Poll for the progressives Do you support high energy prices? NEW BONUS POLL: what price level do you think is optimal?

[glenn1]

I'm honestly confused on this one. Most of the progressives I've seen here play both sides of it. Either you support high energy costs (often by way of a BTU or gasoline taxes) saying this will limit demand/help the environment and will speed along the development of alternative fuels, or you take the other side to complain that higher energy costs disporportionately hurt the poor and middle class (this is of course a true statement). Sometimes you even do both within the same post.

So which is it, do you want high or low energy costs?

 

[EatSpam]

Too bad the higher energy costs are just being used to pad the pocket of greedy executives. Its a lose-lose situation as it stands now.

 

[Steeplerot]

If I had my choice I would just slap up solar panels and let the energy industry die.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: EatSpam
Too bad the higher energy costs are just being used to pad the pocket of greedy executives. Its a lose-lose situation as it stands now.

Agreed.

I don't see why we can't have the lower fuel prices *and* move to alternative fuel sources. Are we to subsidize the oil industry (the modern-day buggy whip industry) forever?

 

[Gigantopithecus]

I care less about the poor (which, until I finish up school, includes me) than I do our country's fiendish addiction to foreign oil & the environment.

 

[NoSmirk]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
If I had my choice I would just slap up solar panels and let the energy industry die.

And then you will complain about how the 800 square miles of solar panels needed to fuel your city had to cut down a forest or a wetland to build.

 

[NoSmirk]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: EatSpam
Too bad the higher energy costs are just being used to pad the pocket of greedy executives. Its a lose-lose situation as it stands now.

Agreed.

I don't see why we can't have the lower fuel prices *and* move to alternative fuel sources. Are we to subsidize the oil industry (the modern-day buggy whip industry) forever?

Just a TINY list of products that are made from petroleum:

Ink Dishwashing liquids Paint brushes Telephones
Toys Unbreakable dishes Insecticides Antiseptics
Dolls Car sound insulation Fishing lures Deodorant
Tires Motorcycle helmets Linoleum Sweaters
Tents Refrigerator linings Paint rollers Floor wax
Shoes Electrician's tape Plastic wood Model cars
Glue Roller-skate wheels Trash bags Soap dishes
Skis Permanent press clothes Hand lotion Clothesline
Dyes Soft contact lenses Shampoo Panty hose
Cameras Food preservatives Fishing rods Oil filters
Combs Transparent tape Anesthetics Upholstery
Dice Disposable diapers TV cabinets Cassettes
Mops Sports car bodies Salad bowls House paint
Purses Electric blankets Awnings Ammonia
Dresses Car battery cases Safety glass Hair curlers
Pajamas Synthetic rubber VCR tapes Eyeglasses
Pillows Vitamin capsules Movie film Ice chests
Candles Rubbing alcohol Loudspeakers Ice buckets
Boats Ice cube trays Credit cards Fertilizers
Crayons Insect repellent Water pipes Toilet seats
Caulking Roofing shingles Fishing boots Life jackets
Balloons Shower curtains Garden hose Golf balls
Curtains Plywood adhesive Umbrellas Detergents
Milk jugs Beach umbrellas Rubber cement Sun glasses
Putty Faucet washers Cold cream Bandages
Tool racks Antihistamines Hair coloring Nail polish
Slacks Drinking cups Guitar strings False teeth
Yarn Petroleum jelly Toothpaste Golf bags
Roofing Tennis rackets Toothbrushes Perfume
Luggage Wire insulation Folding doors Shoe polish
Fan belts Ballpoint pens Shower doors Cortisone
Carpeting Artificial turf Heart valves LP records
Lipstick Artificial limbs Hearing aids Vaporizers
Aspirin Shaving cream Wading pools Parachutes

How exactly are those buggy whips again? Did you have an intelligent point to make or ?????? And I'll tell you exactly why you want cheap gas AND alternative fuels.. You want cheap gas so YOU can drive around cheaper in your gas guzzling POS car you own, and EVERYONE ELSE can go use alternative fuels at twice the cost.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: NoSmirk

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: EatSpam
Too bad the higher energy costs are just being used to pad the pocket of greedy executives. Its a lose-lose situation as it stands now.

