I'm glad you have recognized WE have a problem Leo.

I am a Bush Hater. Period. I believe we would not be facing this catastrophe with real leadership. We would have begun real energy management long ago.

Nuff said about that.

Now is the time to bite the bullet. You want the "easier, softer, way out". I don't think thats going to cut it. This problem is going to effect our economy one way or another. I must use caps at this point. IT WILL HURT. THINGS WILL CHANGE.

Our resilience comes with managing the change with inspiration and honesty. We Americans can and hopefully will persevere. If we are kept in the loop.

What can we do right now? What is the status of your hero's energy policy? (I can tell ya, NONEXISTENT).

I have suggested a national drive the speed limit re-enforcement. I would suggest put a speed governor on all cars, mandatory yesterday. Our highway patrols must be on top of this. Sorry hot foots, 65 mph is the max. Period. The amount of fuel we will conserve will be dramatic. This will NOT solve our energy CRISIS. This is an activity we CAN do right now to affect change.

We can start implementing and slowly applying other stop gap measures with minimal effect on our economy. I challenge you Blog for Bushers to come up with other "easily" implemented measures.

Or, will you say, we have plenty of oil, damn the environment, full steam ahead, AND CHANGE NOTHING.

Yes, Leo, we do have the brightest minds and "We are Americans, and we have more than a cuisinart!"

Do something Leo. You start. Throw out an idea.

The solution is obvious and has been successful in many other manufacturing, industrial and recently -high tech area

outsource our energy needs to the chinese

Agent-Fear--

Why do you hate? Especially when hatred shortens your life so?

What you have suggested amounts to conservation--drags on our economy which are totally unnecessary.

What I suggest--

1. We drill offshore. We drill in ANWR. We drill anywhere we have reserves. We build as many refineries we need to meet demand--and we do it quick!

We have the technology to do it cleanly and with minimal environmental impact.

2. We set up incentives.

We set up a multi-billion dollar trust fund, in the form of tax breaks or whatever, to the person or company that can come up with an alternative source of energy that is at once cheap, practical, and ubiquitous.

Then sit back and watch it happen. Because happen, it will.

Oh, yes... and build nuclear plants.

Plenty of them.

"What you have suggested amounts to conservation--drags on our economy which are totally unnecessary."

Oh Leo, NO CONSERVATION FOR YOU, HUH?.

Sigh.

As expected, "damn the torpedoes". "Full steam ahead"!

May God help us all.

You just gotta love Blogs for Bush.

Damn right, Agent--full speed ahead.

Meanwhile, you and yours want to drag us back to the stone age.

I always thought the term "progressive" was an oxymoron when applied to today's neo-socialists ;)

Oh AgentSmear

sigh

A governor on all cars topping the speed out at 65mph? What about the hybrids, will you let them go faster? What about Algores lear jet? Should we top that out at say 300mph? And how will that effect his carbon buttprint?

sigh

How about if we stop all the illegal immigrants from driving? How about if we turn one light off in each room, per Bob Costas? But then what about the poor folks who only have one light in each room?

Why don't you like poor people?

sigh

AgentSmear and neologizer are just two idiots, in a long line of village idiots that stand on the street corner with their signs proclaiming that the world is ending.

The planet has survived millions of years of volcanic eruptions, violent earthquakes, devastating hits from meteors and random solar flares, but apparently it's no match for the policies of George W Bush.

I hope energy prices keep rising.

therein the free market will force overdue societal changes to wit:

1) more public transport, smaller cars, the return of bikes in urban areas (& fat folks walking more thus losing weight & getting back in shape - hopefully).
2) smaller homes instead of dinosaur mcmansions.
3) the suburbs being obsoleted & families re-urbanizing & revitalizing formerly decent working class neighborhoods which are currently run-down. ditto for inner-city school districts.
4) alternative energy, to include nuclear & clean coal, becoming cost effective.
5) ever more energy independence from the mid-east while the chinese communists fall ever further under their influence.

and don't even get me started on the SAPP, the NAU, and the Amero none of which these sell-out SOB's running for federal office will even talk about.

Or, will you say, we have plenty of oil, damn the environment, full steam ahead, AND CHANGE NOTHING.

