I think stopping the destruction of our planet's climate is more important than becoming oil independent and having cheap petroleum, personally. This is troubling news to me, I was hoping that peak oil would start people down the track of dealing with these problems.
People are on track to deal with these problems (or at least are attempting to be). There are hybrid cars all over the place now, Tesla Motors is doing well as a company and there is a ton of research going into clean energy. These are just extremely difficult problems to deal with. In the meantime, the country can't just let society fail as a whole. The whole world would descend into chaos and war.
The US has to do something to protect the country and the economy. It can't allow itself to become wholly dependent on oil produced by enemies of the state in an inherently unstable region ran by crazy dictators and terrorists. So what do they do? They hedge and ensure the country can keep a seat at the negotiation table when things get tough. Given the size of the US and the dependance on trucks, rail, and shipping to move cargo, even rather small changes in the price of oil can drastically alter the economy.
$4 a gallon is peanuts. Price of gas in Rome, Italy was 1.87 euro per litre when I was there in July. Per litre, not gallon!
So people get around town on little mopeds, motorbikes, small cars and a lot of SMART cars around as well. I agree there is a lot of forward momentum with hybrid/electric cars in terms on technological advancement, but the uptake in the US is abysmal. Just because you drive an electric car does not mean there is no CO2, that electricity needs to be generated from somewhere and unless that source is renewable energy then you are back to square one. But it's not just cars you need to think about: generation of electricity, airplanes, ships, cheap exports from the rest of the world... I remember reding a study a few years ago stating that shipping outputs a lot more CO2 than air travel. Also, ships use the cheapest, nastiest, left over fuel from the refinement process so ends up throwing our more CO2.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/mar/03/travelsenv...
I agree the US probably feels like it has to do something, but constantly patching over the cracks is never really going to fix the problem.
It can't allow itself to become wholly dependent on oil produced by enemies of the state in an inherently unstable region ran by crazy dictators and terrorists.
Yes. Thanks for the insightful comments. I'll be sure to vote you in for president when you run for election.</sarc>
Consumers are not the issue here really. It's cargo that's the concern. That's where most of the pollution is (from oil anyways) and that's where the price of oil affects the economy. I don't think people realize just how much the US is dependent on oil for it's goods. Most consumer products are made overseas, shipped into a port, offloaded onto a train, and then delivered to retail locations via trucks. On top of that, it's already an incredibly efficient process, so it's going to take a major shift before industry moves to another solution (sorry, don't have a better link right now): http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/05/how-efficient-is-a...
Also, there's no need for sarcasm. Please provide a rebuttal if you disagree. My argument is that Russia and the middle east is inherently unstable (I do not care to go into why as I understand fully how much a part the US has in that). The US needs to maintain it's oil producing capacity or else it becomes pretty easy to hurt the US without ever attacking it.
Yes, I know consumers are not the issue. Cargo is, and that's why I brought it up, your original argument only mentions cars specifically and everyone driving hybrid is going to make little impact and as things currently stand everyone driving fully electric won't do squat. I think we are beating the same drum though.
The map of country size comparison... should the land mass off a country determine your "allowed usage" or should be be proportional to population? Since the higher your population the more energy needs you have... I'm sure there is some complex set of graphs related to this somewhere...
The sarc comment is for your extremely generalized comment, it's very much an American view on the "rest of world" and makes you sound very ignorant. I fully agree with your US influence comment though, and not just within that region, but that's a whole other story...
What the US needs to do is reduce it dependence on oil so that it becomes less difficult to hurt it's economy. Oil will run out at some point (aside from the irreparable harm that is being down to the environment) and at the moment all they are doing is shifting the problem on to the next generation.
Why do you keep attacking me? I've been civil to you.
The reason I compare land mass is because the infrastructure is different. The US has to move cargo over large distances and buys much of it's products from producers over seas. It's completely dependent on oil from that perspective. The size of the country also hurts development of things like high speed rail and public transportation due to issues with urban sprawl unlike it's european and asian counterparts where these projects have done well. There's a land mass nearly the size of Russia with very sparsely populated areas strewn about and tons of existing infrastructure in the way. Then there are also cities that are in some cases the size of small European countries with a population that's less dense. The logistics of these make solving the cargo and transportation issues very difficult. In the mean time, the US can't sit idle and just let things collapse unless it wants risk civil unrest. Combine all this with military and economic threats from China, Russia, and the middle east and it's no surprise to me that the government wants to ensure the US can continue to play a major role in oil production. Keep in mind that oil is a commodity, so it's not about the money. This is purely about the future of the country.
Regarding my comment about cars, see the reply above to someone who made a similar point. There's evidence that progress is being made. It's just developing in niche markets where innovation typically happens (consumer cars, race cars, small power companies, etc..). I wasn't trying to say that CSX would start moving cargo via tesla cars. Please tell me you didn't really believe that.
I'm not convinced the issue is one of a lack of demand. It's just a really difficult problem to solve and when the well being of the country is at state, the politicians aren't going to willing throw it's economy into a depression or risk one of it's enemies forcing it's hand. Hope is not a strategy.
Finally, no sane country is going to willing limit it's oil usage. That's especially true for a country that's been in a recession for over 4 years and every good and service is impacted by the cost of oil.
I'm not attacking you personally, sorry if it comes across that way but it is not my intention.
