Warner and 100 MPG Hybrids

conserve fuel

Also remember back in the 70s when we did start to make smaller cars after the embargo. Guess what happened! They raised the price of gas because they said we weren't using enough!!

joe wilson of IN @ Aug 28, 2008 09:42:50 AM

Faulty Economics

It doesn't matter if the amount of oil from expanded offshore drilling doesn't match the increase in demand by the time it's available. Say that demand still outpaces supply in that period. Prices will go up. But if we didn't drill for more oil, this scarcity would be even worse and the prices would be even higher.

And Bill, you have your causation backwards. People don't conserve gasoline in order to drop the price. They conserve because the price is too high to consume the amount they currently consume. "Asking Americans to conserve" is pointless. They will conserve as much as makes sense for their personal finances. Asking them to do more is asking them to lower their quality of life for the greater good. It's kind of like asking people to voluntarily pay more taxes, which has been tried and has brought in nearly no revenue.

Erik of PA @ Aug 27, 2008 19:30:38 PM

Ron in Texas

The 40 mile limit is why they call it a hybrid. You can drive unlimited miles as long as you keep stopping at a gasoline station to fill up. You might also rethink that 40+ mile one way trip to work. I would recommend you 1. MOVE or 2. Change Jobs. It is amazing what not having a 2 hr. commute each way does to your life.

Wayne Dusek of AZ @ Aug 27, 2008 16:43:43 PM

"Asking Americans to conserve is the only way to IMMEDIATELY reduce gas prices."

Not really. Americans conserving on gas consumption will have a minimal effect on the overall price of gas. In order for American conservation to have a huge effect on gas we would have to implement a strategy akin to what the Chinese did over the Olympics. Of course, this has its own drawbacks.

"It's going to take time, 5-10 years at least, to get those 100 MPG plug-in hybrids on the road in large numbers."

This right here is a hypocritical statement. You're willing to wait 5-10 years to get this mythical 100MPG plug-in hybrids, but will not want us to drill for the most abundant and cheapest energy we have because it will take 5-10 for it to come online (which is debatable)?

"At the same time this is happening, under an Obama administration, we're going to be modernizing the electrical grid, offering rebates to households that install solar panels, and engaging in a massive program to increase energy efficiencey and improve conservation."

So...you want to give those who can afford to put these massive solar panels on their homes a rebate. What about the people who can't afford to put these things on their homes? What about people who rent a home or an apartment? What this sounds like is a tax break for the well-off, who, by the way, enjoy the same credits when it comes to buying big trucks and hybrid cars. But we don't call those tax breaks "tax cuts for the rich", now do we? I wonder why that is. Maybe it has something to do with Dems favoring these types of subsidies.

"And yes, Obama DOES believe in nuclear power if we can do it safely and without adding to our problems."

More nuanced talking from an Obamaniac. Of course, I would say that nuclear IS safe, since we have never had a meltdown (Three Rivers was not a meltdown and was more media scare than anything), NONE of our plants have been hit by terrorists and the waste created by the spent fuel can be recycled or stored in a safe place in Yucca Mountain. Besides, there has been only one nuclear meltdown in the entire history of nuclear use for energy: Chernobyl. But of course, look where that took place: in a region that was known for shoddy workmanship and poor regulation. By the by, the Navy has been using nuclear power for over 50 years without any accidents. If its safe for our military it is safe for our citizens.

Chris of AZ @ Aug 27, 2008 15:36:06 PM

None of that happened under a Democratic administration, I might add.

Well Bill as I recall all of this terrible collapse of the econony has taken place SINCE the Democrats took over Congree...what bold steps have they initiated to shore up the economy ? Increase taxes, tax the rich, tax excess profits, introduce new taxes.... same old sad puerile response to every downturn. I've listened to it since FDR's was elected to his first term.

Change is what we do need. Get the Democrats to change their whining old refrains.

Paul Hannon of CA @ Aug 27, 2008 15:18:10 PM

Dreaming

Liberal tree huggers with no engineering or scientific training (or better yet no scientific understanding) have dreams that, whilst well intentioned, have no basis in reality.

To switch from a petrofuel dependency to a "green" world in less than three decades is just a naive dream, and you can't finance the dream by taxing the oil comapnies. If you want the U.S. to go from the world's only superpower to a banana republic in one generation you need only find more Nancy Pelosis and Harry Reids to govern.

Oh, and throw in one Chicago wardheeler as president to cap the lineup.

Paul Hannon of CA @ Aug 27, 2008 15:07:44 PM

Conservation?

You talk about "conservation" like gas is spewing out of the pump, into the street, and down a sewer and all we need to do to correct that is be careful. Like Jimma Carter telling us to dial down and wear a sweater.

But what the left calls conservation is nothing more than the (a) indirect tax on the use of oil through "cap and trade" legislation (b) intrusion, by government regulation, into your home telling you how high (or low) you're allowed to set your thermostat. Consider, as well, really "smart" politicians, like our governor here in Michigan, picking energy "winners" and "losers" by using tax dollars to subsidize the folly of "bio fuels."

It doesn't take any imagination to connect the dots about where this is heading. Those that act like a hot wire touched their back when the government "wire taps" terrorist calls from outside the US that are, via algorithm, routed through the US to another point off our shores, are now, suddenly, comfortable with government control over your heating, cooling, and transportation options.

In a capitalist economy, maximum efficiency is built in. There is no waste of the kind that will appreciably save energy. We discovered the most efficient fuel to drive our economy at the turn of the century---oil---and the market continues to confirm that choice. At least right now, the alternatives are contrivances supported by the pipe dreams (and tax dollars) of snoring politicians who, rather than leading (i.e., telling the truth), are, surprise, surprise, pandering to the Big Lie that alternatives to oil are "out there" if we only believe they are.

Alternatives are out there, but they aren't coming on line in any significant way any time soon (not in five, ten, or even 15 years). But, when they do, it will be the market---not government---that gets them here.

MET of MI @ Aug 27, 2008 14:45:36 PM

Interesting Combination

Mark Warner would have been Hillary's veep pick... his speech didn't have to be realistic, he was pointing us to the future. If Obama loses watch for it next election. Clinton/Warner'12

David of FL @ Aug 27, 2008 01:53:04 AM