Or we can keep the present situation and minimize the risk to our environment, while buying oil from Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Venezuela, Nigeria, etc., and let them take all the environmental risk.

The comment "CHANGE NOTHING" ignores the basic facts of economics. By increasing production, the supply of oil increases, thus putting (much needed) downward pressure on the price. And considering we have been drilling offshore for decades without destroying the environment, the risk thereto, while not non-existent, would not be prohibitive.

With our offshore reserves and oil shale, we could hold off on ANWR. From what I understand, that oil is too thick to be refined into gasoline, and is instead suitable for making jet fuel (which could offset jet fuel demand from other sources).

The main reason that many give for not allowing more offshore drilling? They're afraid that potential tourists will be turned away because they might have to endure seeing the offshore rigs. (Potential tourists being turned away by the high price of the gas needed for their trip, resulting in part from this misguided environmentalism, doesn't seem to bother the "no more offshore rigs" crowd.)

Putting up windmills

I have no problem with wind energy. The more baskets we put our eggs in, the better. But even windmills have their opponents, such as the Kennedy family. Why do they oppose new windmills? Because they might have to endure seeing them while out on their expensive yachts.

until the neocoms or neosocs (whichever term you prefer) put their money where their mouth is and practice what they preach, many will not go for their radical reforms. By radical, throw out what works now, and then develop.

Why don't the neocoms or neosocs take the millions of dollars they raise for lobbyists and invest that in the new technology.

Again, put their money where their mouth is.

Give up the private jets, limos, mansions, private yachts, etc. etc. etc.

neocoms do any of that? yeah right.

neocon: The planet has survived millions of years of volcanic eruptions, violent earthquakes, devastating hits from meteors and random solar flares, but apparently it's no match for the policies of George W Bush.

Well, the earth has survived those things, but there is no evidence the human race would. Not easily anyway.

Rico,

Darwinism teaches us that we will adapt. No need to worry.

neocon: Rico, Darwinism teaches us that we will adapt. No need to worry.

Darwinism postulates that life will adapt to changing environmental conditions, not individual species. There have been plenty of times when entire genuses, orders, even kingdoms in the taxonomic tree have been wiped out due to rapidly changing environmental conditions.

But that's getting far afield. I don't anticipate a catastrophe on that scale. But then again, you never know. The fact of the matter is the concentration of GHGs in the atmosphere right now is considerably higher than it's been at any time in many hundreds of thousands of years, perhaps more. That's a fact. Humans haven't been around that long. So we're in uncharted territory. Thus, to conclude that there is "no need to worry" strikes me as a bit disingenuous.

Bigfoot... or we could put more resources into cellulose based biofuels, which would, in turn, reduce demand. That also puts downward pressure on prices. We also already have the technology to produce efficient electric cars... the Car companies just sit on their patents and do nothing. We could also actually run our current refineries at full capacity, which we don't because the oil companies see the inherent rise in revenues that comes from restricting supply of a very price inelastic product.

Technology exists that can help us remove our dependence from fossil fuels all together... we just lack the will to make the switch.

Oh, and SO2 released in to the atmosphere from coal combustion mixes with water in the atmosphere to create Sulfuric Acid. This acid comes down in rain water and reduces crop yields... Why do you guys hate farmers?

We build as many refineries we need to meet demand--and we do it quick!
Posted by: Leo Pusateri at November 9, 2007 02:32 AM

Lou, the problem with that statement is that the large oil companies do not want new refineries. Years ago they purchased all the independent refineries and closed them so they could controloil prices. To build new ones would cut into their profits, not only the building of them, but the amount of fuel that could be producted with new refineries. So, althogh I agree that it would help with the demand for increased supply of gasoline, the big oil companies do not want them and are not going to build them. Being from an oil producting state (OK), I see a lot of formerly plugged wells once agin pumping. Last weekend I traveled across Kansas, and saw much the same. Lots of pumping going on, but very little progress in the refining of the oil.

"the problem with that statement is that the large oil companies do not want new refineries. Years ago they purchased all the independent refineries and closed them so they could controloil prices."

sunny, the number of refineries that are in production does not dictate oil prices. The supply and demand of oil is what dictates prices. Higher oil prices cut into their profits as well. Building more refineries will increase gasoline and other finished products supply. Presently, refineries are running at 90%+ capacity and have little room for problems. Any problems at facilities cut into their profits. If one facility has problems where refining is reduced another one could make up for the loss.

