There is absolutely NO chance that your protest is going to bring down prices. If anything, it will fuel the media scare-fest and raise prices.

Or maybe you want nationalized oil? Yay, now we can run our governments even further into debt! I'm sure subsidizing it will help oh-so-much.

The logical flaws of protesting the increasing price of this item are mind boggling. I fail to see how that lump of mass inside your skull made it any further than "I'm troubled by this issue, I therefore must go out and demand someone do something about it".

Seriously - shut up and direct that energy to finding ways to use less oil.

6/9/2008 10:29:03 AM

oh ^ he right

6/9/2008 10:30:07 AM

I hope they walked to the protest.

6/9/2008 10:30:55 AM

I just purchased a bike. I'm getting 65-68mpg on a bad trip.


Fuck you.


[Edited on June 9, 2008 at 10:35 AM. Reason : .]

6/9/2008 10:35:08 AM

BBC article - truckers

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7443257.stm

The video is classic. Driving slow and honking horns to make the price of gas go down.

Why don't you just demonstrate by buying all the gas you can and setting it on fire? Hey look! Demand exceeds supply for this, watch me waste it!

6/9/2008 10:36:31 AM

Electric cars, hybrids and bikes are not only going to fix this easily.

It's going to shut down the middle east and they are finally going to get the chance to genocide themselves slowly by themselves w/o our need to interfere.

6/9/2008 10:38:54 AM

^^

do you even care about these problems?

or do you just like to complain about the complainers?

[Edited on June 9, 2008 at 10:40 AM. Reason : .]

6/9/2008 10:40:19 AM

Before the middle east gets poor, they will see riches beyond anyone's wildest dreams in the next 20 years. With just the money they get from the crash of oil they could invest so much money into other sectors of their and the world economy for their current population to live off the returns for the rest of time!

But yes, they'll run out, alternatives will be found, the money they got will be blown, and they'll eventually plunge back into poverty. long term.

Arguing that alternatives to oil hurt the middle east is... hahaha

6/9/2008 10:43:19 AM

^ yeh that figure doesn't sound too off.

6/9/2008 10:44:49 AM

ah, so do nothing and act like the problems don't exist

just let the crushing tide of history pull us through

is there ANYTHING that an ordinary citizen should do about anything ever?

...

why do you think the middle east with "blow" their money?

6/9/2008 10:45:40 AM

Quote :

"With just the money they get from the crash of oil they could invest so much money into other sectors of their and the world economy for their current population to live off the returns for the rest of time!"

Key word: could.


Yes, they could. They could all be like the UAE. Unfortunately, the UAE is one of the lone exceptions to the middle east standard of monarchical, maniacal, hegemonic raping of other people that is common in that area.

A select few will get wealthy. The rest will suffer.

6/9/2008 10:46:37 AM

WE ARE ALL EXPERTS ON THE MIDDLE EAST

lets raise our BS in the air!

6/9/2008 10:47:24 AM

lower the demand or raise the supply

that's all you can do. or you can end speculation for some effect. there are no other solutions to this

6/9/2008 10:47:31 AM

ARGH, I TOOK ECONOMICS 101

6/9/2008 10:48:04 AM

Quote :

" could invest"

good point, they'll probably continue to invest in the huge hajj building and golden palaces for islam.

so, 20 years doesn't sound like a bad estimate to the end of everything islam.

6/9/2008 10:48:56 AM

Quote :

"lets raise our BS in the air!"

Do you care to offer any sort of substance to back up your claim that I am BSing?

6/9/2008 10:49:03 AM

no, I meant your degree

because I assume you have one in middle east affairs

6/9/2008 10:50:24 AM

Because one must be degreed to make an observation?

You should never have sex, because you don't have a degree in biology or anatomy or any sort of medical degree.

6/9/2008 10:53:03 AM

Quote :

"good point, they'll probably continue to invest in the huge hajj building and golden palaces for islam."

Is that really any different than building palaces for a sports team to compete in where the government does not get their money back ever and yet they must build it or the sports team will leave for another city?

About the Saudis blowing the money, has no one on here heard about sovereign wealth funds? Every oil producer in the world (even Alaska) is using oil revenue as an SWF for future investments. This is from February.

