)
November 26th, 2007 at 11:00 am
For those on this board who feel taxation is not the answer to keeping alt fuels viable in the case of reduced oil prices, how would you ensure that this technology does not get dropped in that unlikely event.
I do not want to pay any more taxes than necessary, but I also do not want to see this promising technology abandoned again.
November 26th, 2007 at 11:30 am
“there is a difference between your points about smoking and being fat, and oil. the first two are personal, while the oil thing is definitely a national problem.”
Other than gov’t R&D funding, personally, I don’t see much of a gov’t role. Capitalists (GASP) are waking up to the fact that going Green = profits AND good PR.
GM’s transparency in the development of the Volt is a great example. I’d hope that even if the price of gas drops, GMs commitment almost HAS to continue (especially after the EV-1 debacle)
Once electric vehicles get a toe-hold, I’ll be driving (silently) through gas stations waving at people filling up their cars. Even if the gas is “more reasonablly priced”, that’s still gotta PINCH
November 26th, 2007 at 11:34 am
Evil grin
November 26th, 2007 at 11:39 am
pstoller78:
There seems to be a general concensus that the price for oil is going to drop back down. Where is the proof that this is going to happen? I just don’t see it. The demand in the rest of the world is rising rapidly, so where is the justification for OPEC do the USA a favor? And don’t forget that the prices we pay are already artifically lower that what is being paid around the world. There are posters here from other countries that say they are already paying $6.00+ per gallon.
The price for gasoline has already hit the tipping point. People are looking for alternatives. At this point in time, I am onboard for the new technologies, unless the price of gasoline went back below $1.00 per gallon. Do any of you see that happenning? I sure don’t……….
My personal opinion is that OPEC sees the writing on the wall, and they are just going to squeeze every last penney they can.
And lets not forget that oil is used in all kinds of other products, so it is not like we will be shutting down the wells and refineries. Hopefully, just the gas stations………
So it is a waste of time to be talking about increasing taxes. Lets not give the politicians any more ideas for “revenue enhancements”.
I have always believed that I have a better idea on where to spend my money, than some government official telling me!
November 26th, 2007 at 12:29 pm
James:
Nobody’s quoting you, chief. Relax, I’m doing my best to ignore you.
November 26th, 2007 at 12:43 pm
Tagamet:
I liked your little joke on #58. Sadly these guys don’t like free market capitalism. They want TAX, TAX, TAX, GOVERNMENT, GOVERNMENT, GOVERNMENT!
Sad.
November 26th, 2007 at 12:48 pm
scott h. 61; “To Tagamet and Jim: We’re all alone brothers. Now they’re suggesting $10/gal and even a freakin’ carbon tax now! That’s it, I’m only talking with you guys from now on. They’ve got us boxed in, and they’re exhausting my energy (pun intended!). Later.”
scott, relax yourself, you’re above statement states that anyone on the board, other than yourself and two others, is suggesting a $10 pump price.
and please ignore me all you like, it’s you’re right.
but quoting reagan, whom i voted for twice, to justify your inability to think openly, well that’s just silly.
what do you think is paying the bill in iraq? taxes or the tooth fairy, chief? we are at war with alquadi, which is depenedent on Oil Dollars, so a tax may be necessary to help cut us off from oil and help defeat these a*sholes.
i’ve stated it several times, i, of all people abhor big government and taxes, but in this case i am open to any suggestions that may kill oil and alquadi.
i now give you the super power to iggy me chief, so please feel free to do so from this point on.
November 26th, 2007 at 12:53 pm
Ohmmmmmmmm (pun intended)
November 26th, 2007 at 12:54 pm
58, the profits for green and the green capitalists are only there as long as gas is above $3 a gallon. when gas drops, so will the green wake up of capitalism.
i should know i’m an investor myself, and follow the green stories closely.
November 26th, 2007 at 12:58 pm
jim l- 60, there’s an old saying in the futures markets, “when the shoe clerks start yelling “it” (whatever commodity is at a really high price) is going to go through the roof (climb even higher than it’s already dizzying height), then you’d better be ready to sell.
am i right on oil, i don’t know, but i’d watch for the top…
November 26th, 2007 at 1:00 pm
james:
“when gas drops, so will the green wake up of capitalism.
”
One question: If gas drops to $2, will GM cancel the Volt?
