naw… really?? Mercy, Gaffa… did you feel the need to expound on something so obvious and simplistic as the supply-demand argument

Absolutely – in the same vein you patronised Larry with inflation.

Ding… incorrect answer. When supply is up, the price per barrel goes down… so the answer is not to “move away” from oil, but to utilize and develop the other sources and locations of oil. *Preferably* not located in our enemies’ backyards.

The era of cheap and relatively easy to get at oil is disappearing. People may debate exactly when the peak of oil was – whether it is yet to come or whether we have passed it – but oil is a finite resource and all indications are that we are talking decades unlike say coal which is apparently centuries. So by all means keep finding new methods to metaphorically scrape the barrel looking for those last scraps of oil but it won’t stop the inevitable. And where you find those new sources oil will itself be more likely to more expensive to extract.

Of course it’s good to have a mix of alternative energies. But fact remains, the cheapest, most stable, and most diverse in ranges of use (i.e. manufacture of plastics, clothes, etc) is *oil*.

Yes maybe today – but let’s start thinking about tomorrow a bit more and start planning for the change over, the infrastructure etc so the cost will be minimised.

And let’s correct something for you. As the oil demand goes down, the price still goes up because OPEC cuts production to maintain a certain level

I didn’t ignore OPEC – it’s a cartel which still fits in with supply and demand model. They control the supply. But even their supply will run dry – so some of those countries are thinking beyond oil.

First: price per barrel and inflation all revolve around the value of the dollar…. which is currently still swirling the toilet bowl before it gets flushed when Obama signs the loan papers from China.

Sure add that factor in the mix doesn’t change the situation of oil. The dollar may fluctuate, the price of oil may fluctuate but with the price of oil – the general trend – taking inflation and currency into account is still going to go noticably up in the next two-three decades. Just look at the rise of China and India. They are having more and more cars requiring more and more oil. You don’t need to be a prophet to see the crunch coming.

Second: Oil supply and being at the mercy of OPEC is curable by honing our own supplies. But we really don’t have a “shortage” of oil. We have a shortage of the ability to refine the oil.

Sure open up Alaska buy some more time and maybe have the Canadians extract more oil in Alberta. Still can’t delay the inevitable. The find in the North Sea was a boost for UK in the late 70s but see how that dwindled.

And I’m not saying stop using oil tomorrow but put a decent plan in place to phase it down at the time phasing up a replacement energy source for our cars etc. Whether that be electric or any other source. Seems fusion is still proving to be too tricky. And when producing electricity I’m not against nuclear power unlike the greens. Sure let’s make more use of renewable energy but I can’t see that be sufficient in the medium term to satisfy western needs. If you use nuclear and renewable energy then you won’t be dependent on the middle East or other such areas.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Hey a-gaff, the cap and trade bill will actually make us MORE dependant on foreign countries for our energy needs. It’s like quitting heroin for crack.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Gaffa: So as demand goes up and supply goes down – prices will go up – above and beyond inflation.

naw… really?? Mercy, Gaffa… did you feel the need to expound on something so obvious and simplistic as the supply-demand argument, then shoot yourself in the foot with it, compounding it with:

So the smart thing to do would be to move away from such a reliance on oil…whether you believe climate change is happening or not.

Ding… incorrect answer. When supply is up, the price per barrel goes down… so the answer is not to “move away” from oil, but to utilize and develop the other sources and locations of oil. *Preferably* not located in our enemies’ backyards.

Of course it’s good to have a mix of alternative energies. But fact remains, the cheapest, most stable, and most diverse in ranges of use (i.e. manufacture of plastics, clothes, etc) is *oil*. The “move away” from oil is all about money and control…. not the planet, and not the retrievable supply.

And let’s correct something for you. As the oil demand goes down, the price still goes up because OPEC cuts production to maintain a certain level. But there’s two factors you ignore….

First: price per barrel and inflation all revolve around the value of the dollar…. which is currently still swirling the toilet bowl before it gets flushed when Obama signs the loan papers from China.

Second: Oil supply and being at the mercy of OPEC is curable by honing our own supplies. But we really don’t have a “shortage” of oil. We have a shortage of the ability to refine the oil.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Don’t you think Larry, if we were REALLY serious about being a leader we would be on the nuclear energy band wagon? You can’t get more “clean and cheap.” And I say that as a “survivor” of Three Mile Island at the time of the near meltdown while being on duty at the Hershey Medical Center. It was my very first job, but I still clearly remember how (almost) the entire staff of the medical center who were scheduled reported to work. I’m more than willing to live against those odds again. For goodness sakes even France is more than ok with nuclear energy.

Funny you mentioned Trader Joes. That’s THE store I was writing about. Great store, but they are WAY too “imposing” on the green stuff. Yesterday I stopped in a small town in Western Pennsylvania at a Starbucks, and for the first time at a SB’s, noticed a sign indicating that “cup holders” were now by “request” only. Since I had a long drive and didn’t particularly want to scald myself with their overpriced and bitter coffee (hey I needed the caffeine), I requested one. The look could have killed; I had “sinned” greatly.

