F... gas prices

[onlydarksets]

Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha

It could be just that simple. Read this very interesting Newsweek article. I don't believe the process will be quick, cheap or easy, but with trillions of dollars to be made, the incentive and investment dollars are there.

Also, I'm not sure what role the government should play in this mess. Remember, our government is the one that tried to kill Castro with exploding cigars, couldn't deliver drinking water to Katrina victims, and pays $500 for toilet seats. What makes people optimistic that they can solve a problem that greedy multi-billion dollar companies can't?

Now? Not much. This is a problem for the market to solve and the American people to bear in the interim (via high gas prices). I was speaking historically and from the perspective of, does it make sense to turn over more land (or off-shore rights) to the oil companies when they've shown so little interest, historically, in coming up with alternatives. I understand the economic argument for handing over the drilling rights, but I think it's short-sighted, because the current course is not sustainable and there has to be some incentive to change it.

Interesting article. There was also a National Geographic article a while back that discussed some of the hurdles to biofuels.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by onlydarksets

Now? Not much. This is a problem for the market to solve and the American people to bear in the interim (via high gas prices). I was speaking historically and from the perspective of, does it make sense to turn over more land (or off-shore rights) to the oil companies when they've shown so little interest, historically, in coming up with alternatives. I understand the economic argument for handing over the drilling rights, but I think it's short-sighted, because the current course is not sustainable and there has to be some incentive to change it.

Interesting article. There was also a National Geographic article a while back that discussed some of the hurdles to biofuels.

How do you sell alternative fuels when they are more expensive than gas? The answer is simple. You can't. Now that gas has gone up so much it startes to bring alternatives into play and I think we will see allot of new ideas hitting the market. There just has not been a market for alternatives. I also think we would be surprised how much has allraedy been spen on alternatives.

[onlydarksets]

Originally Posted by firstdown

How do you sell alternative fuels when they are more expensive than gas? The answer is simple. You can't. Now that gas has gone up so much it startes to bring alternatives into play and I think we will see allot of new ideas hitting the market. There just has not been a market for alternatives. I also think we would be surprised how much has allraedy been spen on alternatives.

That's where I believe the government should have played a role in providing incentives to develop cost-effective alternatives over the last 35 years.

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by onlydarksets

That's where I believe the government should have played a role in providing incentives to develop cost-effective alternatives over the last 35 years.

You previously noted that the cost of developing and bringing cheap alternative fuel sources to market is exorbitant. If that's true, the government would presumably have to have shelled out hundreds of billions or even trillions of dollars in subsidies or tax breaks to fast-track the process. Right?

People are inherently short-sighted. Congressmen and women look to the problems facing the country now and that will emerger prior to the next election cycle. CEOs of public companies look to the next quarter's profits so they don't get their asses handed to them by their shareholders and boards. Your average Joes don't buy solar panels, even though it will save them money over the long haul and otherwise generally act in their short-term best interests. Our government acts the same way. It sucks, but that's the way I see it.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha

You previously noted that the cost of developing and bringing cheap alternative fuel sources to market is exorbitant. If that's true, the government would presumably have to have shelled out hundreds of billions or even trillions of dollars in subsidies or tax breaks to fast-track the process. Right?

People are inherently short-sighted. Congressmen and women look to the problems facing the country now and that will emerger prior to the next election cycle. CEOs of public companies look to the next quarter's profits so they don't get their asses handed to them by their shareholders and boards. Your average Joes don't buy solar panels, even though it will save them money over the long haul and otherwise generally act in their short-term best interests. Our government acts the same way. It sucks, but that's the way I see it.

Thats the point when gas was 90 cents who was thinking about alternative fuels? No One. Now its is an issue everyone is. For example. Lets say the goverment came out with ethanol which cars could totaly run off but it cost $1.40 a gallon while gas was 90 cents a gallon. Who is going to get elected or run on a platform of switching to the E80. They could but they would loose in a land slide. We as consumers and voters could shoulder just as much blame as anyone but this problem is not just a US problem it is a world problem. As far as I know other countries have done the same thing and are in the same boat. I know that we drive bigger cars but we all depend on expensive gas.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by onlydarksets

That's where I believe the government should have played a role in providing incentives to develop cost-effective alternatives over the last 35 years.

Woulda coulda shoulda. I'm not sure how that helps us now?

[onlydarksets]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

Woulda coulda shoulda. I'm not sure how that helps us now?

About as much as your post contributed to this thread.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by onlydarksets

About as much as your post contributed to this thread.

No, I was being serious and actually trying to contribute to the discussion. My whole point was that I see no purpose in faulting the government for what they've done over the last 35 years. It's kind of similar to faulting Danny for his free agency foray in 2000. It may be an accurate reprisal for all we know, but it serves no go-forward purpose.

The more relevant discussion should be: what can and should the government do to make the situation better for the United States?

I'd say invest in the development of alternative energy sources, while at the same time lifting the moratorium on offshore drilling.

[onlydarksets]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

No, I was being serious and actually trying to contribute to the discussion. My whole point was that I see no purpose in faulting the government for what they've done over the last 35 years. It's kind of similar to faulting Danny for his free agency foray in 2000. It may be an accurate reprisal for all we know, but it serves no go-forward purpose.

The more relevant discussion should be: what can and should the government do to make the situation better for the United States?

I'd say invest in the development of alternative energy sources, while at the same time lifting the moratorium on offshore drilling.

That comment was part of a chain of posts discussing the government's role over the past 35 years. It wasn't an out-of-the-blue "let's be mad at the gov't" post.

And of course it serves a purpose - examining our historical approach to this problem should be the basis for choosing a path going forward. We have historically failed to provide oil companies with incentives to find alternative fuels, because they can achieve higher profits without them. Even now, at $4/gallon, consumers are still willing to pick up the tab.

How do you get the oil companies to spend the necessary money to develop alternatives when, as firstdown and SGG have pointed out, they are able to report record profits to Wall Street simply by maintaining the status quo?

[saden1]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

No, I was being serious and actually trying to contribute to the discussion. My whole point was that I see no purpose in faulting the government for what they've done over the last 35 years. It's kind of similar to faulting Danny for his free agency foray in 2000. It may be an accurate reprisal for all we know, but it serves no go-forward purpose.

The more relevant discussion should be: what can and should the government do to make the situation better for the United States?

I'd say invest in the development of alternative energy sources, while at the same time lifting the moratorium on offshore drilling.

Nice, business as usual.