Quote :

"The Sham of Sovereign Wealth Fund Negotiations The Wall Street Journal reports today in "U.S. Pushes Sovereign Funds To Open to Outside Scrutiny," that the US Treasury Department talking to two large sovereign wealth funds, Singapore's Temasek and the Abu Dhabi Investment Authority, as the first steps in a process to ""draft rules to oversee the behavior of such funds, without discouraging them from investing." Let's see if I get this straight. The US is running a chronic current account deficit, which means we are dependent on the kindness of foreigners to maintain our lifestyle. In other words, we have to run a capital account surplus, which is tantamount to having other countries buy our real or financial assets. And while the fall in the dollar has reduced our current account deficit somewhat, it's still at a high level. Ergo, we need our money fix. Brad Setser, who monitors the international capital data closely, has been reporting for some time that the private demand overseas for US assets has fallen considerably. The key buyers now are foreign governments. And those governments, who used to be content to buy low-returning Treasury bonds, are now looking to diversify their holdings and earn higher returns. Enter the sovereign wealth funds. What is comical about this whole idea is the idea that we have any say in this matter. Of course, the US can nix individual deals, as we did to Dubai Port World's purchase of UK P&O Ports. Dubai Ports had to divest five US port operations; the UK imposed no such requirement. Similarly, the US blocked Chinese oil company CNOOC's bid for Unocal blocked, which ruffled quite a few feathers. But we've already let foreign banks make substantial investments into our troubled financial sector, which one can argue gives them strategic leverage. Yes, these are minority stakes, the investors don't hold any board seats. Nevertheless, as eminence grise Felix Rohatyn pointed out, “You don’t need to appoint two directors to a board to have influence when you own 10 percent of the company.” Indeed, when Citi's board was ready oust Chuck Prince, Sandy Weill paid a visit to the bank's biggest shareholder, Saudi Prince Alwaleed, to make sure he was on board. Alwaleed owns a mere 3.6%, smaller than some of the stakes recently acquired. So consider the elements of fantasy at work in this discussion over these efforts to set guidelines on SWF investments: 1. We are pretending that a large stake in and of itself won't lead to influence 2. We are pretending that we have negotiating leverage in this matter. We don't. We need the dough desperately. Unless we get our saving rate up to make ourselves more independent (which will almost certainly lead to a recession or a very prolonged period of low growth), we are in no position to place restrictions on capital inflows (except now and again, for show) 3. We are pretending that any commitments made are meaningful. Let's say the SWF decide that it's politically expedient to play nice and agree to certain measures, like allowing for a certain amount of transparency and publishing their fund objectives, which will of course be to earn a certain level of financial return and will have nothing to do with getting access, say, to resources or technologies. First, there is no way to make the funds conform to their statements. Second, even if the funds are completely sincere when they make these representations, a change in leadership can lead them to repudiate their former policies, after they have acquired substantial positions. So these negotiations are really theater for the benefit of the American public. We'll plead in private, if need be, for the SWF to give us something to keep Congress from interfering, and they may well agree to cosmetic measures. Or, if they really have no interest in going along, they'll just string out the discussions until our financial sector has another ratchet down and the wounded players have nowhere else to turn. Oh, and another amusing and revealing tidbit from the Journal story: Abu Dhabi's fund has assets of about $900 billion; Singapore's is estimated to have $300 billion. "The two funds are some of the most mature, well-known and credible sovereign-wealth funds," said Treasury Undersecretary David McCormick in an interview yesterday. "We are actively trying to have many conversations" with different funds. The claim that these fund is "mature, well-known, and credible" is mind-bogging (although those terms are so carefully chosen as to be close to meaningless). Ted Truman, a former senior staff member at the Treasury Department and the Fed, recently developed and published a scorecard for the Peterson Institute that evaluated 32 SWFs (see here, page 12 for the rankings). On a 25 point scale, New Zealand was the best, earning 24 points. Qatar was second to worst, earning a mere two points. It got zero for governance and zero for transparency. This Singapore fund (note this fund is different from another Singapore SWF, Temasek, which got much higher marks) is third from the worst, again scoring zero on transparency. While the story does mention these poor rankings, it does so much later. Also note that the story several times mentions that at least 11 nations that are recipients of SWF investments have made some restrictions on direct investment. While narrowly true, the "11 nations" is a bit misleading in terms of the US's stakes in attracting foreign capital. It creates the impression that all have common cause when the reality is more complex. We now absorb 75% of the world's savings. Most other countries can afford to say no; it's not a luxury we have. From the Journal: Seeking to head off a political backlash against huge investments in Western companies by Asian and Middle Eastern government-run investment funds, the U.S. is prodding two of the biggest funds to embrace a set of promises that they won't use their wealth for political advantage..... With encouragement from the U.S. and Europe, the International Monetary Fund is aiming to put together by the fall what it calls a voluntary code of "best practices." The code would cover how sovereign-wealth funds are structured, how they invest, and how they disclose information, among other things. The Treasury meeting appeared to be an attempt to push forward that process. "Discussions are obviously useful," says John Lipsky, the IMF's deputy managing director, adding that the fund wasn't involved in the session. Mr. Lipsky says the IMF wants to help the funds reach consensus on issues such as transparency, governance, disclosure and fund organization..."We'll come up with something useful," says Mr. Lipsky. "It's in everyone's interest.".... Officials in many national capitals are increasing pressure on the funds to agree to revamp their practices. The efforts come amid rising worries about the political implications of foreign investment. Over the past two years, at least 11 major nations, including the U.S., have passed or debated laws to restrict foreign investment.... The European Commission's statement on the behavior of sovereign-wealth funds, due to be released tomorrow, will urge the funds to reduce their "opacity" so their investments can be "demystified," according to an individual briefed on the matter... But the commission will also make clear its commitment to remain open to foreign investment. It will urge that investments be judged on national-security grounds, not on more amorphous ones, according to a European Union official... The Treasury meeting in Abu Dhabi was another effort to persuade the funds to change. The Abu Dhabi and Singapore funds are considered significant because of their size, the difference in the sources of their capital -- Abu Dhabi's money comes from oil; Singapore's from export revenue -- and their unwillingness thus far to disclose much about their operations. In a ranking of the openness of 32 sovereign-wealth funds by former IMF official Ted Truman, Abu Dhabi's fund ranked last, and Singapore's ranked third to last. Any agreement by those funds to make their operations more public could have wide influence among other funds.... When contacted about the matter, a representative of Singapore's fund referred a reporter to comments made last month by the fund's deputy chairman, Tony Tan, in Singapore's Straits Times newspaper. Mr. Tan said the fund was ready to make changes, including regularly announcing its rate of return on investments and clarifying the objectives of those investments. But the fund wouldn't disclose all its purchases, he said, because that would put it at a "competitive disadvantage" to hedge funds and private-equity funds. Abu Dhabi's fund, so far, hasn't opened its books. But it may be encouraged to do so by the example of state-controlled companies in Dubai, a 90-minute drive away. Recent deals by those companies used borrowed money, which obligated them to give bankers and other lenders access to their finances. Abu Dhabi and Dubai are part of the United Arab Emirates."