Agreed.

I don't see why we can't have the lower fuel prices *and* move to alternative fuel sources. Are we to subsidize the oil industry (the modern-day buggy whip industry) forever?

Just a TINY list of products that are made from petroleum:

Ink Dishwashing liquids Paint brushes Telephones
Toys Unbreakable dishes Insecticides Antiseptics
Dolls Car sound insulation Fishing lures Deodorant
Tires Motorcycle helmets Linoleum Sweaters
Tents Refrigerator linings Paint rollers Floor wax
Shoes Electrician's tape Plastic wood Model cars
Glue Roller-skate wheels Trash bags Soap dishes
Skis Permanent press clothes Hand lotion Clothesline
Dyes Soft contact lenses Shampoo Panty hose
Cameras Food preservatives Fishing rods Oil filters
Combs Transparent tape Anesthetics Upholstery
Dice Disposable diapers TV cabinets Cassettes
Mops Sports car bodies Salad bowls House paint
Purses Electric blankets Awnings Ammonia
Dresses Car battery cases Safety glass Hair curlers
Pajamas Synthetic rubber VCR tapes Eyeglasses
Pillows Vitamin capsules Movie film Ice chests
Candles Rubbing alcohol Loudspeakers Ice buckets
Boats Ice cube trays Credit cards Fertilizers
Crayons Insect repellent Water pipes Toilet seats
Caulking Roofing shingles Fishing boots Life jackets
Balloons Shower curtains Garden hose Golf balls
Curtains Plywood adhesive Umbrellas Detergents
Milk jugs Beach umbrellas Rubber cement Sun glasses
Putty Faucet washers Cold cream Bandages
Tool racks Antihistamines Hair coloring Nail polish
Slacks Drinking cups Guitar strings False teeth
Yarn Petroleum jelly Toothpaste Golf bags
Roofing Tennis rackets Toothbrushes Perfume
Luggage Wire insulation Folding doors Shoe polish
Fan belts Ballpoint pens Shower doors Cortisone
Carpeting Artificial turf Heart valves LP records
Lipstick Artificial limbs Hearing aids Vaporizers
Aspirin Shaving cream Wading pools Parachutes

How exactly are those buggy whips again? Did you have an intelligent point to make or ?????? And I'll tell you exactly why you want cheap gas AND alternative fuels.. You want cheap gas so YOU can drive around cheaper in your gas guzzling POS car you own, and EVERYONE ELSE can go use alternative fuels at twice the cost.

Your list shows that it's stupid to use Oil as a fuel. Oil's importance goes far beyond how many HP you can get from it in your automoblie.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
If I had my choice I would just slap up solar panels and let the energy industry die.

Good. Let's snap our fingers and make some solar panels!

 

[NoSmirk]

What do you suggest we use then? We can use wind farms because it kills the birds, we can't use solar because its not capable of generating the power we need in reasonable sized panels, and they are ugly as well, we can't use coal because it polutes, we can't use natural gas because we would have to drill for it in Alaska, we can't use nuclear because its too dangerous.. we can't use oil.. we can't use wood as its hurting the yellow bellied woodpeckers environment..

Sigh..

 

[NoSmirk]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
If I had my choice I would just slap up solar panels and let the energy industry die.

Good. Let's snap our fingers and make some solar panels!

What is Halliburton came out tomorrow and said they've made a solar panel the size of a postage stamp that produces enough power to run an entire house. You think he would support it then? LOL..

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: NoSmirk

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
If I had my choice I would just slap up solar panels and let the energy industry die.

Good. Let's snap our fingers and make some solar panels!

What is Halliburton came out tomorrow and said they've made a solar panel the size of a postage stamp that produces enough power to run an entire house. You think he would support it then? LOL..

Shell and BP both design and make solar panels.

