geebeebee said:You could've saved several paragraphs with "Drill baby Drill".
That isn't a sound argument. That is a catchphrase embraced by the public, and has no place in intelligent discussion.

geebeebee said:Drilling every square inch of the U.S. won't satisfy our gluttonous oil thirst.
Who said anything about 100% replacement? Drilling in the US will satisfy much of the domestic demand, and will certainly create jobs and increase tax revenues, while taking much pressure off of the dollar.

geebeebee said:
Your economics on our reduction in demand automatically stimulating demand elsewhere is shaky. Is that your economic concept, or did you get it from someone else?
Demand drives price, and price drives demand. That is Econ 101. Of course, you threw in the word "automatically" to plant an insidious straw man escape.


geebeebee said:Certainly have never seen that from anyone of reasonable repute.
Limited, obviously, by your definition of "reasonable repute."

geebeebee said:Oil dropped by two-thirds this year; what massive industrialization did that cause?
You are attempting to compare a temporary spike to a long-term trend. When oil was at $147 per barrel, it did become unaffordable to those at the margins.

The economic utility of oil falls along a continuum. Economic activity that is profitable at $30 per barrel may not be possible at $147 per barrel.

If Western nations give up, in your words, their "gluttonous thirst" for oil, demand will fall, and the profile of those buyers will shift from rich to poor.

Considering that Saudi Arabia can produce oil for $2 per barrel, there is going to be a willing buyer for it somewhere. The underdeveloped world can't buy it at, say, $20 per barrel, when the West has paid as much as $147.

geebeebee said:
We are the ones to create alternatives; others will follow. That's the way it has worked with every significant technology for the last 100+ years.
Cap and trade is not technology, it is regulation. As I said earlier, once Fossil fuels have been made technologically obsolete and no longer cost-competitive, then they will fall into disuse. Innovation and price effectiveness cannot be legislated.

geebeebee said:And I'm talking China, India and Russia -- those are the ones that will make or break the world's environment. Sorry, but if all the Ethiopias in the world burn oil to industrialize, it's not going to be at a big enough scale to cause massive environmental danger, such as China, India, and ourselves are currently doing.
Nations with millions of unemployed people, or people living at a basic subsistence level, are more than capable of burning that oil.

Unless, of course, you have an energy free way to manufacture products domestically, and somehow also solve the problem of job loss due to over regulation and union proliferation.

staci86 said:Demand drives price, and price drives demand. That is Econ 101. Of course, you threw in the word "automatically" to plant an insidious straw man escape.If technology changes the game, all that is out the window. If suddenly solar/wind/whatever power is the equivalent of $1/barrel of oil, then $5 oil is not attractive. Maybe that is Econ 102.

It's funny you used a Thomas Edison example. How do you think the oil lantern market did after he invented the light bulb and mass-produced it? Are China and India taking undue advantage of us because of their use of oil lanterns?

This type of thinking is why we are probably 30 years behind where we should be by now. Alternative energies have been around for decades, but the greed and lack of foresight has kept us back from where we should be.

staci86 said:Limited, obviously, by your definition of "reasonable repute."Try me. Of course, this is funny, coming from someone who has such a high opinion of their economics knowledge that they dismiss Nobel Laureates' opinions in favor of their own.

staci86 said:You are attempting to compare a temporary spike to a long-term trend. When oil was at $147 per barrel, it did become unaffordable to those at the margins.

The economic utility of oil falls along a continuum. Economic activity that is profitable at $30 per barrel may not be possible at $147 per barrel.

If Western nations give up, in your words, their "gluttonous thirst" for oil, demand will fall, and the profile of those buyers will shift from rich to poor.

Considering that Saudi Arabia can produce oil for $2 per barrel, there is going to be a willing buyer for it somewhere. The underdeveloped world can't buy it at, say, $20 per barrel, when the West has paid as much as $147.Yes, OK, well, is global output up? I'm looking for ANY basic realities that back that statement up. It's more complex than basic supply and demand, especially when there are alternatives on the horizon.

staci86 said:Nations with millions of unemployed people, or people living at a basic subsistence level, are more than capable of burning that oil.

Unless, of course, you have an energy free way to manufacture products domestically, and somehow also solve the problem of job loss due to over regulation and union proliferation.Just so I get this straight, what countries are you referring to here? Is it China and India? If not, then, frankly, I'm not that interested. It's a drop in the bucket.

staci86 said:The illegality is exactly why it is a good comparison. Illegality is nothing more than a governmental decree against a certain activity.

