Subscriber Services
Weather

Thursday, May 10, 2007

BRAVO! RECORD GASOLINE PRICES GREAT NEWS FOR U.S.!

Hurrah! Great news! When I filled up my car's gas tank yesterday, I paid an all-time record $3.41 a gallon, and experts are predicting that gasoline prices may soon reach $4 a gallon. I can't wait! I am more convinced than ever that unless gasoline prices rise above $4 a gallon, there won't be a nationwide uproar strong enough to force Washington to get serious about reducing the U.S. suicidal dependence on foreign oil. Read the full column here, and let us know what YOU think.

61 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dear Sir,
Since you have no doubt received a good deal of scathing responses to your article, I thought I would pen one in support of your position.

What you did not mention is that a change will soon be FORCED upon us by other factors, namely China. China is pursuing a 1940's America Model of Industrialization, and since they are a good deal less "polite" in who they will deal with and how, I foresee major issues for the United States in the acquisition of petroleum in the very near future. As an example, look at the price of Scrap Steel, which has gone from approx. $12/ton to ten times that amount in 15 years due primarily to the demand from China.

I am in favor of the Hydrogen Economy myself. All the technology is there, and proven, it is only a matter of establishing the infrastructure. This is no small task, but if you look at the costs incurred from our exploits in Iraq, it could have been established in at least many of our major cities for a fraction of that cost.


I want to wake up some morning, turn on the news, and say " Oh look, there is a crisis in some third world shit pot country....and I don't care!" =0)

Mike Haydon

9:38 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Great Logic...


Why don’t we double the tax rate, then we will do something about federal income taxes, drop the age for social security benefits to 50, then we will address the social security funding problem, etc. You get my point. I agree with your position on dependence on foreign oil, just not the way to get there. Why not say (legislate) by 2012, all vehicles must get 35 mpg (or pick a number). I bet we would have SUVs at or near the size we have now, that would get 35 mpg. Why not say all bio fuels for vehicles by 2020? Brazil did it. Why not let our farmers prosper by raising switch grass to support bio fuels rather than paying $100 p/bbl to middle eastern countries that creates $4.00 gasoline, that slows our economy?



Again, I agree with your conclusion, just not the way you get there.

9:38 AM  
Blogger G Pat Kelly said...

Read your article and while I agree about consumption I challenge you to investigate why millions of acres along the US east cost.....over to the gulf side of Florida..and off California are off limits to oil exploration..I'm not sure the companies have been able to acquire seismic data in these area's. Why would the US government get in the way of exploration?? Guess it's OK for those of us in the Texas gulf to see oil rigs..but you can't off San Diego or Destin? Ask the Dems why the mosquito ridden gravel pit of ANWAR can be brought on line? I can assure you all the easy oil has been found..it's the new area's that provide promise...Why don't you tell your readers what the US on shore production is...versus off shore...Outline what a middle east well produces per day versus what an American well produces?? All would make an interesting story...Oh..by the way...it takes at least 10 years to bring a new field into production.......Hmm.

G Pat Kelly
Cypress TX

9:51 AM  
Blogger jeffg said...

Thank you for expressing in print what more Americans need to hear. Whether you are a leftie or a conservative, reducing oil consumption should be a political priority, but of course that will never happen until the population at large gets it thru its head. Oil money funds terrorism, and whether or not you accept the global warming theories, petroleum products are major sources of environmental damage, both in the form of toxic emissions, toxic run off from the roads, and by products of refining.



Here’s some other points, people use to argue against higher gas prices.



It hurts the poor.



I say that’s insane when driving becomes impractical mass transport becomes a priority and it is certainly less of a burden on the poor if there is good public transportation and they don’t have to fund the repairs, insurance, and fuel for one or two automobiles. Look at cities like New York or San Francisco. In Austin, where I live one of the major obstacles faced by Katrina refuges was the lack of public transportation. Suddenly they all had to buy cars or take taxis just to get to the grocery store.





Its impossible to get around with out a car.



- this is a chicken or egg theory, people claim they need a car because things are so spread out in the modern metroplexes. Well, things are so spread out in the modern metroplexes because everyone wants to drive their private car everywhere. So store that used to be stacked against one another in older cities are now surround by acres and acres of parking. Now not only does the consumer have to drive to the retailer, they have to drive from retailer to retailer. Likewise people claim they have to drive to work because they need to run errands. They cant do this after work either A) because of traffic B) they live to far from retail, or C) both. Remember the good old days when every neighborhood had a grocery, and a hardware store?





Better than higher prices we need a tax on gasoline. We have been subsidizing the automobile industry for years, by building free roadways. Think of the benefits, we would reduce pollution, reduce congestion, make our streets safer ( more people die on the roads in texas EACH year, then have been killed in the entire Irag Conflict). Reducing the revenues of the terrorists, reduce the trade deficit, and benefit the poor through lower heating costs as petroleum is diverted from gasoline to other uses.





Thanks for listening, and more importantly thanks for publishing the truth.



Jeff Gaer

Austin Texas.

9:59 AM  
Blogger jeffg said...

Thank you for expressing in print what more Americans need to hear. Whether you are a leftie or a conservative, reducing oil consumption should be a political priority, but of course that will never happen until the population at large gets it thru its head. Oil money funds terrorism, and whether or not you accept the global warming theories, petroleum products are major sources of environmental damage, both in the form of toxic emissions, toxic run off from the roads, and by products of refining.



Here’s some other points, people use to argue against higher gas prices.



It hurts the poor.



I say that’s insane when driving becomes impractical mass transport becomes a priority and it is certainly less of a burden on the poor if there is good public transportation and they don’t have to fund the repairs, insurance, and fuel for one or two automobiles. Look at cities like New York or San Francisco. In Austin, where I live one of the major obstacles faced by Katrina refuges was the lack of public transportation. Suddenly they all had to buy cars or take taxis just to get to the grocery store.





Its impossible to get around with out a car.



- this is a chicken or egg theory, people claim they need a car because things are so spread out in the modern metroplexes. Well, things are so spread out in the modern metroplexes because everyone wants to drive their private car everywhere. So store that used to be stacked against one another in older cities are now surround by acres and acres of parking. Now not only does the consumer have to drive to the retailer, they have to drive from retailer to retailer. Likewise people claim they have to drive to work because they need to run errands. They cant do this after work either A) because of traffic B) they live to far from retail, or C) both. Remember the good old days when every neighborhood had a grocery, and a hardware store?