All said, I do appreciate that you aren’t holding people like me to “judgment.” I predict the “overreaching” will get so over the top, people will start keeping their porch lights on in protest, or something, maybe even “triple bagging.” YIKES!

Like or Dislike: 0  0

@MataHarley

Show me any “trend line” in any industry that goes down over a 10 year period. Hint… it’s called “inflation” and is applicable over history

Let’s look at inflation adjusted oil prices…

http://inflationdata.com/inflation/images/charts/Oil_Inflation.gif

So the big spike in the 70s is primarily due to the oil crisis caused by the OPEC cartel pushing up oil prices by having less production.

However in recent years oil price has gone without OPEC putting on a similar squeeze.

http://www.bargaineering.com/images/in_posts/oil-production-vs-oil-prices.gif

So as demand goes up and supply goes down – prices will go up – above and beyond inflation.

http://www.brushtail.com.au/assets/july_04_on/oil_and_gas_2004.jpg

So the smart thing to do would be to move away from such a reliance on oil…whether you believe climate change is happening or not.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Larry W: We’ve already had gasoline at over $4 per gallon. No serious person can deny that it’s likely to be over $5 per gallon within 10 years and will relentlessly trend upwards. Draw a graph of the price of gasoline since 1980. What’s the trend line?

Show me any “trend line” in any industry that goes down over a 10 year period. Hint… it’s called “inflation” and is applicable over history.

duh wuh…

Under Obama and the Dem Congressional spending… ala MASSIVE inflation on the horizon… $5 would be a bargain. And that is part of the plan for “Obama’s America”.

Yet it is totally unnecessary and entirely avoidable.

That price may allow “Mr. GM” to manufacture the cars he wants, and seize complete government control of the energy biz, but the economic repercussions of it all will “come home to roost”.

Got a clue how much revenue the feds lose off reduced use of gasoline, Larry? How do you suggest, when Americans are laid off/unemployed, they pay higher costs overall because of the flow thru costs?

Is Economics 101 optional, as is American History???

‘fused, and glad to be old.

Yo… Old Trooper… I’ll come to Montana and shovel s*#t! Sounds like an honest and delightful lifestyle. Certainly superior to absorbing the daily s*#t of the prozac induced American denizen.

Oh… wait! I’m sure that CRAP is anxious to get off the govt payroll and take up your offer….

Like or Dislike: 0  0

>>Therefore, the Cap and Trade legislation will not do anything except bankrupt us.<<

We’ve already had gasoline at over $4 per gallon. No serious person can deny that it’s likely to be over $5 per gallon within 10 years and will relentlessly trend upwards. Draw a graph of the price of gasoline since 1980. What’s the trend line?

Much of the world has a large lead over the USA with respect to alternative energy. In order to compete in the coming era of the end of cheap energy, we need to be far sighted; we need to be a leader and not a follower.

I went to Trader Joe’s last week and forgot my cloth bag. They wanted to give me paper bags; I said, no thanks, I can just gather the stuff up in my arms and carry them out to dump in my trunk. So I did.

Why? Because I just like doing stuff like that. But I don’t look down my nose at people who demand double paper bags; everyone has her or his own private sense of virtues.

- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA

Like or Dislike: 0  0

It is my understanding from reading a multitude of scientific articles from various sources that there IS global warming. That’s not so much up for debate. But the real question is whether or not humans and pollution are responsible for it, or whether it is actually part of natural, cyclical climate change.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

@Timothy

If you compare the historical CO2 and historical solar output charts against the historical global temperature charts you’ll see that the solar ouput chart matches the temperature chart (while COS does not).

Can you show me a chart where they match from the mid 70s to today?

A new scientific study concludes that changes in the Sun’s output cannot be causing modern-day climate change.

It shows that for the last 20 years, the Sun’s output has declined, yet temperatures on Earth have risen

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6290228.stm

“I wish the Sun was coming to our aid but, unfortunately, the data shows that is not the case,” he said.

Prof Lockwood was one of the first researchers to show that the Sun’s activity has been gradually decreasing since 1985, yet overall global temperatures have continued to rise.

“If you look carefully at the observations, it’s pretty clear that the underlying level of the Sun peaked at about 1985 and what we are seeing is a continuation of a downward trend (in solar activity) that’s been going on for a couple of decades.

“If the Sun’s dimming were to have a cooling effect, we’d have seen it by now.”

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8008473.stm

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Actually it’s not CO2 but solar output that is the key. Temps have been declining and sunspot activity is at an all time low. Solor output might be down for quite some time.

If you compare the historical CO2 and historical solar output charts against the historical global temperature charts you’ll see that the solar ouput chart matches the temperature chart (while COS does not).

CO2 is trace element in atmosphere and is controlled by vious factors from plantlife, geotheramal, oceans and human input.

I find it amusing that it was global cooling in the 70′s, then global warming and now global climate change…..seems like they are moving the goalposts.

Like or Dislike: 0  0