Prosperity Posted November 30, 2011 Share Posted November 30, 2011 I suspect that TWA also has a vested interest in the US staying a slave to fossil fuels.Without that reliance, his home state would be a bankrupt cesspool. T-dub has a vested interest in being an obstinate Texan I mean, Rick Perry for god's sake Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted November 30, 2011 Author Share Posted November 30, 2011 Without that reliance, his home state would be a bankrupt cesspool. Well it is true I wouldn't want to live in Cali :evilg: When a cost efficient alt energy is developed(probably by Texans ) we will show ya'll how to make the best of that as well. Perry may have his flaws,but at least he makes the best of what he has to work with......that's more than I can say for many. Speaking of which....What is holding ya geniuses back? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosperity Posted November 30, 2011 Share Posted November 30, 2011 Well it is true I wouldn't want to live in Cali :evilg:When a cost efficient alt energy is developed(probably by Texans ) we will show ya'll how to make the best of that as well. Perry may have his flaws,but at least he makes the best of what he has to work with......that's more than I can say for many. Speaking of which....What is holding ya geniuses back? Texas waterfront California waterfront Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted November 30, 2011 Author Share Posted November 30, 2011 Is that a grain silo? Dude ya ought to see the lights here at night, the flares add a romantic air. Cali shore Ya'll so rich you just let the oil run off into the water......around here they'd hang people for that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosperity Posted November 30, 2011 Share Posted November 30, 2011 Yes and I'm sure the petrochemicals in the air give off a nice green glow, I imagine many young Houston couples kindle their romantic relationships in view of the beautiful shore side refineries a veritable City of Lights Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted November 30, 2011 Author Share Posted November 30, 2011 That's Baytown/Laporte not Houston I've had a few romantic interludes under a refineries glow What you see and smell is money my friend, a vast improvement over swamp gas. Cali streets add [/img] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted December 4, 2011 Author Share Posted December 4, 2011 Bump to see if we can get back on topic, with a convert of sorts In Praise of Dirty Energy: There Are Worse Things Than Pollution and We Have Them http://modeledbehavior.com/2011/12/02/in-praise-of-dirty-energy-there-are-worse-things-than-pollution-and-we-have-them/ This is going to be a long conversation but I want to stake out my point clearly from the start so when we keep coming back to it you will know where I am coming from I hold these positions Climate Change is almost certainly real Humans are almost certainly causing it with carbon emissions, deforestation and domestication of animals There will be large environmental costs associated with climate change include a very rapid increase in extinctions There are likely to be major population dislocations because of climate change There are likely to be major agricultural shifts because of climate change. Nonetheless, we should pursue the development of fossil fuels as rapidly as possible including looking for ways to streamline regulation in North American regarding fossil fuel production. Why? The Immediate Concerns. We are in the midst of a long Aggregate Demand slowdown in the Northern Hemisphere. This could be alleviated in part by increases in investment demand. Encouraging the exploration of fossil fuels provides this investment demand. It is like free stimulus for the economy. We have a serious dearth of high paying jobs for middle-brow men in this country. Energy extraction, refining and transport provide a potential attractor for these men. Otherwise we will face serious social consequences from watching the wage of these men fall to minimum wage and an increase in permanent joblessness. Global growth is constrained by natural resources at the moment, chief among them energy. The speed at which the entire globe can grow is limited by the availability of energy sources and puts us in a rare zero-sum fight over growth. No, this is not a permanent state of affairs even without fossil fuels. High energy prices will induce development both in energy saving and the production of new sources. But, this could take a very long time and produce a high tension period lasting potentially for over a decade. Rapidly expanding North American fossil fuel production can help cure us of many of the current ills that we face. If you read me you know that I am very now-focused in general, but over time I will try to convince that this is a really big deal and working class families are really struggling. There are other public policy solutions that you can find but aside from wage subsidies (which seem unlikely in this environment) and opening up new industries for hard working middle-brow folks there will be little