[Edited on June 9, 2008 at 11:00 AM. Reason : /]

6/9/2008 10:53:16 AM

it's funny to hear people blame futures and speculation too.

THEY ARTIFICIALLY RAISED THE PRICE OF OIL!!1

well, yeah, would you rather it shoot up later? When we're closer to actually seeing a collapse of supply.

6/9/2008 10:54:51 AM

electric cars, bikes and hybrids

gamecat is right, let oil get to $20 a gallon for all i care. when that happens electric cars or horses will be popular, cuz ain't nobody paying for that

6/9/2008 11:06:52 AM

^ Can't wait to see that electric tractor-trailer that ships to me (with diesel currently) everything I buy. That and it's horsepower levels will be a sight. We can all go to West Virginia and see it try to climb a hill.

[Edited on June 9, 2008 at 11:14 AM. Reason : /]

6/9/2008 11:14:01 AM

[Edited on June 9, 2008 at 11:28 AM. Reason : flyin ryan, your answer can be found at 5:26-6:50]

6/9/2008 11:25:10 AM

hmm. disturbing to see people so anti-electric

i mean we put half a dozen americans on the moon. something tells me we can build a car that can take the heat up a mountain or at least kick-in the gas engine when the hills come

oh that's right you are just flaming americans and ingenuity in general

6/9/2008 11:27:25 AM

Quote :

"something tells me we can build a car that can take the heat up a mountain or at least kick-in the gas engine when the hills come"

Sorry, my comment was not entirely fair. But the whole "everything would be perfect if we just went electric" argument is just as misguided as "peak oil is a myth and the price will come back down, don't worry about it" argument.