Better than higher prices we need a tax on gasoline. We have been subsidizing the automobile industry for years, by building free roadways. Think of the benefits, we would reduce pollution, reduce congestion, make our streets safer ( more people die on the roads in texas EACH year, then have been killed in the entire Irag Conflict). Reducing the revenues of the terrorists, reduce the trade deficit, and benefit the poor through lower heating costs as petroleum is diverted from gasoline to other uses.





Thanks for listening, and more importantly thanks for publishing the truth.



Jeff Gaer

Austin Texas.

9:59 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Andres failed to mention that the enviro nut jobs and their
Democratic co-horts in Congress are the reason we depend on foreign oil.

They have successfully blocked every attempt for us to drill in our western
mountain areas, ANWR, and along our shores. And they have also prevented us
from building new refineries and even becoming more nuclear - as France is.

Thomas Sjolander

10:06 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why not suggest drilling in our own territories, thus reducing dependence on foreign oil as well? Also if we are all forced to buy those tiny hybrids, what will we do to ease the traffic congestion, from the lack of available larger vehicles to carpool with. I love when the media is happy with the downfall of our country, it shows your true treason-like colors. Perhaps congress can forego some of the fifty cents a gallon taxes, so the oil producers could still make the same 8 cent per gallon profit they are making now

10:12 AM  
Anonymous Larry F said...

Suggestion - Brazil is energy self-sufficient and uses ethanol for 40% of it's energy. The other 60% comes from oil and gas production. Brazil's strategy was to go after every source of oil and gas they had available, which included all known and unknown reserves both onshore and offshore. Then they supplemented any shortfall with ethanol.

Why not promote the US going after all of it's O&G reserves in Alaska, offshore California and Florida, etc. while developing other energy sources to supplement our shortfall?

Additionally, oil companies make about 10 cents per gallon profit. The government makes about 40 cents per gallon through taxes. Whom is gouging whom?

10:20 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Great column.Sent it to all my friends and foes.Until we all wake up this problem will continue to haunt us.Way to go Andres for saying what alot of other columnists dont have the stones to say.

10:21 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Brilliant article! I completely agree that we need to get serious about our
oil consumption.

However, your article left out one form of 'alternative' fuel.

Off shore drilling.

It's a heck of a lot safer than importing oil across the globe on a tanker.
Remember Exxon Valdez?

I'd rather push my government to do that, along with alternative fuel
research, so we'll have BOTH at our disposal.

Options. Competition. You know. Healthy stuff?

To me it's a better alternative than reading yet another finger-wagging
condescending opinion maker play the class-warfare game.

Bravo indeed.

PS. The government could also cut the federal tax immediately and save us an
average of 30 cents a gallon. You'd love it! Equality for all!

10:24 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

from: Paul Thørsen
PThorsen240@aol.com

Hey åndêrš, that was the first column I saw where you showed you actually cared about making the USA a better place.
Hey jeffg, oil funds do not fund terrorism.
Osama bin Laden didn't make his money from oil. Terrorists get their operating money from donations.
As for me, I take the bus into work. That clears my consciense.
åndêrš, you need to do some reading on Saudi Arabia. Your expertise lies in Latin America. The truth is, we have some very strong allies in the Arab world. A lot of that stuff is kept secret because we don't want the common folk of the Arab world to know that their leaders have been helping out the USA.
I fear Latin Anerica way more than I do the Middle East. Yeah, a lot of Arabs do hate the USA, but that's only because we have been a good friend to Israel. I think deep down inside, Arabs have a lot of grudging respect for the USA and the "Anglos" for all they have done to make this world a better place for all.
In Latin America, I see nothing but hatred and total disdain of the USA. The reason: the USA/"Anglos" had the adudacity to outdo proud Hispanicks on the world stage, to the point that Hispanicks pay their life savings to sneak into and force their way into Anglolandia, and they feel humiliated and then hate. I see that anger and resentment at the breaking point.

10:25 AM  
Blogger Michael said...

Andres,

Couldn’t agree more about your recent gas column in the Herald. I picked it up on the Drudge. Way to go and write on!!

Mike

10:26 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

A man after my own heart.


Mr. Oppenheimer:

You nailed it!

Unfortunately, only hard economics will force the U.S. government and the American public to face the problem of dependence on foreign oil.

Of course, I can afford to cheer you on: I live in Pentagon Row, Arlington, VA, and I do not need a car. I will be giving up my leased automobile in October. I will be saving 500.00 per month in lease, insurance an fuel costs, not to mention personal property tax, etc.

But the bottom line: Short term - PAIN; Long term - GAIN.

Thanks for the great column.

Raymond McIlwain
Arlington, VA

10:26 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I thought all that was to happen when gasoline hit $2.00 per gallon.
Now the magic level is $4.00/gal. What gives?

10:45 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dear Liberal Nitwit,

Glad to see you putting your silly opinions in print, instead of disguising
them like most liberals. Also heartened to see the leftist Miami Herald
print them. This way you discredit liberals and this paper all at the same
time, the proverbial two birds with one stone. Cheers!

jerry

10:54 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

great column. Us capitalists like to think the market will determine everything. It won't, not when it comes to peak oil. But the market might make Americans think twice before buying a McMansion in the burbs and a huge hummer for Timmy's college years. Gasoline will hit $4 sooner or later. Alternatives are out there, but nothing can immediately replace gasoline. Even hydrogen, which a reader mentions, is far from a viable solution. hydrogen tanks for cars have not even been developed, and can't be any time soon, according the the scientists i've spoken to.

my advice is to live near work, live modestly in smaller houses, develop sustainable communities, and think spiritually about solutions to economic problems.

thanks,

-mark derewicz
a bicycle rider from carrboro, nc

10:54 AM  
Anonymous -Matt G said...

For the most part, I share your sympathies. However, you have oversimplified the issue, assuming that it's oil-rich sheiks and despots who are reaping the rewards of high oil prices, and America's petroleum lust.

For example, the following is a list of year-to-date imports:

CANADA
2,460

MEXICO
1,538

VENEZUELA
1,273

SAUDI ARABIA
1,394

NIGERIA
1,120

Second, the cost of oil extraction, production, and gasoline cost are all unrelated, despite what the "media" thinks. The cost of extraction is something around 20 dollars a barrel, if not less...it might be slightly more. So, there are 40 dollars a barrel, going directly into the pocket of the oil companies, who extracted and sold the oil to the refiner.