improvement. Health care won’t do it. Improving the schools won’t do it. Even more importantly, there are hundreds of millions of very poor families around the world right now, who would benefit enormously from lifting the energy constraint on growth. It would allow us to shift out of biofuels which would do a little – though not much – to alleviate the other big natural resource constraint, food. The Long Run Concerns....More @ link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted December 4, 2011 Share Posted December 4, 2011 Bump to see if we can get back on topic, with a convert of sortsIn Praise of Dirty Energy: There Are Worse Things Than Pollution and We Have Them http://modeledbehavior.com/2011/12/02/in-praise-of-dirty-energy-there-are-worse-things-than-pollution-and-we-have-them/ This is going to be a long conversation but I want to stake out my point clearly from the start so when we keep coming back to it you will know where I am coming from I hold these positions Climate Change is almost certainly real Humans are almost certainly causing it with carbon emissions, deforestation and domestication of animals There will be large environmental costs associated with climate change include a very rapid increase in extinctions There are likely to be major population dislocations because of climate change There are likely to be major agricultural shifts because of climate change. Nonetheless, we should pursue the development of fossil fuels as rapidly as possible including looking for ways to streamline regulation in North American regarding fossil fuel production. Why? The Immediate Concerns. Ah yes, we've run up trillions of dollars of debt, generally have spent more than we've produced, but let's screw the future generations even more. We'll simultaneously use up a resource that is likely to have value far in the future AND make them pay the costs for us using it because we don't want to change our behavior. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted December 4, 2011 Author Share Posted December 4, 2011 Whats your plan to get out of debt and stimulate the economy other than conservation and spending/borrowing more for present inefficient alt energy tech ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted December 4, 2011 Share Posted December 4, 2011 Whats your plan to get out of debt and stimulate the economy other than conservation and spending/borrowing more for present inefficient alt energy tech ? Well, right off the bat, I reject the idea that we KNOW that alternative energy tech is more ineffecient. Right off the bat, as I've already laid out, allowing a depletion allowance, especially for a non-recyclable non-renewable item, is ONLY going to help ensure that you keep using that item and stifle competing things that aren't eligible for the depletion allowance so I'd get rid of depletion allowances. That makes ZERO sense. Agricultural sciences and land use in this country would have been COMPLETELY different (and not in a positive manner) if there was a depletion allowance for top soil or nutrients in the soil. I've also NEVER said that I'd spend more in alternative energy tech, and I certainly wouldn't have done it in the way that Obama has. **EDIT** Our economy and way of life needs a MASSIVE over haul to become more effeceint. This includes how we produce and consume energy, but also things like land use (see the thread on suburbanization), our tax code, our healthcare system, and our education system. In some cases, it isn't clear to me what the best way forward is (I'm not sure what the most effecient method of energy production is (though I SERIOUSLY doubt that ANY method is so effecient that it makes sense to have society's use of energy in such a biased manner as we do)) in many cases. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted December 4, 2011 Author Share Posted December 4, 2011 Our economy and way of life needs a MASSIVE over haul to become more effeceint. This includes how we produce and consume energy, but also things like land use (see the thread on suburbanization), our tax code, our healthcare system, and our education system. In some cases, it isn't clear to me what the best way forward is (I'm not sure what the most effecient method of energy production is (though I SERIOUSLY doubt that ANY method is so effecient that it makes sense to have society's use of energy in such a biased manner as we do)) in many cases. We probably would agree on most of that overhaul,I certainly agree we can do things better and more efficiently....changing our restrictions on domestic energy exploration can help with that. But the oil depletion allowance is not even available to the oil majors(and has not been for decades),and is a tool to increase competition and domestic supply. added suggested reading for all http://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Energy-Policies-and-Political-Double-Speak.html “Getting rid of these outrageous subsidies is a no-brainer,” Schumer added. Yes, as Senator Schumer indicates, for someone with no brain — someone unable to dig a little deeper and think critically — it does seem quite obvious that their proposals should be adopted. But because I am not very trusting of politicians given their inclination to spin, I went to the actual CRS memorandum. So let’s cut through the spin and see what it actually said by examining bits that Senator Schumer and his colleagues are conveniently omitting from their grandstanding press releases. Cliff Notes If you don’t want to wade through this entire essay, here are the Cliff Notes of what this memo actually said: 1. Taxes already make up the 2nd largest component of gasoline prices, well ahead of profit margins for oil companies. 