A critique to your statement here is I am not talking about cars, I am talking about everything that gets shipped to your city that you don't even know about but allows you to live a life of comfort. Freight airplanes, rail shipping, tractor-trailers, ocean tankers, all these things require oil to function and operate. And in the grand scheme of things, are more significant to the average person than the price of a gallon of gas for a person's Corolla. Electric engine for a tractor-trailer? I'm sure it can be done. Can it be done cheap though? The allowed weight for a tractor-trailer is 80,000 pounds. So we need an electric engine that can produce enough horsepower consistently to pull 40 tons, and that's just on a flat road. Not only that, but it has to be economical. Cause no one is going to buy a product that got shipped in an electric-engined semi versus a diesel-engined semi if the electric-shipped product is 5% more due entirely to shipping.

Want some pictures of how a diesel in an ocean tanker looks like? Let's try and make an electric version of this!

Quote :

"The Wartsila-Sulzer RTA96-C turbocharged two-stroke diesel engine is the most powerful and most efficient prime-mover in the world today. The Aioi Works of Japan's Diesel United, Ltd built the first engines and is where some of these pictures were taken. It is available in 6 through 14 cylinder versions, all are inline engines. These engines were designed primarily for very large container ships. Ship owners like a single engine/single propeller design and the new generation of larger container ships needed a bigger engine to propel them. The cylinder bore is just under 38" and the stroke is just over 98". Each cylinder displaces 111,143 cubic inches (1820 liters) and produces 7780 horsepower. Total displacement comes out to 1,556,002 cubic inches (25,480 liters) for the fourteen cylinder version. Some facts on the 14 cylinder version: Total engine weight: 2300 tons (The crankshaft alone weighs 300 tons.) Length: 89 feet Height: 44 feet Maximum power: 108,920 hp at 102 rpm Maximum torque: 5,608,312 lb/ft at 102rpm Fuel consumption at maximum power is 0.278 lbs per hp per hour (Brake Specific Fuel Consumption). Fuel consumption at maximum economy is 0.260 lbs/hp/hour. At maximum economy the engine exceeds 50% thermal efficiency. That is, more than 50% of the energy in the fuel in converted to motion. For comparison, most automotive and small aircraft engines have BSFC figures in the 0.40-0.60 lbs/hp/hr range and 25-30% thermal efficiency range. Even at its most efficient power setting, the big 14 consumes 1,660 gallons of heavy fuel oil per hour."

[Edited on June 9, 2008 at 12:01 PM. Reason : /]

6/9/2008 11:54:36 AM

^^ I agree. The performance of the American auto manufactures in the last few years has been piss poor. Maybe they'll get over the idea that they can avoid innovating by telling the market what it wants to do.

I think it will be done too. Just because I think we have idiots running the country doesn't mean I don't have pride. A nation's leaders can be replaced. very easily.

6/9/2008 11:58:43 AM

Quote :

"The video is classic. Driving slow and honking horns to make the price of gas go down."

Well, this is Europe. Well over half their fuel price consists of taxes. I'd say protest can be effective at reducing that.

Quote :

"is there ANYTHING that an ordinary citizen should do about anything ever?"

Yes, but protesting prices that result from supply and demand is futile. Go out and figure out a way to make a pile of money by bringing an alternative to market, that's what you should do.

6/9/2008 12:05:59 PM

Quote :

"I think it will be done too. Just because I think we have idiots running the country doesn't mean I don't have pride. A nation's leaders can be replaced. very easily. "

Not when you have an election between worthless pieces of sh*t like Kerry and Bush.

And does anyone really think Obama or McCain will do anything better on energy? Obama's energy policy is cap-and-trade, which I don't see how that works. And up to a month ago, McCain didn't even have an energy policy. (He might not still today.)

6/9/2008 12:06:34 PM

dark ages here we come

i'm gonna go buy a horse i guess.