No I don't believe Tesla will start moving goods... but until we get near to that point then I don't believe just targeting consumers will have much impact. If they want some immediate impact then people should stop driving arounf in 4 litre V8 SUVs just to drop their kids off to school. But I can see the other comment on this, no need to go back in to this.
I am not American, and so I think we share different views on this, you viewing internally will see this much more different than me externally. Personally I don't care what happens to the US market or economy. There will be some knock on effect for the rest of the world in the short term but then things will just move on. Very true that no sane country will limit their oil usage, but soon they may well be left with no other choice. So better to be prepared now and find alternative sources of energy now.
I'm not necessarily taking sides though; Just pointing out how the situation is much different from most parts of the world. Developed infrastructure, a large geographic region, and a complete dependance on oil make the US extremely sensitive to external pressure in the oil commodities market. As a result, the government hedges, just like any sane investor would do.
American cars are a teeny tiny part of world CO2 emissions. Whatever else their pros and cons, hybrids and Teslas aren't going to matter to global warming.
"Transportation activities (excluding international bunker fuels) accounted for 32 percent of CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion in 2010."
almost 6% of global C02 emmisions. I think thats substantial, but you are correct that hybrids and teslas aren't going to do much. However if we help push electric vehicles and clean power production there is obviously a substantial benefit to be reaped.
Good breakdown. As far as things that can be replaced by Priuses and Teslas (original point upthread), I think you're looking at just the 34% from passenger cars. So you end up with taking a bite out of (not zeroing) 2% of global emissions.
well - I would still say that is a bit optimistic. For instance what portion of consumers can afford a prius or tesla type vehicle?
I do think it is fair to point out that as there is more industry adoption (starting with teslas and priuses) the tech should become cheaper and better, affected other markets in other places. So directly, they aren't going to do much, but in the long term, adoption of teslas and priuses could have a substantial impact.
Of course they aren't the solution, but technological progress typically happens in low volume, niche markets. My point wasn't that a solution is here today. Quite the opposite, but it's disingenuous to claim that people aren't working on the problem or that progress isn't being made. It's also a bit dubious to claim that simply making oil more expensive would solve things. There's a balance. At one end of the spectrum you destroy humanity via global warming at the other, you do so via war. The government has to play both options to strike a balance.
When people talk of peak oil, all I see is solutions to oil-as-fuel problems. What about the other industries where you still use oil? Petroleum products are practically everywhere.
If it's really true that with other forms of energy, how much ever dense or otherwise, we'd be able to produce all the hydrocarbons/petroleum products (like wax, plastics etc.) then it's good news to me. Atleast, this will help scientists focus only on one problem for the time-being, viz. hunting for a form to store energy at the highest density possible, safely.
Yes, I do understand peak oil. My concern stems from the fact that if we're producing less oil each successive day, we shouldn't have to make the tough choice between sending oil to refine for gas, or to send it to make plastics, naphtha and wax. That is the dynamic I'm worried about.
Agreed. Nuclear has had a rough go of it as a result of Japan's problems (and vise versa to be fair) but in general it seems like electric cars and nuclear are our only real options to at least try and keep up with climate change. There are also some strong cases for cost reductions and safety improvements for new Nuclear facilities as a result of improved building techniques and more generic designs.
It is important that we be energy independent but I am totally disappointed at the lack of energy (minimal pun intended) for renewables and alternatives. In the presidential debates the bulk of energy conversation was dedicated to strutting thier oil and fossil fuel cred - hardly any other focus.
I agree (about climate) and I don't think we can wait for peak oil to hit before we start making much deeper cuts in emissions.
Bill McKibben in Rolling Stone shows that proven fossil fuel reserves are around 5 times higher than we can burn to avoid a very dangerous climate change (beyond the 2C guardrail):
I interpreted the opposite; that (s)he is opposed to anything that makes fuel prices cheaper. This is the viewpoint that I personally hold. I would like fuel prices to go up and match the rest of the world as that would create a huge push towards much more efficient transportation technologies.
Of course it isn't that black and white as prices of commodities would increase, possibly decrease sales, etc, but it is an interesting thought that has been in the back of my mind.
Let me make my point more clearly. If CO2 emissions are such a huge threat to the world then it makes the most sense to push for fracking in the short term because switching to natural gas over kerosene/gasoline and especially over coal reduces carbon emissions substantially. If a hybrid compact car makes sense from an environmental standpoint then shifting hydrocarbon usage to natural gas makes as much if not more sense.
"Let me make my point more clearly" - yes please do because your first attempt was gawd awful...
Part of the reason I would rather not invest in fracking (aside from the immediate environmental issues) is that if we want to end up at clean and sustainable energy then why make expensive investments into intermediate technologies that don't significantly impact the underlying problem. While it would reduce emissions that doesn't make it a good choice. If we gave someone 4/5s of a vote instead of 3/5s of a vote that would still leave a lot of people in our country pretty ticked.
The post you were responding to is saying they want to pay more for our energy because that is the only way people will understand that it needs to be used (and obviously produced) wisely. Fracking and natural gas allow for us to use more energy at cheaper rates albeit a bit cleaner. Bottom line, the poster above wants to pay more for energy and encourage people to use less/produce cleaner.
"... if we want to end up at clean and sustainable energy then why make expensive investments into intermediate technologies that don't significantly impact the underlying problem."
So we shouldn't develop hybrid cars either? Or wind power? Or biofuels?
If you want to get from A to B you can't just teleport there, you need to travel the distance between, and that typically involves lots of incremental and partial advancements and often also many compromises.