2. In the short-term, passing these proposals is unlikely to impact gasoline prices, but it certainly won’t lower them. 3. In the longer term, the report warns of “lowering the return of marginal projects, and reducing over-all domestic exploration and development activity by U.S. firms” – especially if oil prices fall below $100. 4. So if Democrats get their wish and bring oil prices down, we will see the most significant negative effects on the U.S. oil industry. 5. The proposals selectively hit small producers the hardest, yet they are responsible for over half of the oil produced in the U.S. 6. Natural gas projects will be the most severely impacted. 7. If these proposals do reduce domestic production, that “does not necessarily imply that less oil would be available in the U.S. market.” Why? Because we can simply import more oil, continuing our policies going back to Nixon of increasing dependence on foreign oil. The impact on tax revenues and domestic jobs in this case? Those would naturally be exported. 8. Of major significance to the politicians, if the consequences are negative, they can dodge blame by pointing out that the oil markets are complex, and you simply can’t blame them if these proposals ultimately result in higher imports and loss of U.S. jobs. Dissecting the Memo in Detail Below are excerpts from the memo, with commentary by me. muuuch more at link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted December 5, 2011 Share Posted December 5, 2011 We probably would agree on most of that overhaul,I certainly agree we can do things better and more efficiently....changing our restrictions on domestic energy exploration can help with that.But the oil depletion allowance is not even available to the oil majors(and has not been for decades),and is a tool to increase competition and domestic supply. added suggested reading for all http://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Energy-Policies-and-Political-Double-Speak.html “Getting rid of these outrageous subsidies is a no-brainer,” Schumer added. Yes, as Senator Schumer indicates, for someone with no brain — someone unable to dig a little deeper and think critically — it does seem quite obvious that their proposals should be adopted. But because I am not very trusting of politicians given their inclination to spin, I went to the actual CRS memorandum. So let’s cut through the spin and see what it actually said by examining bits that Senator Schumer and his colleagues are conveniently omitting from their grandstanding press releases. Cliff Notes If you don’t want to wade through this entire essay, here are the Cliff Notes of what this memo actually said: 1. Taxes already make up the 2nd largest component of gasoline prices, well ahead of profit margins for oil companies. 2. In the short-term, passing these proposals is unlikely to impact gasoline prices, but it certainly won’t lower them. 3. In the longer term, the report warns of “lowering the return of marginal projects, and reducing over-all domestic exploration and development activity by U.S. firms” – especially if oil prices fall below $100. 4. So if Democrats get their wish and bring oil prices down, we will see the most significant negative effects on the U.S. oil industry. 5. The proposals selectively hit small producers the hardest, yet they are responsible for over half of the oil produced in the U.S. 6. Natural gas projects will be the most severely impacted. 7. If these proposals do reduce domestic production, that “does not necessarily imply that less oil would be available in the U.S. market.” Why? Because we can simply import more oil, continuing our policies going back to Nixon of increasing dependence on foreign oil. The impact on tax revenues and domestic jobs in this case? Those would naturally be exported. 8. Of major significance to the politicians, if the consequences are negative, they can dodge blame by pointing out that the oil markets are complex, and you simply can’t blame them if these proposals ultimately result in higher imports and loss of U.S. jobs. Dissecting the Memo in Detail Below are excerpts from the memo, with commentary by me. muuuch more at link We're subsidizing both our energy production and others. Pull our military out of the ME and the Persian Gulf and see what happens to oil prices. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted December 5, 2011 Share Posted December 5, 2011 Pull our military out of the ME and the Persian Gulf and see what happens to oil prices. You really think that our military is pushing oil prices downward? I must not be seeing the evidence of that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted December 5, 2011 Share Posted December 5, 2011 You really think that our military is pushing oil prices downward? I must not be seeing the evidence of that. ABSOLUTELY! Our presence in the ME gives investors confidence that things won't get too bad. Why do you think we keep a military presence there? **EDIT** Remember, we had people in the Persian Gulf prior to the first Gulf war. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Praying_Mantis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted December 5, 2011 Author Share Posted December 5, 2011 We're subsidizing both our energy production and others.Pull our military out of the ME and the Persian Gulf and see what happens to oil prices. Before doing that we probably should open up our own energy options If you then want to draw back and allow others to maintain open shipping lanes and stability(if you call our efforts stability,and I do think we try) it is fine with me.....as is doing away with ALL subsidies Putting my trust in unicorn farts is not,nor is reverting to18th century living What you call oil subsidies is laughable when you can't even admit the present cost inefficiency in present alt energy tech(using the standard values) or tell me where the lost tax revenue will come from. and before ya start with the true costs, carbon/co2,poisoning the environment line,kindly admit there is no viable alternative we could have in place for decades. fun read on a much smaller pop than ours Australia Going Solar - Gonna Cost Ya, Mate http://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Solar-Energy/Australia-Going-Solar-Gonna-Cost-Ya-Mate.html Life is full of hard choices Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted December 5, 2011 Share Posted December 5, 2011 Before doing that we probably should open up our own energy optionsIf you then want to draw back and allow others to maintain open shipping lanes and stability(if you call our efforts stability,and I do think we try) it is fine with me.....as is doing away with ALL subsidies Putting my trust in unicorn farts is not,nor is reverting to18th century living What you call oil subsidies is laughable when you can't even admit the present cost inefficiency in present alt energy tech(using the standard values) or tell me where the lost tax revenue will come from. and before ya start with the true costs, carbon/co2,poisoning the environment line,kindly admit there is no viable alternative we could have in place for decades. fun read on a much smaller pop than ours Australia Going Solar - Gonna Cost Ya, Mate http://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Solar-Energy/Australia-Going-Solar-Gonna-Cost-Ya-Mate.html Life is full of hard choices I HAVE admitted in this THIS THREAD multiple times that given the current calculations that alternative energy is less effecient. My point is, why are we limiting ourself to the "current" calculation? I have pointed out that when you've given a particular industry billions of dollars of subsidies a year over DECADES of course it is going to be difficult for newer industries to compete witht them. Why limit ourselves to the calculations that have resulted in us having trillions of dollars of debt? Heavan forbid we actually be able to PAY for what we use. If we can't actually afford to live better than they did in the 18th century, is there any reason why we should? Wanna bet what happens to oil futures if Obama announces we are moving ALL of our military, including the Navy from the Persian Gulf in 6 months? (I haven't mentioned climate change a SINGLE time in this discussion. I don't have to.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted December 5, 2011 Author Share Posted December 5, 2011 I HAVE admitted in this THIS THREAD multiple times that given the current calculations that alternative energy is less effecient.My point is, why are we limiting ourself to the "current" calculation? I have pointed out that when you've given a particular industry billions of dollars of subsidies a year over DECADES of course it is going to be difficult for newer industries to compete witht them. Why limit ourselves to the calculations that have resulted in us having trillions of dollars of debt? Heavan forbid we actually be able to PAY for what we use. If we can't actually afford to live better than they did in the 18th century, is there any reason why we should? Wanna bet what happens to oil futures if Obama announces we are moving ALL of our military, including the Navy from the Persian Gulf in 6 months? (I haven't mentioned climate change a SINGLE time in this discussion. I don't have to.) My apologies for overlooking it then.....