6/9/2008 1:01:49 PM

I acutally mostly agree with Rat (and Oeuvre and mrfrog) on this one

6/9/2008 1:03:37 PM

There are fathoms of quadrillions of barrels of oil left on this planet, and none of you can disprove me on this. Fuckers.

And if we'd just use nuclear power like the greatest minds of the 20th century gave us we wouldn't be up shit creek like we are now.

Throw in the electric car and get rid of coal power plants and we are producing less emissions than we were in 1915. And we won't need 1/10th the oil we use.



[Edited on June 9, 2008 at 1:09 PM. Reason : ^ i am glad we could agree on something ]

6/9/2008 1:07:33 PM

It always amuses me that wussified France is heavily relient on NUKULAR PAWR. They even reprocess it, but here in the Wild Cowboy Federation of America, people are heavily opposed to it.

Radiation isn't that bad, folks. Think of all the superheroes that we would have.

6/9/2008 1:13:10 PM

or just put it in a container and guard it.

those 545 flaming motherfuckers impeding progress up in washington need to get some shit passed so we can get some insentive to build the first cheap electric car and 50 more of these:

6/9/2008 1:17:13 PM

Quote :

"those 545 flaming motherfuckers impeding progress up in washington need to get some shit passed so we can get some insentive to build the first cheap electric car and 50 more of these:"

The reason they don't is cause 99% of this country are retards that re-elect them every time.

So it's quite simple, vote against your sitting senator and representative come November. And convince everyone you know to do the same.

[Edited on June 9, 2008 at 1:33 PM. Reason : /]

6/9/2008 1:21:23 PM

just think of all the fuel we'd save and greenhouse gases we'd control

liberals would have nothing more to complain about again

6/9/2008 1:24:35 PM

i like the people in France that are pouring oil in the street in protest.

good idea guys, waste it...that'll surely drive the prices down

6/9/2008 1:41:38 PM

^haha GG frenchies!

They always make me laugh.

6/9/2008 1:56:38 PM

the 2005 energy policy act did a lot for nuclear power. Darn right around what I would say nuclear power needed. They only missed huge facet, congressional attention to the regulatory commission and process (because we all have sooo much faith in congress).

It's one of those things Bush actually didn't do wrong. But even with that supportive legislation, the slow regulatory process that only nuclear has to endure set the earliest possible deployment way back.

McCain strongly supports it
Obama literally refuses to answer questions about nuclear. It's obvious he wants money from both sides, so no matter what you do or what you ask him, he will not even give a thumbs up or down.

The battle will mostly be coal plants I think. That, or we'll stretch nat. gas further *shutter*

6/9/2008 2:06:32 PM

Unrelated, but that reminds of back in 2003 before Iraq when people were buying french wine so that they could pour it out in protest.

6/9/2008 2:07:10 PM

Quote :

"Obama literally refuses to answer questions about nuclear. It's obvious he wants money from both sides, so no matter what you do or what you ask him, he will not even give a thumbs up or down."

from obama's energy plan (on his website):

Quote :

"Safe and Secure Nuclear Energy: Nuclear power represents more than 70 percent of our noncarbon generated electricity. It is unlikely that we can meet our aggressive climate goals if we eliminate nuclear power from the table. However, there is no future for expanded nuclear without first addressing four key issues: public right-to-know, security of nuclear fuel and waste, waste storage, and proliferation. Barack Obama introduced legislation in the U.S. Senate to establish guidelines for tracking, controlling and accounting for spent fuel at nuclear power plants. To prevent international nuclear material from falling into terrorist hands abroad, Obama worked closely with Sen. Dick Lugar (R – IN) to strengthen international efforts to identify and stop the smuggling of weapons of mass destruction. As president, Obama will make safeguarding nuclear material both abroad and in the U.S. a top anti-terrorism priority. Obama will also lead federal efforts to look for a safe, long-term disposal solution based on objective, scientific analysis. In the meantime, Obama will develop requirements to ensure that the waste stored at current reactor sites is contained using the most advanced dry-cask storage technology available. Barack Obama believes that Yucca Mountain is not an option. Our government has spent billions of dollars on Yucca Mountain, and yet there are still significant questions about whether nuclear waste can be safely stored there."