November 26th, 2007 at 1:08 pm
i don’t know what gm will do, they have the ev-1 problem, so maybe they will continue with the volt.
but, as i’ve stated before, if gas drops below, probably, $2.95 at the pump, mr and mrs america will find that a volt is more of a novelty than a necessity, so demand will be sharply curved, and if gas drops to $2, as you suggested, not me, lol, then there will be little demand for the volt. as i said the average american is thinking more about making a living, taking care of the kids, and what is better for their situation, it’s not an evil thing, it’s just life.
November 26th, 2007 at 1:11 pm
#60
Jim,
I also suspect the talk of taxation is probably a moot point as I don’t personally think that oil prices will come down significantly in the next decade, but that doesn’t mean I don’t fear the consequences if they do happen to fall (unexpected oil finds or world wide economic downturn could cause this).
I hope my fear is unfounded.
November 26th, 2007 at 1:18 pm
69- gas only needs to drop 35 cents in my area to break the $2.95 barrier, it won’t take much of an oil supply increase by opec to make that price drop happen.
and the funny thing about futures markets is, they can crumble in a day, lol.
however, there is the south american dictator opec problem, but i’ve read he may have a problem holding onto his power.
November 26th, 2007 at 1:19 pm
james 68
You may well be correct.
PS I’d just like to compliment this group for such CIVIL converstaion covering such a potentially abrasive mix of vastly differing points of view!
November 26th, 2007 at 1:22 pm
71, yep, it’s great, no trolls…
November 26th, 2007 at 1:34 pm
I don’t think openly, huh? I’m nothing but open, I’m TRYING to point out different points of view. So who’s the close minded one?
(not here)
November 26th, 2007 at 1:41 pm
scott your posts are generally insulting…
please Relax chief, as you would put it.
i have not stated that a “tax” is the answer, i have only pointed out that it is one possible option. you seem to get very heated about it, and insulting, so i would say that you are not at all being open minded about it.
please scott in the future feel free to iggy me, cause i sure as hell am going to iggy your a*s.
god bless the e-rev electric chevy volt, god bless nano solar, and God Bless the USA
November 26th, 2007 at 1:48 pm
I don’t think we will need to, but I would be in favor of a tax to keep gas prices high if they start to fall. I’m sure there are some people that need relief from high gas/energy prices and those people should be helped, but it is essential that we transition to primarily electric transportation.
November 26th, 2007 at 1:57 pm
Mike756
We agree on the goal, but necesarry as it may be, the ends don’t justify the means (taxes and government intervention). More money in the gov’t coffers is just less money in our pockets - not a solution to stimulate technology or even to cut consumption. The price is high NOW and I don’t see any data that says we are driving less. Can you please point me to some?
TIA
November 26th, 2007 at 2:01 pm
Just one more small point to make about the user fee for gas consumption:
Fed gas tax has been 18.4 cents/gal since 1993 when gas was just over a dollar a gallon. Gas is now three time that and the tax is the same. Taxes are usually a percent of the total and by that metric this tax has decreased by 2/3 s since 1993. In absolute terms obviously this fee has not kept up with the inflationary increases in infrastructure maintainance that it was designed to fund. Meanwhile you’ve paid the same percent in tax for milk and three times as much in absolute terms! By any measure other than pandering to voters this fee should be substabtially increased. It won’t be, but that is no tribute to the greatness of the American Way.
November 26th, 2007 at 2:03 pm
Tagamet,
No, I can’t and I don’t think the price will go down, and in general I am of the same view about taxes and government. Maybe the proceeds of the tax could be used for a rebate on an E-REV. I wouldn’t be in favor of just a general tax that the government could do whatever they wanted with it.
November 26th, 2007 at 2:05 pm
76, ah but tagamet, let’s say that this supposed tax at the pump, if gas falls below whatever the pain threshold is for the average american, persuades more people to go green.
and they then own a volt or other electric vehicle, and they buy solar panels from nano solar for “free” energy. then they will be driving for “free” and there will be much more money in their pockets.
however, as i’ve stated many times, i am not in favor of this tax, i am considering it as an option.
November 26th, 2007 at 2:12 pm
When President Carter vowed to not allow the foreign importation of oil to EVER increase again in the US, he was just blowing hot air. Mere words are no substitute for force of law. And mere taxes won’t necessarily stop the situation either (money goes back to oil companies as corporate welfare, population continues to increase, etc).