(as well as for my other excesses, I do like and respect you as a poster) The current calculation is not easily adjusted,nor do I believe in affirmative action for energy....IF it was the simple matter of subsidizing the introduction(basic infrastructure) of alt sources I would support the effort as a worthwhile investment...but it is not due to the still much highers costs We cannot hope to compete or maintain a standard of living here under the present metrics of alt energy,nor do I see large scale investment in present tech as a means of advancing the technology. We can open up domestic sources to finance the pursuit though,while at the same time helping the economy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted December 5, 2011 Share Posted December 5, 2011 My apologies for overlooking it then.....(as well as for my other excesses, I do like and respect you as a poster)The current calculation is not easily adjusted,nor do I believe in affirmative action for energy....IF it was the simple matter of subsidizing the introduction(basic infrastructure) of alt sources I would support the effort as a worthwhile investment...but it is not due to the still much highers costs We cannot hope to compete or maintain a standard of living here under the present metrics of alt energy,nor do I see large scale investment in present tech as a means of advancing the technology. We can open up domestic sources to finance the pursuit though,while at the same time helping the economy. We CAN COMPETE w/o subsidizing fossil fules. We are subsidizing EVERYBODY'S fosssil fuel usage. What happens to the Chinese economy if Obama announces tomorrow we are completely pulling out of the Middle East? Yes, in the short term, countries in some parts of the world (e.g Europe) will be better off because their economies are less dependent on fossil fules, oil, and even foreign oil, but they aren't doing anythign that we can't do and aren't doing things that we can't start doing pretty quickly. Right now, WE (that is the US) are giving EVERY COUNTRY IN THE WORLD (including those in the ME) a subsidy on their energy prices. WE are VOLUNTARILY putting ourselves at a competitive disadvantage as compared to other countries. **EDIT** The fact of the matter is that I'll bet our military support of the ME regimes undermines the value/productivity of our own oil fields more than any environmental regulations. We subsidize their oil through our military spending, and then we have to subsidize our oil throught things like depletion allowances. We've done this for decades. And then you scream that alternative energy isn't effecient. It's a joke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted December 5, 2011 Author Share Posted December 5, 2011 WE are VOLUNTARILY putting ourselves at a competitive disadvantage as compared to other countries. I agree,but it is a cost of leadership and stability I disagree on European dependence...if anything they are even more dependent than we are,with no real cushion at the present (they are no model for the US) China has been steadily working to ensure it's access to energy worldwide The world is gearing up for major shifts in players and it could easily get very violent again soon....if we are gonna stay in the dugout or pitch we need to be prepared here this concludes this public service announcement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted December 5, 2011 Share Posted December 5, 2011 I agree,but it is a cost of leadership and stabilityI disagree on European dependence...if anything they are even more dependent than we are,with no real cushion at the present (they are no model for the US) China has been steadily working to ensure it's access to energy worldwide The world is gearing up for major shifts in players and it could easily get very violent again soon....if we are gonna stay in the dugout or pitch we need to be prepared here this concludes this public service announcement. Stability doesn't benefit us over any other country. A good leader knows when to step back and let others pick up some slack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted December 5, 2011 Author Share Posted December 5, 2011 Even if it's the slack in a noose?....any volunteers? the domestic energy/jobs issue is much simpler to solve than the worlds issues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted December 5, 2011 Share Posted December 5, 2011 Even if it's the slack in a noose?....any volunteers?the domestic energy/jobs issue is much simpler to solve than the worlds issues. What noose? When is being to actually pay for what you are using a noose? They aren't independent. Our consumption DIRECTLY and MAJORLY impacts global energy, which then affects everything else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted December 5, 2011 Author Share Posted December 5, 2011 You think others consumption doesn't majorly effect everything else? Our production does as well....which I'd rather focus on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted December 5, 2011 Share Posted December 5, 2011 The Wall Street Journal, which reported on the export trend last week, said the United States is on track this year to be a net exporter of refined products for the first time in 62 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted December 5, 2011 Author Share Posted December 5, 2011 Them local idiots do pretty good eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.