[Edited on June 9, 2008 at 2:17 PM. Reason : margin]

[Edited on June 9, 2008 at 2:18 PM. Reason : n]

6/9/2008 2:16:14 PM

When are we going to get that pipeline to Iraq going?

6/9/2008 2:33:08 PM

Here's how I protest high gas prices:

I ride my bicycle to work. 40 miles round trip.

6/9/2008 2:38:37 PM

^god what a waste of time.

i'll let you borrow my old motorcycle if you need a ride. pm me.

6/9/2008 2:42:30 PM

Quote :

"i like the people in France that are pouring oil in the street in protest. good idea guys, waste it...that'll surely drive the prices down "

Quote :

"Unrelated, but that reminds of back in 2003 before Iraq when people were buying french wine so that they could pour it out in protest."

I lol'd hard.

^ and daymn Rat! If I had some extra wheels easy on the gas I'd be putting that shit in the classifieds. For real, the gas efficient vehicles are looking something nice in the Kelly Blue Book about now.

6/9/2008 3:03:44 PM

i'm hoping that investment pays off. it's nice to have laying around in case i need a few extra thousand dollar bucks


[Edited on June 9, 2008 at 3:09 PM. Reason : .]

6/9/2008 3:08:39 PM

I don't have any real need for a motorcycle right now. But I'm kind of looking into it... just because they could be a good investment.

6/9/2008 3:27:09 PM

Quote :

