The Obama/McCain Energy Charade

My thoughts about McCain

I am republican and I see that McCain kept sending bad ads on tv against Obama. I was going to vote for McCain, but now I can see the truth in Obama. I will vote for him because he supports ADA law, environment, heath care and other things. My concern what Obama as other presidents in the past said I will do this that, I promise, etc. will Obama DO IT? Will he be ready to lead our country for next 4 years due to energy and oil crisis also Iran?

Chris Davis of GA @ Aug 05, 2008 22:55:30 PM

Oil consumption

"Since U.S. oil consumption represents just one fourth of the world total, the benefit of an extra 70 million barrels would get spread throughout world markets, diluting the payoff to Americans even more."

JUST one fourth???? Do you have any idea how disproportionate that is? There are almost 200 other countries in the world and they all need oil.

peak oil man @ Aug 05, 2008 22:24:49 PM

actually.... it doesn't

kristan

if price is to be the signal that drives alternatives, then no... cheap gas will not cause alternatives to be developed, manufactured, and purchased.

The only way to divorce price from incentive is to mandate. That is a brick wall that also drives the market. And it can drive it effectively in limited circumstances if the mandate is very well designed. Otherwise, it often does more harm than good.

jake1492 @ Aug 05, 2008 22:15:24 PM

Baloney

Someone above said neither of the candidates is offering a real solution... balderdash! They both are. Neither of the very narrow points that the author of the article mentions are real solutions, but both guys talk about the important issues of long term reduction of oil use through developing technology that uses less or no oil. It's just that Obama has been talking about it longer and more consistently. McCain's offshore thing is a blatant pander.. not a real solution.

jake1492 @ Aug 05, 2008 22:11:26 PM

This is a sensible article, but I do think it misses one thing: the power of market psychology in the determination of oil prices. Demand for oil is growing by 1% per year globally, and yet without a major supply disruption causing sharp inventory drawdowns, the oil price is tracking at double last year's levels. What's changed ? Easy: the mindset of financial investors, who want something inflation-proof, dollar-proof and somewhat recession-proof.

Drilling, strategic reserves, etc. - putting supply on a positive trajectory can alter the equation, just as much as demand destruction (i.e. less U.S. driving activity) works.

Also, people are not paying enough attention to the most sensible proposal from either candidate: nuclear. It's efficient, environmentally-clean and can break the dependence on choking fossil fuels. Chernobyl was in Russia and it was a long time ago.

HW of IL @ Aug 05, 2008 20:49:58 PM

Too little too late???

America's infrastructure was built on cheap energy, a handy thing in a country with lots of geography. In 1971 I was pumping full service gasoline at 27 cents per gallon. Suddenly conceding that energy will never be cheap again especially if we want to be independent ignores the fact that we'd also have to restructure how we live and work, another enormous task. Globalization is also taking a major hit due to high energy costs. Both candidates fail to see the magnitude of the problem and congress needs called back into session to deal with it (35 years late considering 1973's oil crisis). We need another "mission to the moon" level of commitment.

Wars meant to secure our Middle East supply have not managed to keep costs down and why would folks that own oil want a lower price? mmmm!! The money would have been better spent these last decades making the hard changes so we could be thumbing our noses at the Saudis and others.

Duane Dunn of CA @ Aug 05, 2008 20:35:46 PM

Glenn Phillips right, Kristan wrong.

How about hearing a speech similar to the one JFK made, "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country!" Americans are too fat and spoiled to make any sacrifices and instead will forever demand more pie-in-the-sky from their politicians. Drilling offshore or releasing oil from the reserve is like giving an addict a quick fix, the relief may be immediate, but it is only temporary. It is time for America to go "cold turkey." Let's start taking our methadone now. I suggest a 100% tax on gasoline, the proceeds going to researching renewable energies and rebuilding public transport.

Kristan, I don't know where you studied your economics, but I learned that demand goes up when the price goes down, and demand goes down when the price goes up. Which would give market economies more incentive to find alternatives to a given commodity, higher prices for that commodity, or lower? I think Rick Newman was paying attention in his Economics 101 class, I suspect you found Rhetoric 101 more interesting.

Stuart M. of CA @ Aug 05, 2008 20:34:33 PM

Well Said

I couldn't agree more. I'm an Obama fan but I don't like the fact that Obama is switching his energy policy views so that he is more in line with what most American's feel. Releasing oil from the strategic reserve is pointless. Taxing the oil companies will only drive the price of gas higher. The oil companies are not the ones to blame. The politicians are the one's that have failed us.

For now prices need to stay high for us to get off of foreign oil. However, I do think we should be drilling but it shouldn't be as big a priority as developing alternative fuels. Pickens plan seems to make sense but why can't we do it all. We should drilling, doing nuclear, biomass, solar, wind, geothermal, and anything that is viable. Of course it's only viable if gas prices stay high. Basically we should be doing anything other than sending billions to countries that support terrorism.

Dave of CA @ Aug 05, 2008 19:57:38 PM