And, more often than not, the refiner is a subsidiary of the extractor.

Then, the refiner sells his gas at $120 a barrel.

So, the price of gasoline is so arbitrary and convoluted...and, there is no way to separate the "market" from the oil companies themselves.

And, because of that, we have record incomes for Exxon, etc.

Still, Americans do use DOUBLE and TRIPLE the amounts of oil used by persons in other countries. And, we consume more oil than many countries combined...including China...which has MANY more people to support.

Why do we use so much oil? Needless driving, inefficient cars, and inefficient shipping and transit means. I live near a highway, and there are cars and shipping trucks traveling 24/7, and there must be thousands and thousands of them that pass every day. Trains would be better for both people and packages, with smaller distribution networks branching from that.

But, beyond those obvious things. I've noticed something lately. Everyone drives 15-20 miles an hour over the speed limit! Racing from stop light to stop light, is not efficient. And, more than usual, I've noticed the sprawl of things, and the seemingly unending willingness for people to drive and drive, and to commute 30-40-60 minutes to get to work, go shopping, etc.

There is also an extreme obsession with lawn maintenance, that I've also noticed since moving to a warm climate. In fact, yesterday was mowing and trimming day at my condominium. A few days before that, they were trimming shrubs. The lawn company is perpetually doing something! Today, they were operating a very large gas powered pump to spray fertilizer on the lawn. And, on any given day, there are teams of men, running leaf-blowers, trimmers, and who knows what else...not to mention riding around on gas-powered carts.

How many similar situations occur on any given day???

None of these extravagances are necessary. If people decided to stay closer to home, bring in business near them, work closer to home, and built a community, there would be a lot fewer problems in the world. And, if people weren't so obsessed with manicuring their yards, and chose less taxing plants, I think that we'd reduce oil consumption considerably.

But, all of that, I suspect is only a fraction of the amount of oil that is used just getting going from A to B in a 16mpg SUV, and the sending of millions of products across the country by the trucking industry. I hate to threaten anyone's livelihood. But, the trucking industry could start helping the country by developing and promoting alternative fuels for themselves. Not to mention the good that could be accomplished if FedEx and UPS were using trucks that were clean running and smaller! Just think how many of those guys are on the road, right now.

11:00 AM  
Blogger Dave said...

The car lobby is not the only reason. The consumers want larger cars. I for one will not drive a tiny death car. Of course, I drive very little being self employed so I make a choice.

A larger issue here is the lack of domestic production and new refining capacity. The US has not built a new refinery in 25+ years leading to the inability to meet demand. Add the fact that states all require their own blends for clean air and we have the current shortage. The current shortage is not supply but refining capacity.

The solution to this is simple; Build more refineries and Federal Mandate the type of gas ending these stupid state specific blends. Fuel is a national commodity and states should not interfere with other states economies by mandating specifications on an interstate product. Just by standardizing the gas nationwide would stop much of the current price rise.

Second, we have sources domestically we can tap and we refuse for the same reasons as the lack of refineries, the environmental lobby. This lobby is causing harm to our national security and economy by constantly standing in the way of any new development. This applies to petroleum, natural gas and nuclear. Until someone tells the greenies to shove it were going to pay terrorists for terror.

The third item is we need to undertake a national energy program, like the space program, to become energy independent. This once again requires that the greenies get onboard or get out of the way. Short term we must increase oil production and refining capacity. Longer term we must move forward with other sources like hydrogen (from water via nuclear power generation) and nuclear power.

Hydrogen is a ideal fuel in terms of by-products. The problem is that it takes more energy to produce than you get back. Hence, the only practical way to produce it is via nuclear plants. Biofules are a joke. The farm capacity required to meet our demands would be staggering.

I see no political will in the current leadership to to anything except bash Bush and lose the war. The Democrats are power hungry and will extract any level of misery on the people to gain power. The Republicans are inept and refuse to get angry enough to actually enact these changes, coupled with the democrats total disregard for common sense we are doomed until we reach critical mass.

Sorry, but I have no respect for the Democratic Party. They are the reason we are in this mess and it amazes me how they get such a pass on everything..

11:03 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I totally agree. If we reached the average automobile fuel consumption in Europe of 45 mpg the US would be totally independant of foreign oil.

11:06 AM  
Blogger Jeff the Realtor said...

Andres,

Excellent column on oil prices, I am emailing it to a ton of people. I am a proponent of Hydrogen I have written to all the car companies that claim they have hydrogen burning cars (which is all of them) and they keep saying it can be done in 3 to 5 years but the problem is fueling stations. I asked them why they don’t use their dealership networks already in place but got no response on that point. Ford even says it can make a fueling station for $250k expensive yes but not prohibitive. The best thing about Hydrogen is that if all of our cars were burning this we would be immediately energy independent.



The other thing is I wrote Mel Martinez (who claims to be worried about fuel costs and the environment) and recommended that FPL offer solar cells and wind generators to home owners. They would install these so the house uses less fuel and any excess goes into the grid. He sent my recommendation to FPL and they said they could not do that because the have no department that could do the installation or a finance department to put a lien on the house so that they are fully repaid for this work. The financing I recommended was for 5 years and if the house were to sell in the mean time they would be paid in full. So basically they were not interested.



I do not understand how we can stop using imported oil if all we are going to do is rearrange the chairs on the deck of the Titanic.



Thank you,

Jeff

11:11 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Read your article, interesting to say the least, one sided as always.
What you reporters always fail to mention is that our wonderful congress lead by the Democratic over the years have blocked year after year the oil companies to build new refineries, to drill new wells here in the USA, especially off shore in the Gulf of Mexico, East coast of Florida, off the East coast of New England, California and in Alaska while Mexico and Cuba are drilling in the Gulf they are benefiting from the cheap oil and gas reserves.
Besides oil for the cars and heating the congress has blocked the power industry from building new power plants especially nuclear plants that could save millions of gallons of oil and natural gas each year. Not to mention wind power that Kennedy and Kerry have blocked off of Mass. in Buzzard Bay.
You are always quick in pointing your finger at Bush but have turned your back when it comes to Congress and the strangle hold they have on the US industries. Maybe this is why they are all moving off-shore to country’s that welcome them with open arms for the technology they bring along with the millions of US dollars that they turn around and use against the USA.