"Oil crisis: Obama vs. McCain The Democrat wants the government to do more to encourage conservation and find alternatives, while the Republican sees a bigger role for the free market. NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Energy issues have arguably never received so much public scrutiny. Record gas prices are taking a big chunk out of people's budgets, and take a big part of the blame for our shaky economy. But it isn't just high prices that are worrying voters. Oil supplies are tight, and global warming threatens major disruptions to life on Earth. Whoever wins the White House this fall may spend more time tackling theses energy challenges than any other president in history. The energy policies of Barack Obama and John McCain differ widely and voters can bet on some spirited political debate. McCain would mandate reductions in greenhouse gasses, then largely rely on the free market to spur conservation. In order to ease the pain of high gas prices he also wants to suspend the federal gas tax. Obama would tax oil companies and use the money to help low income people. He would also restrict greenhouse gasses, but charge more for companies to pollute and use the money to fund renewable energy research. He also sees a bigger role for government in encouraging conservation. CNNMoney.com asked the candidates questions which we feel are central to solving the world's energy challenge. Here's what they said: How they'd help consumers • Should Americans get direct rebates from the government? Some say the government should tax big oil or issue rebate checks out of the general fund to help people deal with pricier gas. Others say revenue from more oil company taxes would be marginal, and more borrowing would hurt the dollar and send oil prices higher. (more) McCain: Yes, but not right away. McCain's rebate would go to low income people and would come from an eventual sale of pollution permits to companies. He doesn't say when this sale would take place. He also supports eliminating a current tax break for oil companies. Obama: Yes. Obama would close a tax credit for oil companies and institute a windfall profits tax - charging big oil companies a higher rate when oil is over $80 a barrel. The money would be used to ease the burden of high energy prices on low income people. • Should the role of speculators be limited? Should traders be required to put more of their own money down to buy oil futures? Should trading in oil contracts be limited only to bulk oil users, such as refiners and airlines? Some say too many speculators are creating an oil price bubble. Others say they are merely following the trend, and provide much-needed liquidity. (more) McCain: Maybe. The government needs to review how much money traders are required to put up, but McCain hasn't specifically called for raising that amount. Obama: Maybe. The candidate would require more information gathering by the government, but it's unclear if he'd enact more restrictions. • Should the gas tax be suspended? Some say suspending the 18.4 cent a gallon federal gas tax would give motorists much needed relief. Others say it would leave road repairs underfunded and encourage more driving. (more) McCain: Yes. Obama: No. How they'd limit demand • Should fuel efficiency standards be raised more? Congress hiked them last fall for the first time in three decades, from 25 miles per gallon to 35 miles per gallon by 2020. Where should they go beyond 2020? (more) McCain: See how automakers do with the new rules before passing new ones. Obama: Wants to double fuel economy standards within 18 years to 50 mpg by 2026. • Should the government do more to promote conservation? Some ideas include government incentives for walking to work, a luxury tax on large cars, a tax rebate for small or electric cars, tax incentives and public wireless networks for people who telecommute, lowering the speed limit, among others. McCain: Supports market incentives for more Internet coverage to help telecommuters. He would rely on laws restricting greenhouse gas emissions to spur innovative conservation. Obama: Wants to make all new buildings carbon neutral, or produce zero emissions, by 2030. Promotes investment in a smart utility grid that can better manage energy demand. Has a lengthy section on his Web site talking about better urban development plans, and government incentives for towns that follow them. Obama wants to give utilities incentives to conserve energy. Lift cap on tax credit for more efficient cars, increase funding for public transport. Candidate plans for boosting supply • Should more areas be open for drilling in the U.S.? Some 1 to 2 million barrels a day, maybe more, of new production could be brought online by opening areas in the U.S. currently closed to drilling, most coming from Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Critics of more drilling say by the time production is ramped up, the amount will be too small to matter. (more) McCain: Would keep ANWR closed, but open up some coastal areas. Obama: No. • Should refiners be required to make more gasoline even if their profit margins are small? Should the government streamline the number of fuel blends the refiners make, or ease some clean air requirements? (more) McCain: Would not relax air quality standards, but would limit the number of fuel blends. Obama: Would require fuel suppliers to reduce the carbon their fuel emits by ten percent by 2020. • Should the ethanol tariff be lifted in an attempt to lower gas prices? Ethanol is a required component of gasoline. But in an effort to protect the domestic ethanol industry, there's a 54 cent a gallon tax on imported ethanol. McCain: Yes Obama: No • Should the government release supplies from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to calm oil markets? Critics of the calls to release SPR oil say the supplies should only be used in a genuine emergency, and drawing them down now could send prices higher by shrinking that buffer. (more) McCain: No Obama: No Developing alternatives • Should the government increase funding for renewable and cleaner energy? Some say the government should embark on a massive project - akin to the Apollo Project that put a man on the moon - in an effort to rapidly make technologies like solar, geothermal, advanced biofuels or clean coal cheaper, especially when electricity is expected to replace oil as the main fuel for cars. Others say this is best left to the free market. McCain: No, says market forces created by restricting carbon dioxide emissions would do the trick. Obama: Yes. The candidate would commit $150 billion over 10 years, plus another $50 billion in venture capital. The money would come from auctioning off permits for polluters to emit greenhouse gasses. • Should the government require utilities to buy renewable energy? A bill requiring utilities to buy a certain percent of their energy from renewable sources recently failed in the Senate. Supporters said it would create a much-needed market for renewable power. Opponents said it was a one-size-fits-all solution. (more) McCain: No Obama: Yes, 25 percent by 2025. Global warming Despite the fact that most economists say a carbon tax is a more efficient way to reduce greenhouse gasses, most politicians that want to restrict greenhouse gas emissions support a cap and trade system, including McCain and Obama. (more) A cap and trade is where the government issues permits to emit carbon dioxide, then reduces those permits every year. That's the cap part. Companies are then required to buy these permits from each other on an open market - hence the trade. The idea is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but give companies the option of either paying to pollute or installing better equipment. Paying to pollute would get more expensive each year as the number of permits declines. While a cap and trade bill recently failed in the Senate on grounds that it would be too costly, both Obama and McCain said they would have voted for it had they been present, and the issue is certain to reemerge. But Obama's and McCain's approach to cap and trade do differ. McCain: Would give away permits at first. Aims to reduce emissions 60 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. Obama: Wants to charge companies for the permits right from the beginning. Aims to reduce emissions 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050."

http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/09/news/economy/candidates_energy/index.htm?postversion=2008060913

6/9/2008 3:29:36 PM

Quote :

"those 545 flaming motherfuckers impeding progress up in washington"

did we amend the consititution when i wasnt looking?

6/9/2008 3:34:22 PM

Nuclear powered cargo ships? Coal is cheap, so building nuclear power plants to compete is not obvious. But, a single nuclear cargo ship would save many tons of liquid fuel every day.

6/9/2008 4:08:26 PM

congress and the navy are already talking about building nuclear powered vessels (cruisers/destroyers) to compliment their carrier capabilities

not saying cost isnt a severely prohibitive part of that equation, but they are talking about it

6/9/2008 4:10:40 PM