Increased gasoline refining would not cut into their profits. You would be surprised at how little profit is made per gallon of gasoline. Refineries produce more than gasoline and increases in supply would reduce prices somewhat, but then there is the demand curve that will dictate production. The "big oil" companies will adjust to meet the demand and as long as the demand is there and the supply can be increased so will their profits.

Being one who worked in the refining field, I know what worries there are of facility problems that will reduce production with no means of making up for that loss (which really cuts into their profits).

How is China handling its energy needs? Posted by Leo at November 9, 2007 12:32 AM

What a stupid statement; they have a huge trade surplus and don’t have to buy oil with borrowed and depressed dollars. They have no environmental laws. Pollution is so bad that some of the upcoming Olympic events may not take place. You want to see the impact of man on the environment; get Olympic tickets for you and your family.

The secret meetings between Cheney and big oil in 2001 are starting to pay off. It is a simple plan, the administration enacts policy that allows the dollar to shrink to its lowest levels ever and the price of imported oil will rise. To be sure the price of oil will rise the administration will also create instability in the Middle East. Soon those left choosing between food, gasoline and heat will be begging big oil to drill anywhere it wants.

What these pigs did not count on was a Nobel Peace Prize winner opening a discussion on the impact oil consumption has on Global warming. This is why they have been swift-boated.

Being one who worked in the refining field, I know what worries there are of facility problems that will reduce production with no means of making up for that loss (which really cuts into their profits).

Posted by: TiredofLibBullShit at November 9, 2007 02:42 PM

However, Tired, do you not agree that the big oil companies have no interest in building new refineries regardless the probable profits? What has created the huge profits realized by big oil for the past few years?

sunny,

sigh.............

planejane's rant:

What a stupid statement (after the following statements?); they have a huge trade surplus (thanks to the previous administration. Those campaign contributions really paid off!) and don’t have to buy oil with borrowed and depressed dollars. ("big oil" buys oil with borrowed money??) They have no environmental laws (and they would be exempt from Kyoto). Pollution is so bad that some of the upcoming Olympic events may not take place (but according to you neocoms, we are the biggest polluter). You want to see the impact of man on the environment; get Olympic tickets for you and your family (why would I want to go to your neocom idealistic government and society?).

The secret meetings between Cheney and big oil in 2001 are starting to pay off. It is a simple plan, the administration enacts policy that allows the dollar to shrink (no it's because of: http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed110607e.cfm) to its lowest levels ever and the price of imported oil will rise. To be sure the price of oil will rise the administration will also create instability in the Middle East. Soon those left choosing between food, gasoline and heat will be begging big oil to drill anywhere it wants (oh and lib evironmental special interests have no effect).

What these pigs did not count on was a Nobel Peace Prize winner (snort!) opening a discussion on the impact oil consumption has on Global warming (snort! snort! - his evidence and "sound" science is weaker than the dollar!). This is why they have been swift-boated.

Let's see: big oil, presidential conspiracy, global warming and swift-boated............hitting the kool-aid really hard today, huh?

neocom policies have had nothing to do with any of the predicaments we are now facing?

Really hitting the kool-aid hard today. Can you say lemming?

Oil at nearly $100 per barrel. Gasoline well over $3.00 per gallon. America's balance of payments worsening, and the American dollar getting weaker and weaker, with prices continuing to rise -- much of which is the direct result of Democrats blocking the drilling for America's oil and gas!

And still Republicans aren't hammering Democrats and fanatical extremist environmentalists for preventing drilling for America's oil in ANWR and off our coasts -- even while China, Cuba, Mexico, and others develop and strike huge oil reserves in the Gulf of Mexico -- even slant drilling into America's own potential reserves!

And still Republicans aren't hammering Democrats and fanatical extremist environmentalists for blocking the building and expansion of America's own refineries!!!

AAR

At least AAR was the closest as to why oil prices are reaching $100USD...

Since January 2007 the US Dollar has fallen nearly 25% against other currencies, so one should also expect costs of imports to increase, which the price of oil has.

The other side of the equation is that there will be more demand for US exports, which from the lates current account reports, US exports are setting all time records.