So, how to reduce dependence on foreign oil? Automakers make electric vehicles so attractive that it becomes impossible to choose a gas-powered one.
Alternatively, oil companies are simply banned by law from importing oil and are met by US Marines off the coast if that’s what it takes. i.e. make the conditions so painful that it becomes impossible to do anything else.
November 26th, 2007 at 2:14 pm
Don
So the “user consumption fee” (which sounds a LOT like a tax) is only adjusted “in absolute terms” for milk??? Hasn’t the Dollar itself gotten weaker over that period? Sorry, but techno-babble with stats is just like nails on the blackboard to me.
November 26th, 2007 at 2:14 pm
Ideas and opinions. Everyone has them. You can agree, you can disagree. But I will not make it personal. That accomplishes nothing. How can we solve the world’s problems if we just resort to calling each other names?
OK, back to topic:
I guess everyone has their own dollar amount tipping point on when an alternative powered vehicle makes sense to them.
Mine was at $2.00. That was when I started to look at electric car conversions and some of these small start up companies. But I do not have the time to build and maintain one myself, and I was even more worried about trying to get maintenance from some small company based in CA, when I am in OH. Plus most of these have very limited range, or are really enclosed electric motorcycles.
And the existing hybrids were not what I was looking for. I wanted fully electric, with charging at home.
So that was why I became so excited to see a “real” auto manufacturer step up to the plate with plans for a car that has the right idea. And the Volt was exactly what I am looking for. Regular daily travel would be all electric, but long trips possible, still with great mileage.
Even if OPEC tried to crush these ideas with short term price drops, I would still buy a Volt, assuming GM sticks with the program and does the car right. We have to start somewhere, and I am ready!
November 26th, 2007 at 2:27 pm
Jim I
Is there any chance that we were twins seperated at birth? (just kidding, but I AM in a neighbor state - Penna) Basically, I share your experiences in my “interest in the Volt”
November 26th, 2007 at 2:29 pm
81-
Don-So the “user consumption fee” (which sounds a LOT like a tax) is only adjusted “in absolute terms” for milk??? Hasn’t the Dollar itself gotten weaker over that period? Sorry, but techno-babble with stats is just like nails on the blackboard to me.
tagamet, that is only one option of what some sort of tax would be or do.
82-jim l, your threshold was 2 bucks, but the average joe’s is whatever the current high price of the decade is minus about 20 to 50 cents. seen it happen for 4 decades and it’s always the same. the only thing different this time, is that the high price has come back a second time. so everyone is green, but if the price falls below the threshold, green doesn’t look as good to that average guy gal.
November 26th, 2007 at 2:43 pm
By ANY metric taxes on food and most other goods have either stayed the same or increased over the course of time.
No babble.
Gas tax/user fee (Reagan’s term) has stayed the same dollar cent amount which means that since gas is three times higher, it has decreased as a percent tax. It has not been adjusted for inflation. Sales tax has stayed the same percent which means that with inflation people are paying three times as much. Yes, you can say it is the same for milk in “real dollars” but to do so you must recognize that the gas tax is only 1/3 as much in real dollars as well. While the service it was designed to pay for, road maintainance, have had tremendous inflationary increases. Fed gas tax was about 18% when it was created; now it is about 6% of your total gas bill.
November 26th, 2007 at 2:55 pm
Don
So then a reasonable solution to make things equitable is to reduce all the other taxes by 2/3.
I could live with that.
November 26th, 2007 at 2:55 pm
don, i agree that is not babble, it does make sense. and while i am still not in favor of such an increase in, or a new, gas tax. i believe that the option must be looked at.
as i said, when everyone says a commodity is going to go through the roof, it generally falls back.
not necesserally this time, because there are different factors, but it generally holds true.
November 26th, 2007 at 2:59 pm
86, sarcasm is generally considered a lesser form of open discussion.
November 26th, 2007 at 3:57 pm
Scott H,
Our government is supposed to be “of the people, by the people and for the people”. Maybe if we had more accountability, we wouldn’t have such incompetence. Knocking down the idea of the government as a potential solution to a problem illustrates your lack of faith in the American people.