 

[hurtstotalktoyou]

Why in the world would we want to raise energy prices, and how would it "help the environment"?

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: NoSmirk

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
If I had my choice I would just slap up solar panels and let the energy industry die.

And then you will complain about how the 800 square miles of solar panels needed to fuel your city had to cut down a forest or a wetland to build.

Exactly. Solar panels aren't viable unless they get more efficient. Environmentalists would have a sh!t fit if we started putting up solar panels in the barren desert, saying it's destroying the environment. Enviro-wackos, in reality, don't like *any* energy source.

 

[Cerb]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: EatSpam
Too bad the higher energy costs are just being used to pad the pocket of greedy executives. Its a lose-lose situation as it stands now.

Agreed.

I don't see why we can't have the lower fuel prices *and* move to alternative fuel sources. Are we to subsidize the oil industry (the modern-day buggy whip industry) forever?

No. Just until we are extinct, which probably won't be too long, now...

 

[trenchfoot]

i recently viewed on cnn a congressional hearing on energy/oil availability and cost factors.

i forget the two guy's names that i'm about to refer to, but i do remember that they are well-regarded authorities in these matters.

they said it's a well-known fact that our energy companies like a tight market, because it creates shortages which drives energy prices up. he gave as an example how energy companies were shutting down refineries all over the US claiming that the environmentalists were to blame, when all along they knew that what they were doing was going to increase profits. these companies could have easily kept those refineries open to produce cheaper energy, as well as provide a buffer for natural/man-made disasters, but these energy companies agreed amongst themselves to restrict supplies.

kind'a reminds me of how the major automakers in the early 1900's bought out many electric trolley companies and wiped them from the face of the earth to eliminate them as competitors.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

The best thing we could do to help the environment without sacrificing our own material well-being and quality of life would be to attain zero-population-growth or, better yet, population loss. That means putting an end to immigration and encouraging women with unwanted pregnancies to have abortions. I'm in favor of that plus, at the same time, trying reduce the cost of fuel if possible while searching for alternative sources of fuel for vehicle propulsion.

 

[glenn1]

Agreed.

I don't see why we can't have the lower fuel prices *and* move to alternative fuel sources. Are we to subsidize the oil industry (the modern-day buggy whip industry) forever?

Well, IMHO the poll option which prefers lower energy prices doesn't mean that you don't support alternative energy sources (I think even those who would drill through a baby harp seal to get oil would support alternative energy research). The poll is really geared towards determining who out there in the progressive camp supports higher costs as an end in itself.

Conjur, let me ask you an honest follow-up question (this is open to anyone else who cares to answer as well). I'm not a shill for the oil companies or drillers, and attempt to be a conservationist myself, so we're on the same team here (for example, every lightbulb in my house is a low-wattage spiral lamp, and I was looking to buy a hybrid car when gas was under $1/gal). It's looking like for the forseeable future that most alternative energy sources will have a cost profile higher than oil, which means that unless oil is at a certain price point that they're not economically viable. For sake of argument let's say that price viability scales directly with its green factor (more pollutive methods like coal liquification may be cost effective at $35/bbl, nuclear at $40/bbl, solar at $50, etc). Where would you consider the higher overall energy costs to consumer to be outweighed by the benefits of lower oil consumption? Basically, how much do you consider greener energy production to be worth in economic terms?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Neither. Use money spent on wars to fund public research and make the results available to those who would use them. Business act in what is their best financial interests, not the publics. If this had been done by Carter and subsequent administrations, we probably wouldn't have these issues.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Neither. Use money spent on wars to fund public research and make the results available to those who would use them. Business act in what is their best financial interests, not the publics. If this had been done by Carter and subsequent administrations, we probably wouldn't have these issues.

I think Carter was starting down that road until the Reagan "Revolution." I believe the higher education model is appropriate. The feds should tax fuel . . . a lot . . . use some money to subsidize the poor and the remainder goes into a public research fund as noted by the gas hog motorcyclist.

End ALL subsidies for legacy fossil fuel development, exploration, and extraction by particular industries. Those funds should go to the same public research trust. "Clean coal" research would continue but far more companies would be capable of exploiting the results of research investment.