11:31 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I can't get a job without a car(SUV), that's why I'm on welfare"

That argument works, No car = VICTIM


Find the group responsible for that bit of propaganda and you have the ring leaders of the group called stupid.

11:32 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Your column piece titled “Record gasoline prices great news for U.S." reflected my exact sentiments on the subject. I found the link to your column from the drudgereport.



Well written and it very well targets the core of the problem - no government guidance and a public that is addicted to oil.



For the life of me I just can't understand the public's acceptance of this and they seem to be trying to maintain an oil consumption 'status quo'. They see no relationship between oil consumption and feeding the coffers of the roots of terror and dictatorships and also the resulting emissions.



There is an ostrich syndrome taking place in America by the common public - bury ones head in the sand and there is nothing to fear. I fear that the majority of Americans are becoming more 'stupid' or in the very least purposefully ignorant of facts. It is likely caused by fast food diets, cellular electromagnetic radiation poisoning and reality showitis.



Thanks for expressing the opinion... there are a few others that think this way.



Nice job !

Doug Conneway

11:35 AM  
Anonymous Jimmy, Huntsville, AL said...

Sir,

While in other areas politically we might at times
disagree, I think this article was spot on. I see oil
as a national security issue not a lifestyle issue or
even global warming issue. I don't think, however,
SUVs are the culprit or any other particular vehicle.
This issue is far more complicated than some of the
thoughts you wrote but the issue is still the same
which is we must reduce our dependence on foreign oil.
Reducing the dependence takes money away from those
that wish our demise.

What is of issue are several key points. One, we
haven't developed much if any new oil resources
ourselves. Indeed, the environmental lobby has gotten
so powerful that drilling anywhere to tap our
resources is practically forbidden. ANWR, for
example, would provide for the ENTIRE USA oil supply
for only 18 months or so. But, adding oil to the
world market would drive prices downward and reduce
our dependency. The simple fact is that oil MUST be
part of the short term energy solution in this nation
until a longer term alternative solution can be
thoroughly developed. This short term solution MUST,
then, include more development of the USA's natural
resources. Our economy is dependent upon it.

Two, and this is where we do agree, the government
must get more aggressive in pursuit of alternative
means of energy that won't require wholesale change in
the US lifestyle. This source has to be relatively
cheap, clean, efficient and readily available. Even
at 4 dollars per gallon, on a BTU basis, oil is still
cheaper than alternatives.

Three, the national security issue is what needs to be
played upon. Blaming people for what they choose to
drive, blaming people for their lifestyle, blaming
people in general isn't going to help. People get
defensive and they get angry even if it happens to be
factual. This is a lesson the left in this nation has
not learned. You don't influence people by making
them feel guilty about themselves. They will lash
back at you. However, making it a matter of national
security doesn't do that. Most Americans will rally
around a national security issue if it is presented
properly.

Fourth, simple way to drive prices down is to use less
oil. That is a true statement in your article.
Again, this has NOTHING to do with what vehicle you
drive. It has everything to do with HOW MUCH you
drive. One way to resolve the problem is to ration
gasoline to some extent. This will reduce
dramatically the amount of oil being consumed I
believe.

I just don't believe it is good practice to blame
people for what they choose to drive and the way they
live their lives. That is counterproductive. The
approach has to be a more positive approach. Right
now, it seems that negativity rules the day and most
of the negativity right now comes from the left side
of the aisle. Think of it this way, if you hit me, I
will hit back. That's essentially what is happening.
People feel like they are being hit and will hit back
if pressed.
This is why turning a reduction in oil usage into
something more positive would have a profound effect.
We must also be cautious of rushing into alternatives
without understanding their long term impacts as well.
This means more research dollars must be provided to
develop viable alternatives. At this moment, the
crisis isn't the supply of oil. There is plenty. The
crisis is merely the price. Inevitably, if the price
gets high enough, habits will change, usage will drop
and so will the price. That is not the solution we
need and where I disagree with you. If the price
falls again, then usage goes right back up. Making
the dependence on foreign oil a national security
issue would be independent of price.

11:40 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Excellent Article . . . I couldn't agree more! I hope gas goes to $5 or $6 - watch these Hummers with soccer mom's disappear!

11:43 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I read your article on Drudge this AM and you could not be more wrong. Wanting $4/ gallon will force most trucking businesses to limit driving or stop altogether, not to mention those of us that use our vehicles for work-related duties. If the trucking industry is forced to curtail operations, where are our goods and food going to come from and how are they to be delivered?

Higher gas prices, which you're advocating, will force more people to give up the American Dream by making us live in downtown concrete towers and dependent on government mass transportation, much to the glee of hard-care environmentalists. I fought for this country and by God, I will not follow the lock & step crowd of global warming by giving up the American Dream just to be politically correct.

If you and the regular american public are serious about curbing global warming, get the word out and discourage people from purchasing large SUVs. Encourage and force automakers to create sleek-looking and fuel-efficent/ non-petro vehicles that will appeal to the american car consumer. Encourage trucking companies to purchase cooking grease/ oil and mix it with a precentage of Ethanol to create biodiesel/ other biofuels. These are but a few examples to help cure the problem of foreign oil dependence as well as decreasing global warming (side-effect), not praying for $4/ gallon gasoline.

Respectfully,


John M. Schuldheisz

11:44 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

> Andres:
>> Congratulations on writing perhaps the best condemnation of America's
> indifference toward its energy addiction that I've read in probably six
> months! I'm of the exact SAME opinion (although I've long since
> suggested a price of SIX dollars a gallon), so your words serve as a
> kind of vindication for all of the crap I've had to take for daring to
> share a distinctly unpopular point of view. As far as I'm concerned,
> those who call themselves "conservative" while driving around in
> gas-guzzling, terrorist-funding land yachts are BEYOND hypocritical,
> they're downright contemptible! To them I say "get back to me when
> you're SERIOUS about national security."
Edward

11:55 AM  
Anonymous Buddy Inlow said...