November 26th, 2007 at 4:17 pm
OptimisticMF,
My knocking down the government as a potential solution IS my illustration IN my faith for the American people. You have faith in government, I don’t. As Tagamet has said before, when have you EVER seen a government program go right? That’s right, never, or rarely at best.
Government used to be “of the people, by the people, for the people”, but politicians nowadays have their own agendas and care little about their constituency. Can we agree on that? I think we can.
My faith in our innovation and technology, with or without “big brothers” help, will see us through. So help us, God.
November 26th, 2007 at 4:34 pm
Scott, its a pretty big leap from government initiative to “big brother”.
I guess we agree on the idea that the initiative and the resources of the American people are the key to this solution, but government has to play a role. Regardless of how effective it is or is not, currently, government is part of the equation. I don’t inherently trust government, but I understand that it will take a combination of government and free enterprise to bring about change on the scale required.
As to Tagamet’s question, have I ever seen a government program go right? Do you get your mail delivered? Is the water that comes out of your tap potable? Do the traffic lights work in your town? Government programs work all the time, stop drinking the Kool Aid man!
November 26th, 2007 at 5:03 pm
Lyle: You should archive this discussion under a “best discussions” category. This is good stuff. I’m honored to be among these people.
Scott H, and the others with your view:
I am generally against big government programs. I’m against the concept of the government ‘taking care’ of us. I despise what Britain has become. I am best described as a conservative Republican Jihadi with respect for business and economics and human nature.
The government is oftentimes incompetent, hires losers, and panders to political issues instead of market issues. The thought of socialized health care makes me shiver with fear.
However, this does not mean the government cannot be a useful tool in killing oil. Remember, the government has some dramatic success stories: nuclear power, the interstate highway system, the internet, etc. To just blindly claim that the same government should not be utilized to accomplish a goal is simply closed minded, in my opinion. Instead, I believe the government should be utilized correctly.
There’s many ways to fail at our mission, but that does not mean all paths lead of failure. The government is a tool. One that we the people have control over.
We here on this website must spread the word of how to kill oil, why it should be killed, and the benefits of doing so. This website needs to be the beginning of a grass roots effort. You may laugh at these words, but major efforts have begun this way before. The end of slavery was begun by the formation of the republican party as a grass roots effort. They never intended to be a permanent political party.
For me, killing oil is SUCH a priority that I’m willing to accept drastic actions to accomplish it. Not $10 a gallon fuel, but certainly something that can be accepted by the people, along with some education / propaganda / manipulation.
It’s in our national security interests, financial interests, and environmental interests. With one stone we can take out 3 birds. Where do the Saudis get the money to fund the spread of their twisted version of Islam? The Iranians to pursue nukes and fund hezbollah? Venezuela, Russia, Saddam Hussein, etc.
Oil is a strong and entrenched enemy, one that has successfully defeated alternatives before. To believe we can achieve a quick victory with a hands off approach is something I don’t believe. An organized and well thought out battle plan is needed. One weapon is a minimum price, and it should be considered. Yeah, it’s possibly a page from the socialists, but so what?
When Arabia and Persia have returned to their natural state, like that of Africa, nobody will really care if we utilized socialist anti-free market tactics.
I’d be more than happy to pay more for fuel than what the free market is willing to sell it to me for, if it means:
1. The death of oil
2. The bankruptcy of our enemies
3. A great reduction in our trade deficit
4. A big step towards helping the environment.
That sounds like bargain to me.
Death to oil!
http://www.oiljihad.org
http://www.thecaseforpluginhybrids.com
November 26th, 2007 at 5:38 pm
james #84:
My basic argument with your pricing threshold of the average Joe, is that there are no alternatives available, so what options do they have but to accept the situation?
If GM, Chrysler, Ford, Toyota, Honda, Hyundai, Subaru, Mercedes, BMW, Volvo, Lexus, etc, etc, etc, produce some of these new technology vehicles, I really believe they will sell, not only to the techies, but to that average Joe that is really unhappy about seeing his hard earned cash being sent to countries that hate us.
GM is gambling on this. If it is successful, and I think it will be wildly successful, then you will see many more models introduced very quickly, and the average Joe will be able to speak (make that scream!) with his wallet.
November 26th, 2007 at 5:44 pm
PS I’d just like to compliment this group for such CIVIL converstaion covering such a potentially abrasive mix of vastly differing points of view!
