All of that is true -- well except for the bit about offshore and Alaska drilling, disagree with that --however I still find the current reported profits almost obscene. Dana On 11/11/05, Robert Munn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Whether or not you agree with Krauthammer, he has a very persuasive > agrument about driving down U.S. demand for oil. > > > > http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/10/AR2005111001502.html > > Pump Some Seriousness Into Energy Policy > > By Charles Krauthammer > > Friday, November 11, 2005; Page A25 > > Thank God for $3.50 gasoline. True, we had it for only a brief, shining > moment, and there is not much good to be said about the catastrophic > hurricanes that caused it. But the price was already inexorably climbing as > a result of 2.3 billion Chinese and Indians industrializing. Their > increased demand is what brought us to the energy knife's edge and makes us > so acutely vulnerable to supply disruptions. > > Yet, the Senate is attacking the problem by hauling oil executives to > hearings on "price gouging." Even by Senate standards, the cynicism here is > breathtaking. Everyone knows what the problem really is. It's Economics 101: > increasing demand and precariously tight supply. > > > Yet for three decades we have done criminally little about it. > Conservatives argued for more production, liberals argued for more > conservation and each side blocked the other's remedies -- when even a child > can see that we need both: > > Demand . Just yesterday we were paying $3.50 a gallon at the pump and were > ready to pay $4 or $5 if necessary. No blessing has ever come more > disguised. Now that we have lived with $3.50 gasoline, $3 seems far less > outrageous than, say, a year ago. We have a unique but fleeting opportunity > to permanently depress demand by locking in higher gasoline prices. Put a > floor at $3. Every penny that the price goes under $3 should be recaptured > in a federal gas tax so that Americans pay $3 at the pump no matter how low > the world price goes. > > Why is this a good idea? It is the simplest way to induce conservation. > People will alter their buying habits. It was the higher fuel prices of the > 1970s and early '80s that led to more energy-efficient cars and appliances > -- which induced such restraint on demand that the world price of oil > ultimately fell through the floor. By 1986 oil was $11 a barrel. Then we got > profligate and resumed our old habits, and oil is now around $60. Surprise. > > The worst part is that much of this $60 goes overseas to foreigners who > wish us no good: Wahhabi Saudi princes who subsidize terrorists; Hugo > Chavez, the mini-Mussolini of the Southern Hemisphere; and (through the > fungibility of oil) the nuclear-hungry, death-to-America Iranian mullahs. > This is insanity. It makes infinitely more sense to reduce consumption, > drive the world price down and let the premium we force ourselves to pay at > the pump (which begins the conservation cycle) go to the U.S. Treasury. If > the price drops to $2, plow that $1 tax right back into the American economy > by immediately reducing, say, Social Security or income taxes. > > The beauty of a tax that keeps gasoline at $3 is that it obviates the > waste and folly of an army of bureaucrats telling auto companies what cars > in which fleets need to meet what arbitrary standards of fuel efficiency. > Abolish all the regulations and let the market decide. Consumers are not > stupid. Within weeks of Hurricane Katrina, SUV sales were already in decline > and hybrids were flying off the lots. > > Supply . For decades we've been dithering over drilling in a tiny part of > the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Look, I too love the caribou. They are > sweet, picturesque and reputedly harmless. But dire predictions about the > devastation that Prudhoe Bay oil development would visit upon the caribou > proved false. They have thrived. Let's get serious. We live at the edge of > oil shortages and in perpetual vulnerability to oil blackmail. We have > soldiers dying in the oil fields of the Middle East, yet we leave untouched > the largest untapped oil field in North America so that Lower-48ers can > enjoy an image of pristine Arctic purity. This is an indulgence bordering on > decadence. > > As is our refusal to drill on the continental shelf. Offshore drilling > technology is far safer and more efficient than it was decades ago, when > this prohibition was passed. We're starving ourselves. > > The same logic applies to refineries. We have not built one since 1976. > Gasoline doesn't grow on trees. The U.S. refining industry operates at 96 > percent capacity. That is unsustainable. We need the equivalent of the > military base closing commission, whereby outside experts decide which bases > should be closed in the national interest. A refinery commission that would > situate 15 new refineries scattered throughout the United States (some > perhaps on Army bases scheduled for closing) would spread the pain, > depoliticize the process and arm us against future shortages. > > With these simple steps, we could within a decade finally escape the oil > noose. But don't hold your breath. The Senate just loved its little > oil-executive inquisition. The House stripped out the ANWR drilling > provision Wednesday night. And there is not a single national politician who > dares propose raising gas taxes by even a penny. We are criminally unserious > about energy independence, and we will pay the price. > > ===================== > > >
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Discover CFTicket - The leading ColdFusion Help Desk and Trouble Ticket application http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=48 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:181697 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