Have you ever considered that it might just be the refining process more than Oil it self that is driving the price up. Our refining capability has not changed in over 30 years. Our consumption has increased more due to more drivers than larger vehicles. We actually have plenty of Oil we just can’t get it refined and out to the public. The Environmental Lobby has successfully stopped every attempt to build more refining capacity. You might want to rethink some of your article

12:13 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It will take extraordinarily high prices for an extended period to force this administration and congress into taking meaningful action. the failure to begin to free ourselves from foreign oil is
outrageous. thanks for saying so.

In the meantime, there is no reak push to increase refining capacity and only the most gentile posturing on meaningful fuel economy measures.

In case anyone missed it, the massive outflow of dollars flowing to the middle east wll allow these folks to purchase endless US assets.

This craziness has to stop. America can free itself of lots of imported oil from countries that could care less about us. It will take high prices--a crisis--to prod this country into action. Great Article!

12:27 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

AGREED
AND THEY SHOULD TAX IT AS IT FALLS BACK DOWN TO KEEP IT THERE.

I AM A RIGHT WING REPUBLICAN BY THE WAY

GLENN
FORT MYERS

12:56 PM  
Blogger Don said...

Andres,

Your opinion in the article about the $4 gas is something I agree with wholeheartedly. Until the pain is great enough, the average citizen won't take action. We are a bunch of oil addicts that are comfortable with our lives and gas guzzling vehicles. The bigger question is how do you or the government influence people to make a change and to what? More ethanol production is not the answer.

Best Regards,

Don James

1:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Golly gee Andres! You are so smart! Let's really screw those terrible petro-dictators and drill right here in Florida! We could build refineries and send free heating oil to those cold-hearted northeastern Americans who apparently will not help their neighbors heat their homes! Next, ala-Alaska, we can fund our government and end property & sales taxes. With the profits from our own natural resources we can build nuclear power plants and export oil and gas to California. There might be enough revenue left from Florida's sale of gas & oil to share with the citizens of Florida like we are demanding the Iraqis do.
In the mean time, for full disclosure purposes, does the Miami Herald reimburse you for travel expenses? I humbly ask this because the Herald does not pick up my tab at the pump. Maybe if the Herald were paying for my gas I could join you in your naïve worldview.
Tom Rowan,
Naples, Florida

1:13 PM  
Blogger rickreyn said...

I agree with you...


…about "reducing the U.S.’s suicidal dependence on foreign oil." We need to build more refineries and drill more in our own territories. We have the natural resources. Let’s frustrate these two-bit dictators and fill our own tanks. And by the way, do we eliminate the trucking industry in the USA? Aren’t semi's bigger and consume more fuel than your average South Beach pimp in a black SUV?



I hope you have a good paying job.



Rick Reynolds

Lutz, Florida

1:46 PM  
Anonymous Richard L. said...

Mr. Oppenheimer,

A logical argument lacking one element; production. Of course, your whole premise that expensive oil serves the public good betrays your limited understanding of the problem. The real inhibitor has been the leftist greens not greedy oilmen. The stifling of American production and refining capacity only serves to limit supply, keep prices high and reduce competition in the oil industry. Do you actually think international Big Oil is against the American no-drill policy?

The public would be much better served by a major increase in development of all domestic oil, gas and coal resources along with nuclear and alternate energy than by the reductionist policies you're espousing. America has the largest oil (including shale) and coal reserves in the world. I agree with you that it is insane that we are funding our enemies to feed our lifestyle but reducing our standard of living is not necessary. We simply need to use the ingenuity and work ethic that got us here to push ahead.


Richard L.

1:52 PM  
Blogger Will said...

Excellent article...couldn't have said it better myself. The link was shown on Drudge, and the heading was a bit mis-leading, but after reading the article I completely agree with your assessment of the US' unfortunate disposition with regard to foreign oil sources. This article should be on the front page of every newspaper and website until Washington actually gets a clue.

2:03 PM  
Blogger Will said...

Excellent article...couldn't have said it better myself. The link was shown on Drudge, and the heading was a bit mis-leading, but after reading the article I completely agree with your assessment of the US' unfortunate disposition with regard to foreign oil sources. This article should be on the front page of every newspaper and website until Washington actually gets a clue.

2:03 PM  
Blogger Cogito Argentum said...

Good news Andres! Your article is in Drudge! Now the whole world will see that you are a moron!

2:44 PM  
Anonymous Rich Brown said...

I just read your column. You have got to be kidding me. Your twisted logic is not only that, twisted and manipulative, but outright dangerous. Unfortunately there are many people in our country who are mislead by "journalists" such as you. If the United States is such a horrible country, then why do so many people want to come here? What you are welcoming will bring only misery to our country in the form of a destroyed economy and will weaken us.

Also, I just read your column about Travel Warnings. I am not at all surprised you advocate gun control. What happened at Virginia Tech was a tragedy, no doubt. The fact that we have way too many murders in our country is lamentable, yes. But, what you advocate is exactly the OPPOSITE of what will work. Our founding fathers were indeed brilliant when they wrote our constitution and the bill of rights. If you look around the world where there are the worst despots and back in history where oppression was prevalent, you find an unarmed citizenry, for the most part.

In addition, in Michigan, where I live, there was a huge outcry when it became easier to obtain a concealed weapon permit. "Oh my, there will be shootings everywhere, it will be the wild, wild, west!" cried critics. Exactly the opposite has occured. Violent crimes are down, maybe not directly as a result of an eased CCW law, but certainly not increased as a result. Can you imagine if only one of the students or faculty at VT HAD been armed? I propose that it is entirely possible, if not probable, that the massacre would have been stifled or reduced.

I would beg that you reconsider your positions. $4 gas is not to be welcomed. Reduced restrictions on oil exploration on our own soil would help us reduce our dependence on idiots like Chavez. Gun control is absolutely the wrong answer to reduce violent crime, in fact it seems to only foster more. Just look at Washington DC where ONLY criminals have guns.... You obviously have influence on many people and I hope that you will use better logic in coming to your conclusions.

Rich Brown

2:57 PM  
Anonymous jwb7605 said...

I'm almost 60 years old,
am a VietNam veteran,
own the smallest SUV I could find (23 mpg),
the smallest pickup I could find (26 mpg),
probably won't have "full" Social Security benefits,
have a son in the military (Iraq!),
a schoolteacher daughter,
a "yuppie" daughter,
and (so far) three grandkids.

I'm (dangerously?) conservative, my daughters are pretty liberal, and my son is ... well ... military.

All of us agree with Mr. Oppenheimer. (I thought it was just me that had a dysfunctional family ...)

