Recent Comments:
Living in suburbia now even worse {Autoblog Green}
Jun 30th 2008 10:03AM As I see it, we are about to see a fairly ruthless re-ordering of Americans' priorities based on the long-ignored value of efficiency. We can quibble about this that and the other trend, but efficiency is going to rule. The ex-burbs are just grossly inefficient, and will suffer accordingly. They won't disappear, they'll just suffer.
The Atlantic article is great, here it is: http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200803/subprime
Suckers - PBS falls for debunked Prius/Hummer story {Autoblog Green}
Jun 26th 2008 2:19PM A_D_Hominem, when you can point to a single researcher (not pundit) willing to support the CNW study, I'll stop saying it has been universally debunked. As it is, every engineer or qualified analyst who has looked at the report finds it to be a quintessence of junk science. If you wanted to teach a class on junk science, this would be your example. Nobody other than CNW will stand by it -- and they've been back-peddling and qualifying it ever since they released it. Or I should say "he" rather than "they" since CNW is essentially one person, Art Spinella.
Gingrich presents three ways to lower gas prices {Autoblog Green}
Jun 26th 2008 1:59PM "We have plenty of oil right here in the US."
I haven't seen any source other than pundits and politicians stating this. The EIA, the oil companies, analysts, they all agree that the U.S. does not have any large, efficient fields left to exploit. We do have a multitude of smaller fields that can be tapped, but this is much more expensive and slower harder and just won't effect the market like a single huge find would. We don't even have sufficient equipment available to tap all these smaller sources.
Remember, the U.S. is the most thoroughly explored territory on earth in terms of oil fields. If there were a huge field existing that could be efficiently tapped, we'd be tapping it right now. The fact that we aren't is pretty much sufficient proof that such a field doesn't exist. And don't mention ANWAR. That just proves the point: a moderate size field at the polar extremity that could be tapped only at huge cost and would cover our energy needs for only a year or two. Tapping it today would hardly dent the market price of oil.
A "sizable number" of Americans think gas will hit $5/gallon by Labor Day {Autoblog Green}
Jun 26th 2008 1:45PM Speculators can't indefinitely manipulate the price of a highly fungible commodity like oil; if this is just speculation, there will be a huge collapse. Speculators may be aggravating the issue and making it perhaps more volatile. They aren't creating the issue.
The sources of this problem are:
1) The declining dollar is affecting the price of a dollar-denominated commodity. So ultimately, bad fiscal management in the U.S. is driving the value of the dollar down and causing a large increase in the price of all dollar-denominated commodities, including oil. Persistent deficits have repercussions, this is one.
2) Huge increases in demand as China, India, etc. raise their standard of living, a process that is really just starting
3) The maxing out and decline of known huge reserves of oil in the ground.
4) Best bets for new large finds are almost universally located in highly unstable or politically unfriendly areas of the world.
5) Other new supply available in more politically/friendly neutral locations are smaller, lower grade, and/or much more costly to extract.
6) Inflexibility of demand: the near-certainty that countries will be unable to quickly replace their oil demand with an alternate energy source.
Put all this together and you have sufficient reason for increasing prices without blaming speculators.
Sigh. Hybrid lies continue to spread {Autoblog Green}
Jun 16th 2008 10:44AM No one ever mentions that the ultimate source of the survey finding that Prius owners buy them to look green and impress people with their virtue is . . . wait for it . . . CNW Marketing. Yup. The very same people that released the study claiming that Hummers are better for the environment. Not much of an agenda there, eh?
Kelley Blue Book recommends maybe not selling your SUV right now {Autoblog Green}
Jun 3rd 2008 11:38AM Chris,
Thanks for sharing the example of your brother-in-law's common sense.
Too many people see it as an either-or question, big car or small car. It's not, it's about the most efficient way to meet your needs.
AVFI 2008: T. Boone Pickens lays the future of oil and alternatives on the line {Autoblog Green}
May 22nd 2008 12:25PM Every one knows that T. Boone Pickens, Warren Buffet, etc. are liberal, hippie, elitist, socialist, America-hating dead-enders. All we need to do is drill in the Arctic wildlife refuge and everything will be hunky-dory. Damn communists.
Is buying a used car greener than buying a new hybrid? {Autoblog Green}
May 22nd 2008 11:48AM I'd say it is important to differentiate between the decisions of individuals, and the aggregate societal affect when considering this issue.
That is, for individuals there are certainly instances where a particular used car is a net environmental benefit over a new high-mileage car, especially if you focus only on the period of that individual's ownership of the vehicle.
As a net social issue, however, given that the majority of our current fleet is made up of very low-mileage vehicles, it is almost certainly a substantial net benefit to retire those inefficient vehicles as soon as possible and take the current hit on manufacturing new high-energy vehicles in order to reap very substantial long-term gains.
And note this current question is focused only on direct energy costs, strictly defined, and does not consider the emissions issue or other external costs of a fleet of heavy, low-efficiency vehicles (worse wear on roads, higher costs of maintenance, military necessities, etc., etc.). Were those costs to be included, the scale would tilt radically towards replacing the current fleet as quickly as possible.
Gas tax debate continues unabated, Hillary tries to defend herself {Autoblog Green}
May 6th 2008 11:01AM Instead of windfall taxes or the moronic tax holiday idea, just get rid of all the tax breaks and incentives for domestic oil companies in the Energy Policy Act of 2005. That's $28 billion or so that was justified to increase domestic production. But with oil over $120/barrel and record profits, I don't imagine oil companies need any additional incentives and they certainly have all the capital they need. There's certainly nothing very "free market" about those incentives. So cut those giveaways and right there is a big chunk of change you could use to really help low-income Americans deal with the rapid changes coming down the pike, either through direct tax relief or investment in infrastructure, education, etc.
"Dumb on all counts" - the experts chime in on the gas tax holiday idea {Autoblog Green}
May 5th 2008 1:56PM Gripen,
You said: "Jon, don't you think it a little disingenuous that Obama says that he doesn't accept money from oil companies, but that NOBODY does because it's illegal?"
No, I'd say that's a truthful response to people like yourself who imply that he does, knowing that nobody does. In the same vein, I think it's pretty close to a lie when you specifically stated in your previous post that he did accept such contributions, knowing that he didn't. And pretty disingenuous to imply that the candidate who relies the least on lobbyist money is somehow benefiting the most from corporate donations.
Rave on, buddy.
