F... gas prices

[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?

[steveo395]

Scientists have just genetically altered bacteria that produce renewable crude oil.

Scientists find bugs that eat waste and excrete petrol - Times Online

He means bugs. To be more precise: the genetic alteration of bugs – very, very small ones – so that when they feed on agricultural waste such as woodchips or wheat straw, they do something extraordinary. They excrete crude oil.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by onlydarksets

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?

I think SGG has made the point abundantly clear. The incentive already exists for anybody, an oil company or a garage inventor, to develop an alternative fuel source or a mode of transport that does not depend on oil.

The amount of money said inventor stands to make is staggering. I'm not sure why you think we need to incent the oil companies?

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

I think SGG has made the point abundantly clear. The incentive already exists for anybody, an oil company or a garage inventor, to develop an alternative fuel source or a mode of transport that does not depend on oil.

The amount of money said inventor stands to make is staggering. I'm not sure why you think we need to incent the oil companies?

I agree with him that we need to incent oil companies. I believe responsible incentives that require real results is good policy. I am a staunch free marketer and generally want our gov't to stay the hell out of the markets but I think smartly structured incentives could reduce our time on foreign oil by a significant amount. I am willing to try at least.