We need to drill more holes here in (all parts of) the US, build more (American!) vehicles that are fuel efficient, develop alternative fuels, use more nuclear (nucular) power, and we need to give unwarranted tax breaks to the people who come up with good, commercially viable solutions.

What we don't need is to keep complaining, outsourcing, blaming "the other party", and believing that there are carburetors that are held off the market to enrich the <pick your industry>.

Shut up, do something, and we'll take care of the problems we've caused when we don't have to suck up to the people holding us hostage.

Four, five, six bucks a gallon is a cheap price to pay for some action.

3:55 PM  
Anonymous Bob said...

Sir,
Four dollar gasoline is an interesting sentiment, but what does it imply for US "energy policy"? How do you see this price threshold actually reducing crude oil imports (much refined fuel is also imported)? I'm more interested to see if consumption will decrease at $4/gal. Hint: I don't think it will!

As for reducing imports, this simply is unrealistic in a free market. At some price level for petroleum there will be other fuel sources that can compete at some small volume based upon their
supply. However the main point is that these other fuels will be
equally expensive.

Imagine for a moment that bio-fuels become feasible at $4 or $5/gal. Where do you suppose these will come from? Wouldn't you bet dollars to donuts that low foreign labor costs and tropical conditions vs our limited temperate growing season would drive production of bio-fuels
to foreign climes, perhaps just as politically volatile and hostile
to US interests as the major petroleum regions? And would it really be an improvement in terms of supply and price stability to have our fuel be subject to the fickleness of droughts and the appetites of various insect pests?

Or perhaps you'd be receptive to the notion of developing the US oil shale resource? At current oil prices this resource has become a
genuine reserve and is being produced using an expensive tight
spacing drilling program and an extremely energy intensive heating
scheme. If extreme measures were taken to prohibit oil imports and
essentially remove the US from the oil free market, then unconventional oil, such as from shale, could conceivably fill the
import gap for some time. However, withdrawing US demand from the
world market would crash the price of oil for the rest of the world,
perhaps to even less than the glut price of $10/bbl. Do you suppose
that any administration could possibly use a national security
argument to withstand public pressure over domestic prices of $4 to $5/gal at the pump while the rest of the world drowns in crude oil at $10/bbl (ie 42 gals.)? I don't think so. And imagine how well received this would be by our Canadian friends whose tar-sand derived crude we consume so readily, or our Mexican neighbors whose off-shore production we consume. Are we prepared to completely crash the mexican economy, already a basket case, and import many millions more
impoverished illegal aliens?

While it might be a pleasing intellectual treat to imagine the middle east petroleum countries and their hostile populations (or the Putinized russians) starved for petroleum income and reduced in influence over the US it just isn't realistic. Well we can dream
anyway, but unlike the green eco global whiners we must wake up and
smell the crude oil. Petroleum, like it or hate it, with all of it's various influences is here to stay until a less expensive energy
source replaces it.

3:56 PM  
Blogger Hobo Bobo said...

I could not agree with you more.
Hobo Bobo

4:59 PM  
Blogger Per Kurowski said...

Mr. Oppenheimer.

The prize of gasoline is between 8 and 15 US dollar cents per gallon depending on whether one chooses to convert at the official exchange rate or use the real world rate, and that price does not even cover the distribution costs.

Considering what that same gasoline could be sold for in the international markets, he who loves to be call Commander and that since more than eight years is trying to impose a folkloric version of a militarized socialism, and that he calls 21st Century, takes about 10% of GDP from the poorest of the poor in Venezuela and hands it over to those who drive cars.

With that price anti-policy that same Commander who has lately taken to voice a big environmental conscience is stimulating the spitting out of tons and tons of carbon into the air. Can you imagine what would be of China and India with 10 cents per gallon? In china the jam at Tiananmen Square would be out of this world, and in India, even their poor sacred cows would not find room.

5:49 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The USA government actually does what 3 or 4 Energy and Automotive Companies say.
These companies have the best business: They supply the American oil and car addiction.
From Wikipedia: Between 1936 and 1950, National City Lines (NCL), a holding company sponsored and funded by General Motors, Firestone Tire, Standard Oil of California and Phillips Petroleum, bought out more than 100 electric surface-traction (streetcar) systems in 45 cities (including New York, Philadelphia, St. Louis, Salt Lake City, Tulsa, and Los Angeles). Those systems were ultimately dismantled and replaced with GM buses.

Clear like water.

While you are paying even more for a gallon, these companies are making billons. And for each dollar Chavez makes, the Oil Companies win almost 5.

Just think it.

Regards,

Ruben P.
Rosario - Argentina
rubpen@gmail.com

6:45 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mr. Oppenheimer,

I just wanted to thank you for the article you wrote today about oil prices. I go to the gym every morning and I can't tell you how many people pull up before the gym has opened, park and sit for 5 minutes WITH THEIR ENGINES RUNNING. They're not sitting in small cars either, these are land rovers, chevy suburbans, etc.

Hopefully these high gas prices will get people to change but I fear the first thing we will have to deal with is finger pointing by politicians eager to score political 'points.'

Kudos for the article again.

Sincerely,

David Nickelson

8:12 PM  
Blogger Neil said...

Mr Oppenheimer,

You should take a look at this company:

http://changingworldtech.com/

They turn 1 ton of garbage into a barrel of light sweet crude oil. Once they get it down past the test phase into production, there will be a reduction in use of foreign oil, but not a reduction in use of oil. Result: cheaper oil, with an unlimited supply, since advanced technological societies produce more increasingly more garbage.

Also, just as a side note, the high price of oil HELPS people like Chavez and Ahmadinejad, because it gives them working capital. Cheaper oil defangs them. Chavez is giving away his country while oil prices are high, but when they drop (and they will – Julian Simon’s “The Ultimate Resource” proves that), Venezula will be a sink hole of a country. So, rooting for high gas prices really bolsters the very people you’ve decried.

Cheers,

8:32 PM  
Blogger Neil said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

8:32 PM  
Anonymous Mudhillun MuQaribu said...

Hey there Oppenheimer!

1999-Corolla-33mpg-driving-poor-in-
pocket-but-not-in-spirit-27-year-
old-environmentally-conscious-
Education-grad-program-pursuing-
Black-guy here saying . . . 'Amen, brother!' to your "Record gasoline prices great news for U.S." column.