Please rescind.
November 26th, 2007 at 5:44 pm
I agree with Jim, however the average Joe will also cause a drop in demand for oil when he buys an electric vehicle. Thus the price of oil will drop, and the next group of average Joe’s will have a more difficult time justifying an electric vehicle.
A drop in demand = a drop in price.
A drop in price is oil’s counter attack.
A minimum price would successfully defeat that counter attack.
A drop in fuel prices may very well never occur, because China and India might suck up all the excess. However, that just means that the minimum price threshold would not be reached. I’d be more than happy to see this tool never utilized, than to see it not exist when/if needed.
death to oil
November 26th, 2007 at 6:15 pm
I’m not the Kool-Aid drinker.
November 26th, 2007 at 6:30 pm
jim l-92, the average joe will have the choice, when/if the pump price falls to his “painless” threshold. that is, his choice will be that now that gas is cheap, why should i spend money on a new green vehicle, since gas is now cheap again.
even supposing that i am wrong about the threshold, anti-oil jihadi has it right, the next group of average joe’s will not have an incentive to buy green, when (and it will) oil falls because of all of the green tech.
however, the first will hold true, when oil drops most will not go green.
we in this room want green to work. but try asking twenty people on the street what they think and the reaction is generally, really, a real electric car is coming out soon? or how much is it going to cost? or, it will never really happen. or, how much will it save me over gas (and if gas is below the threshold, our answer is, sorry not much at this point).
and remember, china’s thirst for oil will be curbed when/if this green tech becomes profitable against oil, again dropping the price. but at that point, we won’t care what the h*ll the price of oil is, because we will be green, lol…
Death to Oil, god bless the E-Rev Electric Chevy Volt, god bless nano solar, and God Bless America!
November 26th, 2007 at 6:39 pm
94 anti oil jihadi says;
“A drop in demand = a drop in price.
A drop in price is oil’s counter attack.”
yep, that’s how it’s worked for 4 decades, let’s see if it continues…
November 26th, 2007 at 8:52 pm
Re: post #93
Please see:
http://www.salon.com/books/it/1999/09/13/machtest/
November 26th, 2007 at 9:32 pm
omg tag, i wondered if/when you’d go frasier on us.
just suggesting such a thing pretty much makes you it…
November 26th, 2007 at 9:36 pm
but, more importantly;
Death to Oil, god bless the E-Rev Electric Chevy Volt, god bless nano solar, and God Bless the USA!
November 26th, 2007 at 9:40 pm
Just wanted to point out that my large recent post was delayed for approval, and it appears to have thrown off the post/comment numbers.
That’s why some of the post references won’t make sense.
death to oil
November 26th, 2007 at 9:56 pm
To Anti-Oil Jihadi:
I love your post #93. Your my hero, dude. It looked like I wrote it myself.
OK, I’ll give in, I’ll support a government role, but a limited one only. “Uncle Slappy” needs to be watched like a bunch of kids, sometimes they get out of control.
Death to oil, later.
November 26th, 2007 at 10:13 pm
that they do, as the old saying goes, absolute power corrupts absolutely.
fortunately we have what the original fathers of our nation set up as the bloodless revolution (voting every two years on major members) to try to keep things in check.
i’m conservative, but, liberals and conservatives have been caught with their hands in the til. fortunately they don’t get to stay, lol.
November 26th, 2007 at 11:43 pm
i don’t see much point in showing off the interior of the concept vehicle. the production car will be very different. think grey plastic. but also think airbags…
November 27th, 2007 at 12:07 am
james #98:
If this is advertised right, it won’t just be about the price difference for fuel. This can be sold as a national pride issue.
Build a stong America - Do you want your legacy to your children to be that of black smoke and black oil, or the beginning of the green movement to save the planet?
Or advertise it as the next “it” thing to have. People spent a lot of money on huge Hummers, because they were sold as being really cool. If the public sees Brad Pitt in a Volt, do you have any idea how many that would sell???
And yes, at this time, the general public is not aware of the emerging technologies. But GM and their massive ad budgets have three years to to educate the masses and change all that. I have no doubt they will be successful.
Probably by the time the Volt hits the showrooms and hopefully we all have one in our garages, we will be here discussing the Gen-4 software updates and arguing about the placements of our solar charging arrays………
Now for the big one - the government:
I was going to go into a long statement about what we were really supposed to get from our government, based on the Articles of the Constitution, especially Article 1, Section 8. But this is not the place for that.