The activities I listed are strictly controlled in most of the world, and loosely controlled, if at all, in other parts of the world. Thus, they have migrated to where they are less controlled.Hey, if you want to compare Fossil fuel production and its effect upon the environment to Nigerian internet scams, go for it (and, unlike you, I won't play the logic-fallacy police game on you). It isn't a remotely viable argument. I'm talking about being, as we have been for over a hundred years, a technological leader. If you want to forfeit that to another country (and those with less infrastructure to re-tool, such as China and India, are perfect candidates) then you have a great plan. Personally, I'd still like to see us lead. THAT is what keeps us in jobs going forward, not a few blue-collar jobs drilling oil. Short-sighted.

staci86 said:Wrong.

Oil is in demand right now. It is also a fungible commodity. If we drill here in the US, Federal and State lease royalties can be reinvested in research, instead of buying a fleet of 100 Ferraris for every prince in a tiny nation in the Middle East.

Of course, domestic drilling also creates jobs for the unemployed, but you obviously don't care about that. You'd rather cling to your NIMBY mentality, all the while Saudi Aramco continues to export workers from the United States to live and work at their facilities.NOTHING would remove the smugness from the Middle-East oil barons than eliminating the need for it. If you can make it unnecessary, you've totally leapfrogged the problem, whereas your piddling drilling solution only postpones the real issue. You have to think big here; our country has been too accustomed to thinking little.

staci86 said: Drilling in the US will satisfy much of the domestic demand, and will certainly create jobs and increase tax revenues, while taking much pressure off of the dollar.You are way off.

US companies have the best techonology to explore and develope oil fields. With a few exceptions (ANWR = low to mid single digit percentage of US oil consumption), they have indeed drilled everywhere for oil in US.

EvilCapitalist said:"Richard S. Lindzen, a professor at M.I.T. and a longtime skeptic of the mainstream consensus that global warming poses a danger." followed by a semi-quote from him ignores what he actually has been saying which can be seen even on his Wikipedia entry.Lindzen's view actually fits my description of the skeptics. He doesn't deny the exisitence of the warming nor the role of CO2. So what's your point?

EvilCapitalist said: He's skeptical on CO2 emitted by human activity being the cause of a global warming. The Figure 2 of this paper supports the link between temperature and CO2 level. Nowhere in the article says CO2 didn't increase nor the increase was not from human activities.

Dealguy123 said:I don't care to bother with this discussion, as KD's blog sums up my feelings quite well. http://market-ticker.denninger.net/archives/1171-Carbon-Credits-...

To summarize: So what if WE cut down on carbon emissions/etc. What about the rest of the world? You think Asia gives two shits about the environment? Hell no. So, we pay the higher costs now, for what? To make ourselves feel a little better that we're (allegedly) "helping the planet?" In another decade we'll have the "emerging markets/countries" with much higher per capita carbon emissions, and then what..? The reality is that the US is not its own planet. The stupidity NEVER ceases to amaze me..OK, let's take this further. Let's say (obviously not reality YET), that we take the lead, pay the price, and develop technology that drastically reduces our need for oil and coal. You don't see that as a competitive advantage? And as a major side benefit, we reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Can't buy into your bluster.

Sorry, but I see a "since no one else cares about the environment, I won't either" strategy as a game of chicken where everyone loses. BTW, WE are the biggest polluters on the planet per capita, so thinking that we reducing our gas output doesn't matter is illogical thinking. You can think what you want about "alleged" helping the planet, but find me someone with any credibility (wingnut radio guys aside) that says it literally doesn't matter how much we pump out, and I'll listen to you. Nobody knows for sure how much we need to reduce gas emissions, but it certainly isn't a negative to do so. And, even if you don't care about the environment, economically, it is smart as well. There is a limited amount of Fossil fuels, and the price for them, IF no good alternatives come about, are going to grow astronomically as supplies dwindle. To twiddle our thumbs until that time, and then go,"WOW! Oil is $300 a barrel. I sure wish we had other alternatives" is much stupider than you claim this thinking is.

I like this:
Carbon Debits

geebeebee said:OK, let's take this further. Let's say (obviously not reality YET), that we take the lead, pay the price, and develop technology that drastically reduces our need for oil and coal. You don't see that as a competitive advantage?