I'm happy my car is fairly efficient and I am grateful for it but I know that even I will be motivated more by costs than cogency.

Going on a tangent here but bring on $4/gallon gas . . . and the Draft . . . and a tax increase too . . . maybe then people will realize that "Freedom aint free!" as the song goes in "Team America." Who;'s paying here, where's the sacrifice if all this crap is so important to our way of life/values/national security/blah blah blah.

-Mudhillun MuQaribu :)
Newark DE

8:52 PM  
Blogger Jewpiter said...

Dear Andres~

If there was any real possibility of US consumers raising an "uproar strong enough to force Washington to get serious about reducing the U.S. suicidal dependence on foreign oil" because of high prices, Big Oil will keep its prices below that limit.

Exxon, BP, Shell et al. work very hard to maximize profits while simultaneously keeping demand high.

For that matter, if consumption of gasoline drops (say every American buys a Prius tommorow), gasoline prices will increase to compensate for the lower demand.

This seems antithetical to the basic supply and demand ethos but oil is not a traditional commodity. It's production is tightly constrained by OPEC and other (illegal) cartels.

~Aaron Cohen
Davis, CA

8:59 PM  
Blogger Jonathan James said...

Thank you for writing a column that says what I’ve been thinking all along. Americans are complacent and lazy and big oil is capitalizing on this fact. You really have to force them out of their seats to get them to take any action. $6/gallon and reinstating the draft would set this country straight overnight.

9:40 PM  
Anonymous Dawley Edwards said...

I couldn't agree with you more. Until it becomes painful at the pump (and not the crap that the TV news stations call pain at the pump with its own theme music), Americans are not going to pressure their Congressmen to start working on this.

I drive an accent, it costs $27 to fill it. It used to cost $12, and
since I fill up every other week, the price difference doesn't hurt me much.

The guy who drives a Hummer that gets 5 miles to the gallon (and gets what he deserves), is who is causing a lot of this trouble, and when fools like that pay $120 to fill their vehicles up, then and only then will the pressure mount to start using alternate fuels.

If my understanding is correct, there are some countries whose
vehicles run on a hybrid fuel that is made from sugar or corn, both of
those which are very plentiful. If within 5 years we could convert 80% of the country to vehicles that run on this fuel, we will decimate the economies of those countries that want to destroy us.

Until we get Texas oilmen out of the White House and out of Congress, we will never move forward, but $4 a gallon gas around election day will make them very unpopular.

9:41 PM  
Anonymous chris said...

Even five bucks a gallon is Okay with me. But the $$$ shd not go to BP,
Shell, Exxon, etc. The added bucks shd go to road maintenance, bridges
and God forbid, if something is left over, to schools, parks, etc. In
other words tax it, instead of giving it to the biggies.

1:22 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The assumption that Americans will force Washington to do something about reducing dependence on foreign oil might be a little misplaced.

I am currently living in Germany where we pay the equivalent of $6.91 per US Gallon for unleaded super. (103% more than your recent US$ 3.41!)

There is no evidence that the Germans are screaming at the Government to do anything about it – on the contrary, that is the price we pay for having caved into the Greens and their economic vandalism. It doesn’t seem to bother Germans that the excess income derived from “Eco Taxes” is being pumped into the pension funds so that pensioners can continue to buy automobiles and fill them with gas during their frequent state funded “wellness” holidays on the coast.

The whole thing comes down to perception and my bet is that once we get used to paying US$ 4 / gallon, then we will be terrified that it might reach US$ 5 / gallon.

In spite of my skepticism, I have to report to you that the USA isn’t doing too badly when it comes to cleaning up the environment. The CA emission laws are about as tough as they are anywhere on the planet and the current investment in bio fuels, wind parks, hybrid technology, etc. is equal to any other country on the planet.

Maybe we are myopic when it comes to downsizing our automobiles and weaning ourselves of the V8s – but by and large, the trend is in the right direction.

My view is that when we finally get to turn out the lights in Las Vegas, we will have started down the road to energy independence. In the meantime, Detroit needs time to develop and prove the technology that we need to reduce our exposure to the Saudis et al.

In the meantime, we need to sop Al Gore trying to frighten the electorate into thinking that our planet was always as it is. Climate change is a fact of life and has been so since the big bang!

Nonetheless, your exhortation that Washington gets it act together and starts thinking about the economics of our energy dependence is the only argument that is likely to succeed.

Thank you for saying it!

Brian N Thornton
57539 Bitzen
Germany

8:39 AM  
Anonymous memories said...

High prices? Depends on perspective. When I first went to work in the early sixties, I could buy 3 gallons of gasoline for a buck. Sounds cheap - right? But my first car cost $2200. Both are now illegal, gasoline because of lead, car because of lack of pollution controls. Same car today costs about $20,000. So today's gasoline prices are right in line with the car prices from my perspective. On top of no-lead, instead of regular and hi-test, we now have a plethora of gasolines.

Now if you started work in late 98 when crude was down to about $12/bbl and gasoline, as a result, was a little under a buck a gallon, then of course you think today's prices are high.

Glad I'm old.

11:01 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Subject: Record gasoline prices great news for U.S.

Mr, Oppenheimer,

I agree 100% with your article. I and American ex-pat and have lived in Lima, Peru for the past 8 years. We pay US$4.80 for a gallon of gasoline. The US congress doesn’t have the political courage to make this happen. If the free market lifts gas prices to a painful enough level for pampered Americans, two things will happen. 1) Self-imposed conservation will begin. People will think before jumping in their car to get a pack of smokes; and 2) Congress will finally get serious about developing our own oil deposits in Alaska (the “green” people will turn “oil brown”) and we will also begin to develop alternative energy sources.

I don’t believe that higher gasoline prices will lead to an economic downturn. Europeans have dealt with gas prices nearing and over US$5.00/gallon for years.

Regards,

Jim Bell
Lima, PERU

12:48 PM  
Blogger jake said...

Record gasoline prices great news for U.S.
Your comments are irresponsible. One simple solution is to drill in Anwar, open up both coasts to drilling, remove the horribly restrictive regulations on new refineries, and host of similar measures. I see no reason to cheer any high prices for any commodity.

1:21 PM  
Anonymous Dick said...

I thought I would never hear anybody else say what I've been telling people for the last year - Let the pump prices rise!