So here is my boiled down version: In my opinion, you just can’t force people to do the “right” thing through legislation or taxation. We have hundreds of thousands of laws. Some people will agree with and obey most of them. Some people will disagree and not obey some of them. When you get to live in a country where people have the right to choose, that is exactly what they will do. In the simplest terms, you can’t take away the right for someone to be an idiot, without taking the same right away from yourself.
Why does this site make me go up on that soapbox so often???? I apologize in advance for being so wordy and going so far off topic!
November 27th, 2007 at 12:26 am
Jim:
“In my opinion, you just can’t force people to do the “right” thing through legislation or taxation.”
The government forces each of us to pay tax on every gallon of fuel we buy. I doubt many people ‘chose’ not to pay it. The government forces us to pay taxes on our alcohol and cigarettes.
Thus your assertion that the government can not force us to do the right thing thru taxes or legislation is false. However, I don’t claim the government can always succeed. It depends upon the issue. Ban alcohol? Nope. Set a minimum price for gas and diesel at $2.95 a gallon? I say it would probably work, especially if the public was educated about the reason for it for a decade or more. Heck, many people now use seat belts.
death to oil
November 27th, 2007 at 1:07 am
Jim and to some extent Jihadi, I don’t doubt that government can “encourage” it’s citizens to do “the right thing” My problem is that if history is any indication, our government hasn’t done a very good job selecting what it is that constitutes “right”. Vested interests and lobbyists can and do effect those decisions. Inter-racial marriage was “wrong”. Women even having the right to vote was wrong (ok, that one is debatable), and how many “nanny state” laws are on the books that stifle inovation.
Be well and God Bless,
Tagamet
November 27th, 2007 at 2:23 am
107 jim l,you make valid points, the brad pitt or other kool celeb pitching the volt will be good for the volt. but, i’m still fairly convinced if the pump falls much below the pain threshold, the ave joe ain’t goin’ for it.
i hope i’m wrong, but, it’s basically what i’ve seen in life. your hummer makes a good point, everybody wants one, but how many actually buy them?
a min. price for gas? h*ll the feds, states and locals do all kinds of price fixing, so what’s one more, when the stakes are this high?
November 27th, 2007 at 7:02 am
The only thing some people care about is the price. A while ago, after doing a great deal of research on PHEVs, (sorry, I didn’t know about E-REVs at the time) I told my sister I was going to buy one. She practically screamed at me, telling me that I hadn’t done my research. For E-REVs to be successful they need to be cool and their cost of ownership needs to be comparable to a traditional ICE with a similiar level of performance.
November 27th, 2007 at 7:34 am
The government has taxed cigarettes and alcohol to try to curb consumption. Did it work? No!!!!
So what makes you think that forcing a higher price for gasoline will be any different?
Until the majority of people decide for whatever reason that using and ICE with gasoline for transportation is the wrong approach, you can make the price of gasoline whatever you want and they will still buy it. Why do you think that after the last price surge it did not do back down all that much, and now it is on the rise again so soon? We can all moan about it, but in the end, we will go to the pump to fuel up. We all have to go to work, don’t we? OPEC knows this and could care less.
I just do not see this drastic price drop happening. Worldwide demand is way up. They will just sell it somewhere else.
And Mile756 - Your sister is right - The Volt HAS to be cool, and if used as designed, the cost of ownership WILL be less that an ICE based vehicle. I already worked those numbers.
November 27th, 2007 at 10:39 am
You’re right, Jim. Cigarettes and alcohol with their so called “sin taxes” added has done little to nothing. So buying fuel is a sin also when everyone uses it? The answer is of course, no. So adding taxes to fuel would solidify governments greed for more tax revenue and in my opinion severely “price gouge” a necessary commodity. That’s why it would be a crime in my mind. But, so many people here are for it. That really pains me. Here’s another example. Sometimes during summer months there are water shortages, right? So would you be for a 50 cent tax on every gallon of water used during a drought? Do you actually think they should have the right to do that? I should hope not. Remember, a certain country (this one) was born from it’s anger with wrongful taxation from a tyrannical government. I’m not saying it would go that far, I’m just illustrating how wrong it is. If you approve of one excessive tax, what’s to stop them from taxing other things? When does it stop? OK, I’m done for now.
November 27th, 2007 at 11:06 am
Go gettum Scott H. but my guess is that this horse ain’t goin to move no more.
November 27th, 2007 at 11:13 am
This is interesting speculation that GM and Toyota are collaborating on a vehicle?
http://www.autobloggreen.com/category/toyota/
November 27th, 2007 at 12:50 pm
Scott H,
While I agree with you in spirit on certain aspects of your posts, I sincerely question you on others. For instance, I’m not sure how an additional tax on fuel constitutes a “crime”?
Just because some politicians are greedy, some laws are stupid and some taxes are wasteful doesn’t mean that the entire system is without merit. Some taxes are good, for instance, I’m happy to pay the property and sales taxes in my community that pay for police and fire protection. On the other hand, I agree that government waste is a real problem. I suggest that updating the fuel tax could be part of the solution, provided that the revenue collected from the tax be applied to advancing technologies and services that reduce our dependence on oil. I don’t think anyone is suggesting that a big, fat tax will solve our problems any more than I believe that you are suggesting that we should overthrow the government since all taxes are criminal.
Like it or not, we live in a complex society with scarce resources and we have to make compromises to provide for the general welfare. When this coutry was founded, government was not very effective at enforcing laws, so it was up to individuals to fend for themselves. While I admire that ethic, its just not reasonable to assume that you can use up as much water (or any other resource) as you want, just because you want to. At some point, waste affects the common good, and must be curtailed. Using oil to the degree that we do, represents waste, since it depletes our economy and our environment. Is it unfortunate that we need to tax certain resources because some people don’t act in the common interest? Yes, but its a fact of life.
November 27th, 2007 at 1:36 pm
You people are overanalyzing every word I say and taking things too literally and completely out of context. I’m giving hypothetical EXAMPLES, not suggestions!
OK, I can play that game too.
November 27th, 2007 at 2:12 pm
Whatever dude.
November 27th, 2007 at 4:16 pm
Scott, if the extra taxes were diverted towards ethanol and nuclear power, not into the governments pockets, would you be for it then? I’m not saying our roads and highways don’t need improvement, they do. However, increasing taxes (if the price drops to a certain level) is only part of the issue.
How that money is spent is the other part.
death to oil
November 27th, 2007 at 7:03 pm
actually, i known of a lot of people who smoke one pack a day instead of two or three because the price is high.
i know one guy who was going to buy duty free smokes, and then decided against it, because, since they would be so cheap he would smoke more.
a gas tax wouldn’t be a sin tax, that’s just silly, but a minimum gas price by tax or whatever, would stimulate more green tech. the price of the car is only one aspect.
aniti -oil, while i agree that a “gas” tax may work, i am doubtful as to whether the feds would actually divert the funds to the places they are needed. but, still think the plan may be valid to help bring green tech to the front.
they do curtail use of water when there are shortages. and you get fined if you use more than you are supposed to.
November 27th, 2007 at 7:04 pm
that should have read because the price of smokes is high, due to taxes.
November 28th, 2007 at 10:30 am
I’m a conservative, generally against the global-warming crowd (a topic for another discussion), but I am totally for the Volt. I feel we need to get off oil for political and economic reasons (have you seen the Island that the UEA is building, from scratch, on oil money — sick).
Anyway, I think this will go down like this: Both the supply and demand for oil is very inelastic (except supply can be elastic in the down direction, as oil wells can be shut off if not profitable) meaning that a small change in either supply or demand will have a big impact on price.
That said, if the Volt (and its ilk) is successful (by success I mean replacing 1-2% of passenger vehicles) the price of oil will drop dramatically. But with the specs I’ve seen, the Volt can still be competitive even when compared to cheap gas. But it’s going to be a balancing act, when oil prices spike, Electrics will be more favorable and will help drive the price of oil back down.
Has anyone checked out the MDI compressed air powered car? Very interesting.
Someone (or a couple people) earlier compared ICE vehicles to horse and buggy, predicting that once electrics take hold the ICE vehicles will die out quickly. I don’t think it’ll be that fast, as electrics are not anywhere near able to pull loads (think horse trailers, utility vehicles, 18-wheelers, trains, airplanes, etc). So ICE will be ar