Uh.. we are already doing this. Why we need a carbon cap or whatever is what I don't understand. The other problem is that folks don't want to make the (necessary) sacrifices and look to other forms of energy (like nuclear), because they're scared of a meltdown and the "pollution," and whatever other nonsense. Another thing to keep in mind is that coal is something we have a lot of in this country. It's one of our competitive advantages, and using it until we get onto other technologies is fine by me.

Sorry, but I see a "since no one else cares about the environment, I won't either" strategy as a game of chicken where everyone loses.

I was waiting for someone to tear that straw man to shreds. Bravo, you didn't disappoint. Just because we aren't enforcing carbon taxes/etc. doesn't mean we don't care.

BTW, WE are the biggest polluters on the planet per capita, so thinking that we reducing our gas output doesn't matter is illogical thinking.

That's not what I said at all. I suggest you re-read what I said, and come back to me with a logical response. That's straw man #2.

You can think what you want about "alleged" helping the planet, but find me someone with any credibility (wingnut radio guys aside) that says it literally doesn't matter how much we pump out, and I'll listen to you. Nobody knows for sure how much we need to reduce gas emissions, but it certainly isn't a negative to do so. And, even if you don't care about the environment, economically, it is smart as well.

I agree, and never said otherwise. The point however, is that by doing this, we're hurting ourselves, for no good reason (this cap and trade crap will not substantially reduce emissions, that's the reality). I probably live more "green" than 98% of the people in this country, which isn't readily apparent on a message board, but that's the reality. I'm all for reducing emissions/etc, but to a "reasonable" level. Of course, everyone defines "reasonable" differently.

There is a limited amount of Fossil fuels, and the price for them, IF no good alternatives come about, are going to grow astronomically as supplies dwindle. To twiddle our thumbs until that time, and then go,"WOW! Oil is $300 a barrel. I sure wish we had other alternatives" is much stupider than you claim this thinking is.

Uh... you don't seem to understand economics very well. I guess you're a peak oil believer where one day we'll just wake up and there'll be no oil and/or it'll cost $1k/barrel? lol I understand the peak oil argument very well, and fortunately we're making steady strides AWAY from oil, but it takes time (and again, there are the green nuts preventing other viable alternatives). There are alternatives available today, just people are too spoiled/selfish to make the change. Fortunately, the marketplace is ultimately self regulating, and high oil prices will push the alternatives. That's how it works. Again, I'm all for reducing our per capita carbon output in the US (I think most would agree most americans are terribly wasteful/etc), but this cap and trade nonsense is certainly not the answer. We need things to change from the bottom up (turning off lights/electronics, not "wasting" a lot of things, etc), not this ridiculous carbon cap. The point with my previous post is that if the carbon output won't be done here, it'll simply be done elsewhere, completely bypassing the point of this bill, and doing nothing but raising costs. It kind of reminds me of the bill going through congress about eliminating speculating on oil when prices were approaching $150/barrel. So what if it was made illegal here, you could still trade it everywhere else in the world, ultimately making the bill pointless. This is the same as the cap and trade bill, but common sense is not a strong suit of the "greenies."

So, you can certainly be "green" and against this bill. That's what some folks (like yourself), don't seem to comprehend. It's not a tree hugger vs. "I love my Hummer H1" bill.

geebeebee said:staci86 said:Demand drives price, and price drives demand. That is Econ 101. Of course, you threw in the word "automatically" to plant an insidious straw man escape.If technology changes the game, all that is out the window. If suddenly solar/wind/whatever power is the equivalent of $1/barrel of oil, then $5 oil is not attractive. Maybe that is Econ 102.

It's funny you used a Thomas Edison example. How do you think the oil lantern market did after he invented the light bulb and mass-produced it? Are China and India taking undue advantage of us because of their use of oil lanterns?

This type of thinking is why we are probably 30 years behind where we should be by now. Alternative energies have been around for decades, but the greed and lack of foresight has kept us back from where we should be.

Yes, but the technology isn't viable at this point, otherwise we would be seeing a dramatic shift from Fossil fuels to renewable energy sources and that just isn't happening. A more effective way for the government to try and push things along would be to provide tax incentives for using viable alternatives and or grants for researching alternatives. As it is Cap and Trade will cost many jobs that we can't afford to loose and will do nothing to fight global warming.