My friends look at me like I'm crazy. What about the effect on the less fortunate, they say. I say what about the effect on the rest of the world. No world, no less fortunate.

I agree 100% with you about the U.S. not giving up on it's dependence on oil without high gas prices. We need a good kick to get us off our lazy asses (which is pretty normal for the U.S. population - IMHO) and do something about it. The only downside I see at this point is that the less people drive and go places, the more they will stay at home. The more they stay at home, the more babies they will make which leads us to an even bigger problem - over population!

Dick Eddy - Madison, WI

2:11 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dear Andres,
I read what I believe, is your article about the rising Gasoline prices. It was forwarded to me by a friend, who also forwarded it to many others.
I hate to see the Gasoline prices rising, as they have, with no end in sight, ... and for NO OTHER REASON than GREED, and I agree totally with your article. Maybe if the prices reach a high enough level, people will start to buy less Gas-gauzzling cars, or start to protest, and then, maybe, car companies will start to build alternative fuel consuming cars, or the government will start to interfere. I have already noticed that car companies and dealers, are sitting more and more on their big SUVs, selling less and less of them, and selling every time more and more of the smaller, more fuel-efficient cars, or Hybrid cars. After all, the Japanese car companies were the first ones to come out with the Hybrid cars, taking advantage of the public's desire for a better solution, and ... also, ... because Japan has NO OIL, so they don't really have much of an interest in promoting big Oil consumption, aside from political pressure, maybe !!! I can only hope that the Japanese Car manufacturers, continue this trend with more innovations in the alternative fuel consumption car building. After all, at this point, they could sell millions of cars that would run on other fuel sources.
I am writing to you not just because I want to bother you with another e-mail, agreeing with you, or just to waste time, but because I believe, as a writer, you have more ability to make a difference, by writing about these issues, and getting to the public. I have been doing my share, whenever I can, mostly by word of mouth, and by trying to use less and less gasoline, but it always bothers me, that everybody's memory and thinking abilities, are so terrible, and that they just go along, usually, with whatever the Government and the car dealers tell everybody. Please read this, ... you might find it interesting.
In case you didn't know this, (but I still have a good memory and can remember), about 52 years ago, when I was just a 10 year old kid, my parents came home, Newspaper in hand, with the great news that in Spain, some guy had invented a motor that runs on water, and that this would be the big "invention of the future" !!! He had actually already built a motorcycle that ran on "water". It was pictured in the Newspaper. For about 3 days the papers talked about this "revolutionary invention". Then, after 3 days, the subject completely disappeared from the news, and the guy was never heard of again. He disappeared from the face of the earth like by magic, and the whole "revolutionary invention" was forgotten and never talked about again. It was only until many years later, during the Nixon administration, that Nixon and his Government, were considering the passing of a Law, that would give Car manufacturers a 10 or 20 year period of time to switch the building of Gasoline consuming engines to "non-Gasoline consuming" engines. It was, of course, a very much debated subject, and the lobbying against it was tremendous, but Nixon was set on getting this Law passed. Unfortunately, (what a coincidence), we all know what happened with the "so called Watergate case", and Nixon found himself involved in a situation of "other priorities", which were built up against him, to the point of his departure from the Presidency. Again, the proposed Law about switching car engines to alternative fuel sources, was never mentioned again, and forgotten forever. Then again, it was not until about a year or two ago, when some inventors, car manufacturers or scientists, mentioned that water could be used as a source of fuel to run engines, since it is composed of Oxygen and Hydrogen, and the Hydrogen could be used to burn and run the engine, and the exhaust system would emit the Oxygen, (no pollution and clean air), ... but right away, this subject was also made to sound very complicated by all Government agencies and car manufacturers. This technology, is nothing new. We used to do it in the Lab, when I was studying Chemistry in School, as a teenager. You put two electric wires from a battery in a glass of water, (positive and negative), and the electricity makes the Water molecules separate into Oxygen and Hydrogen. But everybody involved, said that this technology, was way to new, (it was now being called "Fuel-cell" technology), and it would need many, many years of development, before it could be actually put into practical use. It is funny though, that 52 years ago, a guy in Spain already built a motorcycle with this technology, and that BMW already has a racing car PROTOTYPE (or concept vehicle), that runs on "Water Fuel Cells", and has been showing it off all over the world, as have other car builders also.
So, ... why are we still talking about having to wait another 20 years, before maybe all cars can run on a mixture of 85 % Gasoline and 15 % Ethanol, which basically means, cars will still be running on GASOLINE in 20 years !!! ??? Space rockets have been running on Hydrogen since they were first created, and "Fuel-Cell technology" and engines that can run on Water or Hydrogen, or "Electric" engines and cars, have been around for years. Electric cars are even being used to play Golf and for other purposes. Solar powered electric cars have been invented and used for years, with accumulators to store electricity, for when there is no sun. So, ... why are these "alternative" inventions and technologies not being perfected and built for everybody to buy and use ??? ... As you said, ... and as we all know, ... political OIL interests, would not find these ideas very profitable !!!
Maybe we can get these ideas and technologies out to the public MORE, and get people and Environmental Groups to start protesting a bit more and demanding that these technologies be put to work.
Sincerely,
John Stachl.
Miami Beach, Florida

7:36 PM  
Blogger Frank said...

Congrats on your 2007 Dumbass Column of the Year nominee!

12:26 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Kudos to Mike Haydon. He took your comments and expanded even further. The Arabs have a 10 year window of revelence. China,India and global warming will force alternative sources that will likey bankrupt every single corrupt oil regime.

3:06 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

On the money!

3:43 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I agree that we need high gasoline prices here in the states (my target would be $10/gallon)... I just have a different reason for wanting this.

There will be no oil left on the planet within a very short amount of time, possibly by the year 2040. As cheap oil runs out all of our economies will come to a screeching halt. All our investments will be worthless, as will our homes in suburbia and our very expensive luxury automobiles.

Likewise, all the gadgets that we love that run on electricity will cost too much to run. Food prices will go sky high since the cost to transport them will be too costly.

The world of cheap plastics will be gone as we know it. This will further cause problems in the area of keeping food from spoiling before it gets into the hands of consumers.

It's a dire problem and it's lurking on the horizon. The only way to slow the reality down is to slow down our usage now so that we might transition into this in a way that's not so abrupt.

5:28 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home