 

[Zebo]

How's this for progressive: no excise taxes? The government needs to get its hands out of every pot. By the time your done with income, property, excise, state, sales, SS, Medi, utilities, sin and use taxes you pay over 50% in taxes if you're in the middle class.. Everyone is a regressive tax except income. That's whats killing familes, not $3 a gallon (whcih would be $2.25 w/o tax)

 

[glenn1]

Neither. Use money spent on wars to fund public research and make the results available to those who would use them. Business act in what is their best financial interests, not the publics. If this had been done by Carter and subsequent administrations, we probably wouldn't have these issues.

While that's fine for a longer term solution, I'd like to see what you have to say about my question on what greener energy is worth to you in economic terms. As it stands right now the reality is that petroleum is the most cost efficient source of energy out there (and is the most efficient universally available source), so to change to an alternative would involve economic costs. Again, at what price point would you be willing to let energy go (and stay) if it meant that a currently available alternative source became economically viable ?

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: Zebo
How's this for progressive: no excise taxes? The government needs to get its hands out of every pot. By the time your done with income, property, excise, state, sales, SS, Medi, utilities, sin and use taxes you pay over 50% in taxes if you're in the middle class.. Everyone is a regressive tax except income. That's whats killing familes, not $3 a gallon (whcih would be $2.25 w/o tax)

That happens because liberals decided to get the government involved in SS, Medicare, utilities, schooling, and other entitlement schemes.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: glenn1

Neither. Use money spent on wars to fund public research and make the results available to those who would use them. Business act in what is their best financial interests, not the publics. If this had been done by Carter and subsequent administrations, we probably wouldn't have these issues.

While that's fine for a longer term solution, I'd like to see what you have to say about my question on what greener energy is worth to you in economic terms. As it stands right now the reality is that petroleum is the most cost efficient source of energy out there (and is the most efficient universally available source), so to change to an alternative would involve economic costs. Again, at what price point would you be willing to let energy go (and stay) if it meant that a currently available alternative source became economically viable ?

In personal terms, I am considering going with solar heating. Propane has gone from 99 cents a gallon last year to 3.99. That's a fantastic increase. I can absorb the increase, but it's going to hurt. Others haven't that option. They must do without.

You ask a very simple question that's hard to answer, because there is no way to know how prices will affect development of alternate fuels. I seem to remember a while back reading that 30 or 40 dollars a bbl would be the cost effective price for producing shale oil. Now if there has been a move to do this, I havent seen it, and if there were, it would still take time to get going. If higher oil prices hurt oil companies, then there would be incentive to move to something else. The fact is that it hasn't. Oil profits are soaring, and forgetting about the morality of this, what incentive is there to do anything different? If minimal investment yields superior profits, why fix what is not broken from a business standpoint.

Since I am forced to make a choice, I would have to say that I would rather have cheap energy then because nothing is going to change, the companies will still profit, and the only ones hurt are those who have the least means to pay. Higher prices do not guarantee anything, and I expect people will adjust to this, some badly, and the economy suffer as a result. We will survive though, and continue on doing nothing just as we have been doing.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Zebo
How's this for progressive: no excise taxes? The government needs to get its hands out of every pot. By the time your done with income, property, excise, state, sales, SS, Medi, utilities, sin and use taxes you pay over 50% in taxes if you're in the middle class.. Everyone is a regressive tax except income. That's whats killing familes, not $3 a gallon (whcih would be $2.25 w/o tax)

That happens because liberals decided to get the government involved in SS, Medicare, utilities, schooling, and other entitlement schemes.

SS generates a surplus that covers over $100B a year of GOP excess.

GOP converted Medicare into the largest liability in US history . . . granted it already had that distinction but the fiscal conservatives wanted to make their own mark.

GOP subsidizes energy companies . . . the same companies enjoying record profits.

GOP dramatically expands federal spending by the Department of Education.

I guess the Democrats made them do it.:roll: