Patterico's Pontifications

2/24/2012

L.A. Times Editors: Are You Upset Gas Costs So Much? Ride a Moped, Idiot!

Filed under: Dog Trainer,General,Obama — Patterico @ 10:42 pm



As we continue to clear the decks at the end of a busy week, we thank Colonel Haiku for the pointer to this absurd L.A. Times editorial about the joys of higher gas prices.

This one deserves the full fisk. As a result, the entire editorial will appear right here in this post — a rare instance where fair use applies to the full reprinting of an entire piece. Why? Because I have commentary on virtually every paragraph of this turd of a piece — and my commentary is more effective when you see precisely what I’m responding to.

Don’t like it, L.A. Times lawyers? File your lawsuit, baby! Let’s make copyright history!

My “bring it on!” challenge now disposed of, let’s begin the fisking:

Angelenos don’t get many opportunities to grouse about the weather, so in this town our preferred topic of complainversation is gasoline prices. Lately, we’ve had a wealth of material.

“Complainversation” is an interesting term — coming from the same publication that coined the term “funemployment.” The message, right from the get-go? If you’re complaining about high gas prices? You’re just bitching for no reason.

The rest of the editorial bears out this analysis.

Prices at the pump have been rising for the last five weeks, hitting an average in California of $4.035 for a gallon of regular on Monday, a 5.2% jump over the previous week. This is more than just an inconvenience: If the spike continues, it could derail the nation’s economic recovery. It is also giving rise, as such things always do, to conspiracy theories by people of all political persuasions — most of which aren’t worth the carbon dioxide emitted in their utterance.

On the right, it’s popular to blame President Obama. His “green” energy policies, according to this theory, are the reason it’s costing $80 a pop to fill the tanks of our Ford Explorers; if he would only drill, baby, drill in more places, we could restore America’s God-given right to cheap gas. The fact that this makes no sense hardly slows the chatter on talk radio or the rhetoric from GOP presidential candidates such as Rick Santorum, who repeated this canard Monday. The complaints are enough to make one wonder whom Republicans blamed when similar price spikes happened during the presidency of former oil executiveGeorge W. Bush. In any case, it takes decades from the time a new oil permit is approved before a field is producing reliable amounts of oil, meaning that even if the wildest dreams of oil executives to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and other protected places were granted today, it wouldn’t have a noticeable impact on gas prices until around 2030.

This is always what you hear whenever domestic production is proposed. It would only provide oil for x number of days, and if we started drilling today, we wouldn’t see results until year y.

It’s a genius argument, isn’t it? It’s a good reason why you shouldn’t save for retirement! Why, if you’re 40 today, and you want to retire at 60, you’re not going to see any benefits until 2032! So why bother?

They’ll still be making that argument in 2030, you know.

But I think the best example of what utter crap that argument is, is the fact that the debate over whether to drill in ANWR has been going on since 1977. So let’s do the math, and figure out when we would have seen benefits if we had started drilling when the idea first came to Congress’s attention. If it’s 2012 now, and we wouldn’t see a reduction in gas prices until 2030, that means that it would take 18 years to see that benefit. So you add 18 to 1977, and, let’s see [commence arithmetical mumbling, 8 and 7, that’s 5, carry the 1, 2 and 7 is 9, mumble mumble . . .] — it looks like we would have been seeing the benefits since 1995. Seventeen years ago.

NOT TO MENTION (because the L.A. Times doesn’t mention it) the fact that Obama and his advisors have been, shall we say, blase? about the prospect of higher gas prices. No, we shall not say blase. We will say positively enthusiastic.

Let’s review. Before he joined the Obama administration, indeed two months before the 2008 election (September 2008), a man named Steven Chu said: “Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe.” He wanted higher gas prices! WANTED THEM! How high? Over $8 per gallon.

That’s right. In May 2008, TIME reported: “Across the European Union, the average cost of a gallon of gas runs to about $8.70.”

And when he was elected, Barack Obama said: Steven Chu? That’s the guy I want for my energy secretary!

Somehow, none of this makes its way into the editorial.

The left has its own political talking points. Some on the fringes even believe rising prices are part of a right-wing conspiracy to slow the economic recovery and thus hurt Obama’s reelection chances. Congressional Democrats don’t go quite that far, but they regularly call for probes into price-fixing by the oil giants, although no evidence of this practice has emerged. There are myriad variables involved in the setting of market prices for gas: the price of crude oil, which shifts according to such factors as supply and demand, market disruption or feared disruptions, and speculation by commodity traders; shutdowns of U.S. refineries for routine maintenance; switches in gasoline formulas from winter to more expensive summer blends; and so on. It strains credulity to believe that all of the players involved in this process are conspiring without a hint of the secret leaking out.

OK, your obligatory nod to balance is satisfied, editors. Time to talk about the great news of higher gas prices!

Whatever the cause of high prices, the good news is that Americans have more opportunities to wean themselves from the gas pump with every passing year.

The GOOD news!

And although we sympathize with those who can’t reduce or end their addiction — truck drivers and construction workers whose jobs require gas-guzzling four-wheel-drive pickups come to mind — they make up a minority of those who complain about rising costs, most of whom could begin to solve their own problem with a little creativity.

Listen up, you non-creative nincompoops. You’re about to get The Lecture.

A world of alternatives to the internal combustion engine is flowering, and complaining about the cost is pointless because there’s something to fit every pocketbook: The very rich can buy high-performance electric sports cars made by new companies such as Tesla and Fisker, and those who can’t or don’t want to spend so much can ride public transportation, with Measure R-funded rail lines on the way in Los Angeles County.

Mmm, Los Angeles public transportation. Soooooo good. So good, in fact, that I firmly believe every member of the Los Angeles Times editorial board takes advantage of its wondrous possibilities. Or, you know, they will. Once those Measure R rail lines come online. Any day now.

Hey, those promised rail benefits will accrue instantly, right? Unlike those stupid benefits from ANWR which will take until 2030, we’ll see benefits from Measure R as soon as . . . 2032:

Yesterday came a report from Metro (PDF) that proposed a construction timeline for the Subway to the Sea, as well as a host of other projects in Los Angeles that will be funded by the $40 billion that Measure R will likely raise by 2040. The problem is, even with Measure R, Metro claims that there isn’t enough money to fund the subway all the way to Santa Monica, and even the 10-mile extension to Westwood wouldn’t be completed until 2032.

What’s that? Even a basic result from Measure R would not be available until 2032 — two years after we would see benefits from ANWR drilling if we started today?

But, but . . . that’s different!!!

In between are a host of options: bicycling to work (or, for those who don’t like to pedal, riding a new generation of electric bikes), riding high-mileage scooters and mopeds, or buying a hybrid or electric car.

Just moped to work! Like all the L.A. Times editors (OK, none of them) do!

Some next-generation hybrids will hit showrooms this summer, when a newly improved Ford Fusion hybrid arrives and Toyota launches its Prius C, a smaller and more economical version of its popular gas-sipper.

Moreover, not all the options even involve transportation. People can save dramatically on gasoline by moving closer to their workplaces.

Like all the L.A. Times editors do!

Moving, like all the choices above, has costs and drawbacks: Housing in job centers is often more expensive than in the suburbs, L.A. transit is still spotty and slow, and scootering is only for the courageous. But those who refuse to change their behavior in response to higher prices deserve to pay them.

Does this attitude sound familiar? It should:

“If you’re complaining about the price of gas and you’re only getting 8 miles a gallon, you know,” Obama said laughingly. “You might want to think about a trade-in.”

Again: if you’re upset about high gas prices? It’s your own fault, you gas-guzzling, non-creative idiot.

The weekly spikes and declines of gas prices cause a lot of economic turmoil and consumer angst, but they matter less than the overall trend, and that can head in only one direction: upward. Rising demand in China and India ensures that gasoline is going to become more expensive over time, regardless of who’s in the White House. Americans can adapt or go broke. So now is as good a time as any to consider trading in that SUV for something more suited to the 21st century.

Again: you might want to think about a trade-in.

It’s as if Barack himself were on the editorial board! (Frankly, it wouldn’t make much different to the editorials if he were.)

And with that bit of arrogance, I hereby demand that every member of the L.A. Times editorial board publish the details concerning every vehicle they own.

It’s called transparency, mother[expletive deleted]ers. Show it. Now.

122 Responses to “L.A. Times Editors: Are You Upset Gas Costs So Much? Ride a Moped, Idiot!”

  1. DINGALING!

    Patterico (17e5f6)

  2. Patterico you said it all. That paper should crawl into a hole in shame.

    AZ Bob (1c9631)

  3. my understanding is that if we want to lower prices we can either increase the supply or reduce the demand

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  4. But…but…Patrick…
    They’re Credentialed!

    AD-RtR/OS! (ec4e7d)

  5. You’ll soon get the privilege of paying for the privilege of reading the LAT online.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (4267bd)

  6. Somebody needs to embed a really nasty virus behind that pay-wall.

    AD-RtR/OS! (ec4e7d)

  7. Just posted on that, Bradley.

    As I wiped the tears of laughter from my eyes.

    Patterico (17e5f6)

  8. The comments at the link are priceless. Sample:

    You mean we’ll have to go straight to the Media Matters website, WhiteHouse.org, or read the latest SEIU press release to get the LA Times’ “news” without payment? OH NO.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (4267bd)

  9. Hilarious.

    Patterico (17e5f6)

  10. People can save dramatically on gasoline by moving closer to their workplaces.

    Living in downtown LA is *not* the dream and it’s sick they would wish this on their own employees.

    Downtown LA is scary and bleak and unfriendly and you can’t touch anything without getting the hepatitis.

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  11. Came for the Tweets, stayed for the Mopeds!

    @ Happyfeet The hepatitis line made me lol

    Noodles (3681c4)

  12. You don’t have to move downtown anyway. Just move to Hancock Park like the Time’s editors. And does anyone want to be that they don’t arrive at work in company-fueled, company-paid chauffeur-driven vehicles? Nothing like being lectured on thrift by the “1%.”

    Kevin M (bf8ad7)

  13. I wonder how many people will have to chose between gas for their car and their Times subscription. If anyone is still debating, remind them of this editorial.

    Kevin M (bf8ad7)

  14. umm .. “Times’ editors” in #12

    Kevin M (bf8ad7)

  15. Patterico is awesome. That is all.

    Noodles (3681c4)

  16. Subway to the Sea? Why stop there?

    sierra (d537c7)

  17. I think it might have been P.J. O’Rourke who referred to “I-Want-to-Live-Downtown liberals.” Meaning, hip, vibrant, multi-ethnic, creative, blah-blah-blah. But here it’s not even “I want to.”

    sierra (d537c7)

  18. What a typically compassionate, beautifully written and well thought out editorial by the LAT.

    But seriously folks, one of the remaining economic engines still supporting California, and one that helps feed the nation (the farming of luscious vegetables and fruits and milk and cheese production) is going to need some “creativity”. That is unless there are customized moped or electric versions of planting, harvesting and hauling equipment already widely available in California. I know we’re always a little behind the times out here in the great unwashed Midwest, but *our* farmers still must rely heavily on large outlays of gas to fill the John Deere tractors and combines. And the trucks to transport their goods. Hey, what’s a little resultant rise in food prices due to $5.00 gas? (Probably by the logic of the LAT editors we can all just eat less to make up the difference).

    And how ’bout that Canadian pipeline?

    elissa (d1b74b)

  19. How safe is it to ride a moped to and from the games at Staples Center?

    elissa (d1b74b)

  20. Neither my husband nor I own a car. But: we live in Manhattan. A car would be actively problematic. Parking it would cost as much per month as my student loan payments.

    When we lived in the bay area, we shared a civic hybrid.

    (and … I wish I lived closer to my workplace. I can work from home a lot, but i’ve got a 2 hr commute in each direction right now.)

    aphrael (d46bb0)

  21. c’mon LA Times!
    why not go the full Flintstone?
    feets don’t fail me now

    Colonel Haiku (28c165)

  22. ___________________________________________

    People can save dramatically on gasoline by moving closer to their workplaces.

    I use the phrase “limousine liberal” a lot to describe the type of people who probably include the writer of the paper’s editorial (and one does not have to be wealthy to think and act like an LL). I don’t know any other set of words that so well illustrate the two-faced, disingenuous nature of the left, or behavior that always is a sight to behold (and snicker at).

    I’m not sure if one of the top executives of the LA Times is a liberal/Democrat or not, but I do recall reading an interview he gave to the paper a few years ago where he mentioned that when he relocated from Chicago to LA, he chose to live a few miles south of LAX, in the Manhattan Beach area. At the time, I remember my thinking — even more so if that executive did rate himself as a good progressive — “why the hell don’t you be a nice greenie and live someplace closer to downtown LA?! Plus, you won’t be adding to all the congestion on the city’s notoriously jammed freeways!”

    I won’t mention whether being a good liberal also means one should send his or her kids to a public school that’s chock full of “diversity.” I know Liberal Couple #1 (Barry and Michelle) have selected private schools for their own kids in both Chicago and DC.

    Mark (411533)

  23. I’m not sure if one of the top executives of the LA Times is a liberal/Democrat or not

    99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999% at InTrade they are at least libDem, if not full Trotsky.

    Colonel Haiku (28c165)

  24. Hugh Hewitt mentioned a tweet that had been flashed around urging that people post a sticky note on gas pumps:

    “How’s that Keystone Pipeline looking now?”

    Colonel Haiku (28c165)

  25. LA mass transit. Brought to by government central planning, just like in Europe!
    So I guess the LA TImes likes the light rail line that runs along the 105 centerline. You can take a cab to the trolley station and ride that little trolley from Norwalk and ride it until you get close to LAX. Then you can unload your baggage and load it onto a bus and take the bus to the terminal and then you can unload you baggage again and bring it to the check-in counter. The LA Times must love that scheme. Let’s get creative, let’s just not bring any baggage! It’s cumbersome and heavy and it’s not green or anything like than, man. In the liberal world, the government elite will always have personal jets a their disposal. Ask Pelosi

    tyree (84087f)

  26. There’s an urban legend that the reason the green line doesn’t go to LAX is that the parking lot operators put pressure on LAX to not allow the connection.

    According to this link, that’s a myth: the line, planned in the late 1970s, deliberately dropped down to El Segundo, which at the time had an enormous employment base, instead of LAX. In the meantime, the El Segundo job base collapsed.

    In any event, it’s totally absurd that the subway doesn’t connect to the airport.

    But it’s equally absurd that the NYC subway system doesn’t connect to *any* of the three local airports. (It connects to a people mover which runs several miles from the subway line to JFK, and the NJTransit commuter line connects to Newark, but the subway itself doesn’t go to any of the airports). Neither, for that matter, does Boston’s subway system.

    There appears to be a *general* cluelessness in mass transit management in this country on the subject of connecting to airports. I do not understand why.

    aphrael (d46bb0)

  27. a proper Fisking
    you’ve Fisked them running, sideways
    probably to tears

    Colonel Haiku (28c165)

  28. “if he would only drill, baby, drill in more places, we could restore America’s God-given right to cheap gas. The fact that this makes no sense”

    The LA Times is standing athwart the laws of supply and demand? It’s science until it stands against your ideology and then it “makes no sense”.

    I don’t want to go on a crazy conspiracy jag but that has to have been authored by David Lazarus, the Times business columnist, formerly of the SF Chronicle. This guy thinks Capitalism is wanting, and not just to some utopian system but to the systems we’ve seen fail time after time. He’s catnip to lazy white liberals ashamed of their wealth.

    East Bay Jay (19f566)

  29. You might want to think about a trade-in

    Cheap gas is not a right enshrined in the constitution.

    That is all.

    Morningafter (e9a166)

  30. straw man? try some menudo…

    Colonel Haiku (28c165)

  31. “If you’re complaining about the price of gas and you’re only getting 8 miles a gallon, you know,” Obama said laughingly. “You might want to think about a trade-in.”

    This is, um… true. I think that’s the word. If you are complaining about the price of gas and you’re only getting about 8 miles a gallon, you might want to think about shutting the hell up – forget a trade-in.

    Leviticus (870be5)

  32. Everyone has to buy a GM Volt or they can shut the hell up. Problem solved.

    East Bay Jay (19f566)

  33. Patterico you hit this one out of the ball park! Excellent piece highlighting the hypocrisy and absurdity of the left and the L.A. Times. But I repeat myself.

    Brett (ba1d2e)

  34. This is, um… true. I think that’s the word. If you are complaining about the price of gas and you’re only getting about 8 miles a gallon, you might want to think about shutting the hell up – forget a trade-in.

    Comment by Leviticus

    Even if you’re driving a compact and getting 35 MPG, high gas prices take quite a bite, especially for those who commute.

    Oh, that’s right… they can always move. But then so many have houses with mortgages “under water”, even that’s not an option.

    As Mr. Frey rightly points out, this Democrat push-back on making use of domestic resources/ drilling has gone on for far too long.

    Colonel Haiku (ffdb2e)

  35. We produce 2% of the worlds oil, yet consume 20%.

    More dometic drilling isn’t going to make much of a dent in that equation.

    Morningafter (075918)

  36. You selfish, anti-environment, anti-Indian, anti-Chinese autophiles. How dare you complain about high gas prices when people in China and India do not even have Chevy volts. I think we should ship all our gasoline to China and India as a small gesture of atonement for all the centuries of Asian jokes. I am draining all the gas from my car and shipping it to China and then go shopping for a horse. I will ship the horse to India. The Indians won’t eat it.

    nk (3e8b77)

  37. It is nice that California’s economy is so strong that people who are hurt by high gas prices can afford to go out and buy new cars and move to new homes closer to their jobs. I suspect that if a lot of those folks could afford to sell their homes they would move out of California rather than closer to downtown, especially those that took less desirable jobs when theirs went away but who hope to upgrade when things improve or they can escape.

    Machinist (b6f7da)

  38. Even if you’re driving a compact and getting 35 MPG, high gas prices take quite a bite, especially for those who commute.

    sure. high gas prices take quite a bite.

    they take a *larger* bite among those who choose to live a lifestyle which requires them to drive a long distance frequently, and among those who choose to drive vehicles which require large quantities of gas.

    i don’t think it’s too much to ask that those who make such choices acknowledge that they are choices, and that they are responsible for making those choices, in much the same way that it’s not too much to ask that those who choose to go to school to get a PhD, and as a result lose six years of earning capacity and end up in an impacted job market, are responsible for their choices.

    i *think* that can be done without being a condescending a–hole, and i think it can be done while simultaneously acknowledging that the biggest bite from high gas prices comes from the effect the prices have on the price of food and home heating.

    aphrael (d46bb0)

  39. Leviticus,

    It’s human nature to complain when things don’t go our way but I agree with you if your point is that complaining doesn’t help. It rarely changes other people’s behavior and usually makes us feel worse in the long run.

    However, I understand complaining when someone intentionally hurts us. Obama and his fellow Democratic leaders have intentionally refused to drill or support North American oil and gas production. It’s twice the insult to expect average consumers to incur significant unplanned costs — whether it’s in hefty gas costs or buying a new car or scooter — because of their idealistic choices.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  40. aphrael,

    High gas prices impact everything and everybody, even those who don’t drive. How do you think all the things you buy, eat and do get to NYC?

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  41. Particularly when the people causing the higher prices continue their conspicuous consumption, often at our expense.

    Machinist (b6f7da)

  42. High energy and transportation costs also cost many jobs as businesses go under or must cut employees.

    Machinist (b6f7da)

  43. This is, um… true. I think that’s the word. If you are complaining about the price of gas and you’re only getting about 8 miles a gallon, you might want to think about shutting the hell up – forget a trade-in.

    What a pile of BS assumptions that are inherent to Lev’s superiority.

    “morningafter” drops by to confirm skyrocketing energy prices are features of Barcky’s policies.

    JD (448fa8)

  44. they take a *larger* bite among those who choose to live a lifestyle which requires them to drive a long distance frequently, and among those who choose to drive vehicles which require large quantities of gas.

    Those evil construction workers that can only afford one car, and have to be able to transport 2 kids, work tools, and can’t afford to simply pick up and move close to a job site.

    JD (448fa8)

  45. 32. I just spent $800 on my ’94 Camry that gets 35 mpg highway on ‘nonoxygenated’ gas which gets me an extra 4 mpg.

    310K and she’s just broken in, on 3rd radiator, 3rd tune up, 3rd set of brake pads, 2nd clutch, 2nd alternator, 2nd IAC, no working air.

    Glad you dipsticks are spending $50K in resources on your Prius before subsidies but the tranny doesn’t handled loss of traction conditions well up here so when the Camry goes its Forerunner time.

    gary gulrud(MN#6, Anabaptist) (d88477)

  46. Thank you, Democrats, for the “opportunity” to wean myself from horrible gasoline. I’m sure the energy industry knows its place, too, and appreciates the opportunities provided.

    After all, rational leaders know the energy industry is basically the same as killing people.

    I just spent $800 on my ’94 Camry that gets 35 mpg highway on ‘nonoxygenated’ gas which gets me an extra 4 mpg.

    Yes, this is the actual environmentalist way to go. Making a new car, especially one with a massive battery, is far worse for the environment than keeping an old one on the road. The production of a car is usually the point of most environmental impact. Every Pious Prius should humble themselves next to the old beat up Civics. Not that I mind if someone wants a Prius. Free country.

    I’ll wait for the hydrogen fuel cells before I move off traditional cars. But you can bet your ass I won’t put my family in a union built hydrogen fuel cell car. They have a hard enough time building Volts that don’t catch on fire.

    Dustin (401f3a)

  47. ________________________________________________

    It is nice that California’s economy is so strong that people who are hurt by high gas prices can afford to go out and buy new cars and move to new homes closer to their jobs.

    That’s because in the land of liberalism — due to such places being full of honest, ethical, sensible, generous, wonderful, beautiful, tolerant, compassionate and sophisticated thinking and biases — everyone protects one another.

    washingtonexaminer.com (via Drudgereport.com): A123 Systems, an electric car battery company once touted as a stimulus “success story” by former Gov. Jennifer Granhom, D-Mich., has laid off 125 employees since receiving $390 million in government subsidies — but is still handing out big pay raises to company executives.

    [The Mackinac Center for Public Policy reports], “[T]his month A123’s Compensation Committee approved a $30,000 raise for [Chief Financial Officer David] Prystash just days after Fisker Automotive [A123’s primary customer] announced the U.S. Energy Department had cut off what was left of its $528.7 million loan it had previously received.”

    Robert Johnson, vice president of the energy solutions group, got a 20.7 percent pay increase going from $331,250 to $400,000, while Jason Forcier, vice president of the automotive solutions group, saw his pay increase from $331,250 to $350,000. Prystash’s raise was 8.5 percent, going from $350,000 to $380,000.

    “It looks like they are trying to pad their top people’s wallets in case something really bad happens,” Paul Chesser, associate fellow for the National Legal & Policy Center, suggested.

    The Department of Energy gave the battery company $249.1 million in grant money, while the Michigan government provided A123 with another $141 million in tax credits and subsidies, according to the Mackinac Center.

    We all need to become limousine liberals, buy a ticket to board the gravy train, and take a long joyous ride to Obamaville, or OccupyWallStreet-ville, or Greece Land, Spain Land, Argentina Land, etc.

    Mark (31bbb6)

  48. That still raises the fundamental issue, what to do use to ‘crack the hydrogen’ I’m sure there are a few good dilithium refining companies just ready
    to go, sarc.

    narciso (87e966)

  49. That still raises the fundamental issue, what to do use to ‘crack the hydrogen’ I’m sure there are a few good dilithium refining companies just ready
    to go, sarc.

    It is simply a fact of life that this process will cost more energy than the fuel cell will hold. But fuel cells will not expire like batteries, which are difficult to make and recycle.

    I think we just have to eat that waste and promote a robust electrical infrastructure with nuclear power (which the geography of the USA offers so many safe places for). Do that, and the price (and value) of energy goes down quite a bit, and you can ‘charge’ the hydrogen fuel cell for low cost. Fuel cells can also be replenished quickly at stations or at home, and the charging stations can make our energy infrastructure decentralized a bit.

    It makes a lot of sense if you just accept that the fuel cell process is inherently somewhat inefficient.

    But if that inefficiency is just nuclear power, and it replaces a substantial amount of gasoline use, we’re talking about a massively cleaner way of powering transportation. Too bad the hysterics out there (certainly not speaking of you, of course) make it difficult to make realistic progress of this type. They just want every car in America powered by wind farms and solar panels and unicorn dreams.

    Dustin (401f3a)

  50. I forgot to mention that Honda’s fuel cell home stations are powered by natural gas and can also provide A/C power for your home. Just think… in a power outage you still have the fridge and lights and internet. Natural gas is abundant.

    That combined with nuclear for the conventional electrical lines is a better way. We still need a better electrical grid for this to be feasible, but the fuel cell stations can work all day and then recharge the car in seconds, which is so much smarter than plugging the Chevy Volt into the house for a few hours to yield a few minutes of driving.

    Dustin (401f3a)

  51. 310K and she’s just broken in, on 3rd radiator, 3rd tune up, 3rd set of brake pads, 2nd clutch, 2nd alternator, 2nd IAC, no working air.

    Gary G… Mrs. Haiku drives an ’01 Toyota Highlander we’ve owned since new… 202K miles, only two tune-ups, cam belt changes and the kind of maintenance that results in a long, reliable life (e.g., coolant flush and trans fluid change every 30K) and this car runs and feels like it’s new. Amazing quality, if only at 20 MPG.

    Colonel Haiku (09b2e1)

  52. Patterico is awesome. That is all.

    Finally! Somebody gets it.

    Patterico (17e5f6)

  53. Mopeds and bicycles are wonderful ideas. Someone commuting from Lake Forest to Chicago in January would have a blast ice skating on a moped. That should only be a two day trip, each way. A businessman in a suit on their way to a meeting in Tulsa in August , after passing out from heat stroke, might question the wisdom of riding a bike.

    JD (448fa8)

  54. 2000 Camry here. About 130,000 miles.

    Patterico (17e5f6)

  55. BS, Patterico. Everyone knows you have a multimillion dollar estate.

    How’s the Gallardo’s mileage, Mr .001%?

    Dustin (401f3a)

  56. Mopeds and bicycles are wonderful ideas. Someone commuting from Lake Forest to Chicago in January would have a blast ice skating on a moped. That should only be a two day trip, each way. A businessman in a suit on their way to a meeting in Tulsa in August , after passing out from heat stroke, might question the wisdom of riding a bike.

    Comment by JD

    Studded, Swedish snow tires, JD! And that bidnessman can buy one a them solar powered fans than he can attach to his handlebars! And there must be a bike helmet with a liquid, melon cushion that he can freeze before each trip.

    If not, there’s my next patent!

    Colonel Haiku (09b2e1)

  57. Hmmm … and what happens after those 20 years of planning and permits and months of actual drilling? Obama shuts you down.

    Kevin M (bf8ad7)

  58. BTW, I guess this is a benefit of being funemployed … no commute. The ultimate “living close to work.”

    Kevin M (bf8ad7)

  59. morningafter:

    We produce 2% of the worlds oil, yet consume 20%.

    More dometic drilling isn’t going to make much of a dent in that equation.

    United States petroleum production (in thousands of barrels per day):

    2005 = 8,321.8
    2006 = 8,330.5
    2007 = 8,456.6
    2008 = 8,514.1
    2009 = 9,140.7
    2010 = 9,648.4

    In 2010, total world production (in thousands of barrels per day) was 86,790.3, so the United States produced 11.11% of world petroleum.

    United States petroleum consumption (in thousands of barrels per day):

    2005 = 20,802.2
    2006 = 20,687.4
    2007 = 20,680.4
    2008 = 19,498.0
    2009 = 18,771.4
    2010 = 19,148.1

    In 2010, total world consumption (in thousands of barrels per day) was 85,714, so the United States consumed 22.33% of world petroleum.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  60. 53. You seem to be at the other end of the auto universe making similar choices. I change the oil every 10 or 12, just add a quart every two thousand.

    Started the tuneup changing rotor and distributor cap but lost the spark plug boot on the second plug and had to have it towed to the local shop to finish cause I couldn’t fish it out. State Farm will pickup the $70 tow.

    I’m on the ‘lucking out despite abject stupidity’ end of the Toyota continuum, rather than the competent end.

    gary gulrud(MN#6, Anabaptist) (d88477)

  61. In 2010, total world production (in thousands of barrels per day) was 86,790.3, so the United States produced 11.11% of world petroleum.

    I didn’t realize it was that much. Thanks for correcting the propagandist.

    Dustin (401f3a)

  62. In addition, drilling will “make a dent in that equation.” Half of our net imports come from the Western Hemisphere. Our neighbors are finding and producing petroleum to sell to us. If the Democrats allowed drilling in the Gulf and other coastal areas, Alaska, and on federal lands, we’d produce more petroleum, too.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  63. cars are like wives, gulrud… treat ’em right and they’ll make your life a joy (and in a wife’s case, she’ll be a gourmet cook in the kitchen and a whore in the bedroom).

    Abuse ’em and they’ll leave you standing on the corner, wondering where it all went wrong.

    Colonel Haiku (09b2e1)

  64. no offense intended.

    Colonel Haiku (09b2e1)

  65. Excellent fisking. This deserves to be sent to the editors of the LAT with a demand for comment. Which I have done. It’s a ridiculously misleading article and terms like funployment and complainversation leave me cold and immediately make me wary – Oh, look out, I’m being manipulated again, thus reading the editorial with an even more shrewd cynical eye that gives no benefit of the doubt whatsoever.

    Dana (4eca6e)

  66. DRJ, at 39:

    I believe I acknowledged that when I said the biggest bite from high gas prices comes from the effect the prices have on the price of food and home heating.

    Transportation costs have a large effect on the price of goods + services. Absolutely.

    But the *direct* cost of gasoline is going to be higher if you’re choosing to live with long commutes and/or fuel-inefficient vehicles.

    JD, at 45:

    who said anything about evil? i’m coming from a “you’re responsible for the forseeable consequences of your choices and you should accept responsibility for that” perspective, not a “people who make different choices than I do are evil” perspective.

    There’s something which I find personally grating about someone who makes the choice to drive a fuel-inefficient vehicle then complaining that prices have gone up and demanding that something be done about it. It’s fine to arrange your life around the presumption of cheap gas, just as it’s fine for me to arrange my life around the presumption of cheap electricity; but when something changes to make that presumption invalid, i’ll have a lot more sympathy if you start by acknowledging that you made a choice and took a risk and got burned by it, rather than if you’re asserting that the way you expected things to be is the natural way for things to be and if things don’t match up to it, something must be done.

    Dustin at 47:

    when we sold our car – which we did because we moved across country to somewhere were a car would be a liability – it had 150K miles on it, and we would happily have driven it until it died. Buying new cars before your old car has become too expensive to maintain is, IMO, a waste of money.

    aphrael (d46bb0)

  67. 65, 66. None taken. Wisdom and I cross paths in a purely random pattern.

    gary gulrud(MN#6, Anabaptist) (d88477)

  68. Buying new cars before your old car has become too expensive to maintain is, IMO, a waste of money.

    Comment by aphrael

    Yep.

    It’s a bit like computers now that even pretty old computers can handle the internet and word processing. Only reason I have a modern computer is the Skyrim game.

    Replacing these things actually is more of a sign you can’t maintain them properly. Taking care of your car and driving it until it’s ancient is one of the most environmentally friendly things you can do.

    Those beat up 1982 Silverados are much greener than a Chevy Volt.

    Dustin (401f3a)

  69. Dana: I actually like the neologism ‘complainversation’ and will probably add it to my vocabulary.

    I think there’s a lot of generic kvetching that many people do just because complaining is the way we know to interact with each other, and because in a lot of contexts / social interactions, contentment isn’t socially acceptable, you have to have something to complain about. I think ‘complainversation’ is an excellent word to describe conversations like those, or conversations in which the participants are engaged in out-complaining the other.

    aphrael (d46bb0)

  70. Dustin: that’s a good example. When I got my most recent desktop computer, in 2009, it replaced a 9-year old machine which had a hard limit of 1GB of RAM (due to bus limitations) and which therefore couldn’t play the games I wanted to play.

    The one point where i’m not sure about the beat up ’82 silverado is emissions – dense urban areas have an understandable interest in reducing emissions, and it’s possible that the increased overall environmental cost of the new car is outweighed by the successful emissions reduction, because of the effect on the *local* environment (as opposed to the global one). I think that’s a case-by-case analysis, though.

    aphrael (d46bb0)

  71. The one point where i’m not sure about the beat up ’82 silverado is emissions

    Yeah, I may have been exaggerating. 🙂 I neglected to mention that it’s Willy Nelson’s pickup and runs on free range biodiesel. Also, the Chevy Volt started a forest fire next to an orphanage.

    Dustin (401f3a)

  72. I was unnecessarily snarky towards you, aphrael. My hackles were still up from the Obama/Leviticus shut up and buy a new car nonsense. We arrive at things from opposite perspectives, you being from the left coast and now NY, where cars can be a financial liability, and I from the Midwest where they are a necessity. I still don’t agree with your “you chose your life deal with it” but understand it.

    JD (448fa8)

  73. aphrael:

    It’s fine to arrange your life around the presumption of cheap gas, just as it’s fine for me to arrange my life around the presumption of cheap electricity; but when something changes to make that presumption invalid, i’ll have a lot more sympathy if you start by acknowledging that you made a choice and took a risk and got burned by it, …

    I agree and you’ve been consistent about this, so my comment isn’t directed at you. It’s directed at liberals who criticize conservatives that choose to drive SUVs and are hurt by high gas prices, while failing to criticize other people for their choices.

    Why don’t they also criticize poor, single women who have illegitimate children and can’t support them, only to wonder what happened to their lives? Not only don’t they criticize these women for their choices, they sympathize. If you’re going to expect people to live with their choices, these are choices, too.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  74. DRJ,
    Why do you hate poor, single women and their illegitimate children?
    /sarc

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (a1ae2e)

  75. It’s a lifestyle choice. Deal with it.

    JD (448fa8)

  76. Although I remember a time when American government wanted its citizens to succeed economically and consumption was a part of succeeding. Clearly that has changed for liberals, who prefer those who aren’t elites to merely subsist.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  77. they sympathize subsidize.

    Great exchange. It’s true that we all should take personal responsibility and think ahead, instead of asking the government to save us, which has led to such a bloat of nannies which is worse than the problems they failed to solve.

    That said, while we shouldn’t ask the government to fix our 8 mpg vans with cash for clunkers or magic cheap gas, we should expect the permitting process for energy production, pipelines, etc to be sane.

    It’s also worth noting that so much gas’s price increase is simply inflation due to a failure to balance the budget (what budget?).

    Dustin (401f3a)

  78. Aw DRJ, they can’t help themselves. Being selectively judgmental (some would say quite hypocritically judgmental) is just part of being a liberal in America these days. Unfortunately.

    elissa (d1b74b)

  79. I don’t want the government to give me money for gas or a new car. I want the government to get out of the way so we can safely produce petroleum products and other energy sources.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  80. elissa,

    I actually believe they can’t help themselves. I think our schools and media have taught them to believe this, and it’s very hard to unlearn.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  81. DRJ – I think the difficult thing with the single mom who can’t support her out-of-wedlock children is that it’s not just her who is paying for her choices; her children are, too.

    That is to say, it’s one thing to demand of the mother, hey, you made your choices, accept responsibility for them; but it’s totally different to say to a six-year-old, hey, you have to accept the price of your mother’s bad choices.

    Clearly that has changed for liberals, who prefer those who aren’t elites to merely subsist.

    I think that’s an overstatement and an exaggeration. 🙂 Most of the objections the liberals I know have to consumption are either (a) objections to the consumptions of elites, or (b) objections to consumption which has externalities that aren’t compensated.

    One of the major divides between liberals and conservatives in modern politics is the degree to which externalities are recognized and *which* externalities are recognized.

    aphrael (d46bb0)

  82. People who buy SUVs have children, too, aphrael, and their children suffer when we have high gas prices. Are you discriminating against their suffering?

    As for externalities, the carbon imprint from the lifestyle choices of people like the Obamas, Al Gore, and John Edwards dwarf anything I see in my town. I agree that does divide us.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  83. ==One of the major divides between liberals and conservatives in modern politics is the degree to which externalities are recognized and *which* externalities are recognized==

    Perhaps, aphrael, you might want to expand on that thought a bit?!

    elissa (d1b74b)

  84. I don’t want the government to give me money for gas or a new car. I want the government to get out of the way so we can safely produce petroleum products and other energy sources.

    Comment by DRJ

    That exactly where the problem is. Other than inflation, which neither party can solve without being serious on spending, Obama has made a lot of bizarre calls with respect to energy production. It’s probably the one factor that will most doom his reelection bid, and I doubt whatever political gain he got (for example, from Soros and Buffet) justify this even from a cynical POV.

    *which* externalities are recognized

    That is a big factor in our different world views. I think a limited government approach minimizes the issue, to be fair. Just getting government out of the way, unless necessary, allows folks to make their own calculations and live their own lives.

    Dustin (401f3a)

  85. aphrael,

    The problem is a government that makes thousands of unpredictable regulations that impact the choices businesses and people make. No one can make a reliable prediction about their lives, so it’s hard to make good choices.

    If I knew where we’d be today, I might have bought a house in a high-flood coastal area worth 10x what I could afford, because the government helps those owners. Do you really want a country where people make choices like that?

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  86. aphrael – Generalizing about the Chicago area, but close in areas are largely mature and built up and housing is more expensive. Younger families with people who work in the city often look further out for affordable housing. I’m sure you saw the same thing in California and I also saw the same thing in New York. Is that choice or necessity?

    There is a substantial reverse commute of folks choosing to live in the city and work at corporate campuses in the suburbs. I view that as a choice.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  87. Sharing the road with even one biker is a pain, because their position on the road is so ambiguous.

    It boggles the mind to think that anyone can believe millions of people biking to work in California is even remotely plausible. We’re not China, there’s zero sense of social hierarchy and a sense of sharing roads. The Californian bikers would trip over themselves with impromptu races, wannabe extreme tricks, and texting while riding.

    lee (cae7a3)

  88. Willy Nelson’s pickup and runs on free range biodiesel

    and Willie runs on eleven different herbs and spices and Viagra.

    [note: fished from spam filter. –Stashiu]

    Colonel Haiku (09b2e1)

  89. if he would only drill, baby, drill in more places, we could restore America’s God-given right to cheap gas.
    — When deriding those “on the right” it is required to insert at least one sneering reference to their belief in God. Check.

    The complaints are enough to make one wonder whom Republicans blamed when similar price spikes happened during the presidency of former oil executiveGeorge W. Bush.
    — Deflection. If this was February 2016 that line would still be there. Remember, every single problem that Obama is dealing with is an inherited problem. He was not responsible in any way for how the War On Terror was being conducted UNTIL he ‘got Bin Laden’. Likewise, his energy policies are GREAT, given the complete and utter boondoggle he inherited.

    The left has its own political talking points. Some on the fringes even believe rising prices are part of a right-wing conspiracy to slow the economic recovery and thus hurt Obama’s reelection chances.
    — And where is this ‘fringe’? Sounds like ONE loon with a blog that nobody reads. Actually, it sounds like something that a Times editor made up.

    And although we sympathize with those who can’t reduce or end their addiction — truck drivers and construction workers whose jobs require gas-guzzling four-wheel-drive pickups come to mind — they make up a minority of those who complain about rising costs, most of whom could begin to solve their own problem with a little creativity.
    — And by “sympathize” they mean ‘patronize’, such as characterizing people “whose jobs require” gas-guzzling vehicles as being ‘addicted’. I guess the rest of us are Super Addicts.

    those who refuse to change their behavior in response to higher prices deserve to pay them.
    — Unless we’re talking about birth control; THEN you deserve to have someone else pay that price for you.

    Icy (76598a)

  90. Grow Algae, Not Food!

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  91. Cheap gas is not a right enshrined in the constitution.
    That is all.

    Comment by Morningafter — 2/25/2012 @ 8:01 am

    — Neither is birth control . . . or abortion . . . or same-sex marriage . . . or brain power.

    Icy (76598a)

  92. We produce 2% of the worlds oil, yet consume 20%.
    More dometic drilling isn’t going to make much of a dent in that equation.

    Comment by Morningafter — 2/25/2012 @ 8:57 am

    — I think we’ve identified the dent in your equation.

    Icy (76598a)

  93. Fungible, beeyotches!!!!!!

    JD (448fa8)

  94. Abuse ‘em and they’ll leave you standing on the corner, wondering where it all went wrong.
    Comment by Colonel Haiku — 2/25/2012 @ 10:38 am

    — I used to have a wife, and a 1978 Corvette that got like 8 miles per gallon.

    I will leave it to your imagination to guess which one I would like to have back. 🙂

    Icy (76598a)

  95. Icy… remembering how gutless the ’78 ‘Vettes were, I’d say yer missin’ the Ex-Mrs. Icy!

    Colonel Haiku (09b2e1)

  96. Situational ethics is the key;

    http://pjmedia.com/eddriscoll/2012/02/24/president-burgundy/

    narciso (87e966)

  97. Colonel, my response is to quote a bumper sticker I saw on the back of an RV, driving down the freeway in Phoenix about 15 years ago:

    Wife and dog missing,
    Reward for dog.

    Icy (76598a)

  98. And hey, if I could have afforded a ’67 Vette . . .

    Icy (76598a)

  99. Our Crooner in Chief has just recorded a new ballad:

    What’s it all about, Algae?
    Is it just for the moment we live?
    What’s it all about when you sort it out, Algae?
    Are we meant to take more than we give
    or are we meant to be kind?
    And if only fools are kind, Algae,
    then I guess it’s wise to be cruel.
    And if life belongs only to the strong, Algae,
    what will you lend on an old golden rule?
    As sure as I believe there’s a heaven above, Algae,
    I know there’s something much more,
    something even non-believers can believe in.
    I believe in love, Algae,
    Without true love we just exist, Algae,
    Until you find the love you’ve missed you’re nothing, Algae.
    When you walk let your heart lead the way
    and you’ll find love any day, Algae, Algae.

    — “are we meant to take more than we give” . . . Brilliant!

    Icy (76598a)

  100. In any case, it takes decades from the time a new oil permit is approved before a field is producing reliable amounts of oil, meaning that even if the wildest dreams of oil executives to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and other protected places were granted today, it wouldn’t have a noticeable impact on gas prices until around 2030.

    Has anyone besides me noticed this has not stopped the idiot in the WH from claiming credit for increased production after only 3 years in office?

    I would write a letter to the LAT asking them how they can simultaneously print it takes decades to actually see an effect at the pump, and the Community-organizer-in-Chief’s drivel about increasing production in such a short time.

    While:

    a. The only increase in production we’ve seen is on private land because King Putt can’t shut it down (yet) like he can and has shut down drilling (and other forms of energy production) on public land.

    b. The only reason it takes so long from exploration until the gas from the well hits the pump are all the regulatory roadblacks the libs who want higher gas prices throw up to drag things out.

    Steve (2bc110)

  101. People can save dramatically on gasoline by moving closer to their workplaces.

    Sure. You can save dramatically on gas by taking a bath on your underwater house and spending thousands of dollars on moving expenses.

    People must only go into journalism because they could barely pass high school math and econ is way, way over their heads.

    Oh, and I did move closer to where I worked. Then Obamanomics caused the business to fail. This JournObamunist thinks it makes sense to force everyone to move every few months or years just to shut them up about Obamunomics and its skyrocketing energy costs.

    Steve (2bc110)

  102. _____________________________________________

    I think there’s a lot of generic kvetching that many people do just because complaining is the way we know to interact with each other… — Comment by aphrael

    Clearly that has changed for liberals, who prefer those who aren’t elites to merely subsist. — Comment by DRJ

    During these past 4 years — during debates like the one in this thread — I often think of information like the following and wonder how it is (or isn’t) reflected in people’s attitudes. BTW, the difference in happiness between those on the left and right persists regardless of who occupies the White House. That’s been quite a challenge for at least someone like me (but I’m assuming that optimism and happiness are interrelated) during a time when, among other things, Jeremiah Wright’s former buddy is the president.

    realclearpolitics.com, Dennis Prager, November 2010:

    According to polls — Pew Research Center, the National Science Foundation — and studies such as Professor Arthur Brooks’ Gross National Happiness, conservative Americans are happier than liberal Americans. Liberals respond this way: “If we’re unhappier, it’s because we are more upset than conservatives over the plight of those less fortunate than ourselves.” But common sense and data suggest other explanations.

    For one thing, conservatives on the same socioeconomic level as liberals give more charity and volunteer more time than do liberals. And as regards the suffering of non-Americans, for at least a half-century, conservatives have been far more willing to sacrifice American treasure and American blood (often their own) for other nations’ liberty.

    Both of these facts refute the liberals-are-more-concerned-about-others explanation for liberal unhappiness. So, let’s look at other explanations.

    Perhaps we are posing the question backward when we ask why liberals are less happy than conservatives. The question implies that liberalism causes unhappiness. And while this is true, it may be equally correct to say that unhappy people are more likely to adopt leftist positions. Take black Americans, for example. It makes perfect sense that a black American who is essentially happy is going to be less attracted to the left. Anyone who has interacted with black conservatives rarely encounters an angry, unhappy person. Why?

    Because the liberal view on race is that America is a racist society. Therefore, for all intents and purposes, a black American must abandon liberalism in order to be a happy individual. It is very hard, if not impossible, to be a happy person while believing that society is out to hurt you. So, the unhappy black will gravitate to liberalism, and liberalism will in turn make him unhappier by reinforcing his view that he is a victim.

    The unhappy gravitate toward the left for a second reason. Life is hard for liberals, and life is hard for conservatives. But conservatives assume that life will always be hard. Liberals, on the other hand, have utopian dreams.

    Third, imagine two Americans living in essentially identical socioeconomic conditions. Both earn $45,000 a year, both have the same amount of debt on their homes and both have the same number of dependents. One seeks governmental assistance wherever possible; the other eschews any governmental help. Which one is likely to be the liberal and which one is likely to be the happier individual?

    The one who yearns for governmental help is the one who is likely to be both liberal and less happy. Conservatism, which demands self-reliance, makes one happier. The more one feels that he is captain of his or her ship (as poor as that ship may be), the happier he or she will be.

    A fourth explanation for greater unhappiness among liberals is that the more people allow feelings to govern them, the less happy they will be. And the further left one goes, the more importance one attaches to feelings.

    Mark (31bbb6)

  103. 36. We produce 2% of the worlds oil, yet consume 20%.

    More dometic drilling isn’t going to make much of a dent in that equation.

    Wow. According to Morningafter we produce 2% of the world’s oil. We consume 20%. If we do something to up 2% it changes nothing.

    If we produce more, see, that won’t change the equation.

    We need to lower that 20%.

    BUT IF WE CONSUME LESS, IT WILL!

    This is what they’re teaching at the Karl Marx school of economics these days?

    We have an equation with two variables, X and Y. We can change variable X all we want and it doesn’t change the equation. If we change Y a few percentage points in the right direction we achieve nirvana.

    Steve (2bc110)

  104. i feel bad for people what can’t afford gasolines cause of how Obama has raised the prices so high

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  105. I probably should address one of Obama’s biggest public lies. He constantly drones on about how we can’t drill our way out of this because we have only 2% of the world’s “proven oil reserves.”

    And the Obama base sits there and thinks to itself between bong hits, “Wow, those wingnuts who want to ‘drill, drill, drill’ must be crazy because we dont’ have much oil.”

    See, Obama knows his base is stupid. Because “proven oil reserves” is a legal term of art. It means oil that can be 1) extracted using existing technology under 2) current economic conditions (i.e. at a profit) and under 3) current regulatory conditions.

    It’s not the same thing as oil in the ground. We’re sitting on top of a sea of oil, and as the technology for extracting it advances more and more becomes available.

    Cheap gas is not a right enshrined in the constitution.

    Morningafter, noted economist, historian, and political scientist reminds us that cheap gas is not a right enshrined in the Constitution.

    It is one of two of his “deep thoughts” for the day that he has shared with us on this thread. He has just noticed that the Constitution has nothing to do with the price of commodities, and thinks he has picked up on a subtle wrinkle the rest of us have missed.

    Thank you for sharing this epiphany with us, Morningafter.

    The fact of the matter is that we would could energy independent on North America, or very close to it, except for the fact that it doesn’t fit the liberal paradigm. We were supposed to be running out of oil right now. Somebody back in the ’50s came up with a peak oil theory and, it’s not working out like he said it would. So liberals are engineering an oil crisis.

    They’re the ones who are anti-science. As the technology for oil exploration improves and the technology for extraction improves we are finding more and more of the stuff and are able to safely and cheaply extract more and more of the stuff this flies in the face of approved opinion of the editorial boards of the LAT, NYT, WAPO, et al.

    We are supposed to be weaning ourselves off of this cheap, available, clean, dense, and vast supply of energy because, why? They say so.

    They have a subtle point in that we can’t blame Obama entirely for high gas prices. No we need to blame the larger liberal/enviro establishment for lying to us for decades. But Obama’s the point man for them now so he gets the political slings and arrows.

    It isn’t just energy or environmental policy these leftists have established, it’s national security policy. The extremists including the Wahhabists in Saudi Arabia are awash in money now and threatening our security is because that’s how the leftists have arranged it. If we increased production now, or even announced we were increasing production and the Obama admin unclenched its sphincter and released a few exploration and drilling permits, that would have a dramatic effect on oil prices right now.

    Sorry, Morningafter, I know they don’t explain how a futures market works at KMU, but I don’t have time to fill you in.

    We are only in this fix now because of item #3 in the definition of “proven oil reserves” I provided earlier. In other words, this is an artificial situation we are in because the Democrats want it this way.

    Punish accordingly at the polls in November.

    Steve (2bc110)

  106. i feel bad for people what can’t afford gasolines cause of how Obama has raised the prices so high

    I don’t. The idiots who can’t afford gas because of Obama are largely the ones who couldn’t afford it when it was a lot cheaper under Bush.

    In other words the ones who voted for Obama thinking he was going to “help them fill their gas tanks, and pay their mortgages.”

    Steve (2bc110)

  107. And hey, if I could have afforded a ’67 Vette . . .

    Comment by Icy

    Actually, i was thinking of a buddy’s “Indy 500” version ’77 as being gutless, but I’m sure the ’78 was about the same. It was the times… I bought a new ’78 Buick Turbo Regal that had a whopping 165HP to motivate 3400 lbs! It was such a piece o’ dook that it was the last GM car I ever bought.

    Colonel Haiku (09b2e1)

  108. I can see now Pat on his MoPed
    To the crook the angry judge said
    I’ll let you go free
    But I’m not happy
    Pat’s late again and I’m seeing red!

    The Limerick Avenger (f68855)

  109. Pat, move closer to court!
    So trials you do not abort
    By tempting fate
    And running late
    On a bike designed by a dork.

    The Limerick Avenger (f68855)

  110. Gas is high, but it’s not my fault,
    Said O, who’s re-election could halt
    When people get sad
    And then they get mad
    And the best of them start going Galt!

    The Limerick Avenger (f68855)

  111. _______________________________________________

    Somebody back in the ’50s came up with a peak oil theory and, it’s not working out like he said it would.

    I saw information similar to the following not long ago and was surprised. Since I (and most others) have been aware of the theory of so-called “peak oil,” where the US in particular and the world in general are supposed to see nothing but a declining volume of oil from here on out, I did a double take when I realized that the ingenuity, resourcefulness and skills of humans should never be underestimated.

    ft.com, December 2, 2011:

    In a reversal of roles, US oil production has begun to rise, and expectations are growing that North America (including Canada, where production is growing even faster) will become an increasingly potent force in world oil markets. Even the Saudis, holders of the world’s largest reserves of crude, are having to pay attention.

    In a speech in Riyadh last month, Khalid al-Falih, Saudi Aramco’s chief executive, the kingdom’s national oil company, described what he saw as an age of “abundance” of fossil fuels. That meant ample supplies not just of natural gas unlocked by the shale gas revolution, but also of oil, thanks to reserves being opened up in deep water and the Arctic, and “tight oil” onshore production in the US. Expectations of increased supply from the US and Canada are one reason why Saudi Aramco has decided not to raise its capacity beyond its present target of 12.5m barrels a day.

    The US is reversing its four-decade decline in oil production, from a peak in 1971, thanks to increases in production from the deep waters of the Gulf of Mexico and from tight oil: onshore fields previously not thought to be commercially viable because the oil flowed from them too slowly, but have been unlocked by the same ”fracking” techniques used for extracting shale gas. These involve horizontal drilling and the injection of chemicals into the rock strata.

    The use of these methods is creating a boom in onshore US oil production, centred for now on North Dakota’s Bakken formation, but with the potential to spread to many other states, from Texas, to Colorado, to Ohio. The effects could be profound. US imports have already fallen to less than 50 per cent of consumption, from a peak in 2005 of 60 per cent.

    The International Energy Agency, the think-tank backed by rich countries, has predicted net US production will rise modestly, by about 500,000 barrels a day, by 2035. Others, for example from the National Petroleum Council, an independent advisory body to the federal government, suggest stronger growth is possible.

    [T]he breakneck pace of growth is creating strains for the companies and the communities where they operate. With North Dakota’s unemployment at just 3.5 per cent, as one oil industry adviser says: “If you can walk down the street and keep breathing, you can get a job.” As a result wages are soaring, as are operators’ costs, putting pressure on some to scale back their expansions plans, at least for the time being.

    ^ This new, altered reality can play into the hands of either liberals or conservatives. But I’d say the left, with its concern about global warming and devotion to the religion of environmentalism overall will have the most reason to shrug off the idea of oil prices soaring (Hi, Obama and your Secretary of Energy, Stephen Chu!) and deem that reduced supplies of gasoline — because it therefore makes Greenie ideas and projects (Hi, Solyndra! Hi, Al Gore and your original embrace of ethanol!) more competitive and fashionable — is a good thing.

    Mark (31bbb6)

  112. I love the sound of thermonuclear fisking in the morning.

    M. Scott Eiland (003254)

  113. #72 Comment by aphrael — 2/25/2012 @ 11:00 am,

    “The one point where i’m not sure about the beat up ’82 silverado is emissions”

    I wonder about that, Sir. I am not an expert but I seem to recall that the early 1970s controls reduced emissions by over 90% and that mid 70s controls reduced it a total of 99% with late 70s controls aimed at .9% of the remaining 1%. I seriously wonder if, this far past the point of diminishing returns, there would really be that much difference between an 1982 truck and one of today’s. How many miles would have to be driven to offset the real pollution costs of making the new car that were referred to.

    Machinist (b6f7da)

  114. 36. We produce 2% of the worlds oil, yet consume 20%.

    Yes, and with that 20% of oil, we produce 28% (or more) of world GDP.
    So, it would seem, that like the old saying goes:
    When the U.S. economy sneezes, the world economy gets pneumonia.
    Teh Won is trying to put us into intensive care, and devil care the hindmost about the rest of the world.

    AD-RtR/OS! (bb07cd)

  115. If I knew where we’d be today, I might have bought a house in a high-flood coastal area worth 10x what I could afford, because the government helps those owners. Do you really want a country where people make choices like that?

    Our house is worth considerably less than we paid for it — which is OK, because our previous place was sold for considerably more than we paid, so we’re still ahead.

    But because we can and do make our payments, we are, I guess, not eligible for the big bailout that was passed recently.

    If we stopped making payments, maybe we would be. I haven’t looked into it, because we’re not going to just stop making payments that we can afford to make. But am I incredibly annoyed by the situation? As someone once said: You betcha!

    Patterico (17e5f6)

  116. Join the club.

    AD-RtR/OS! (bb07cd)

  117. Our esteemed host wrote:

    Our house is worth considerably less than we paid for it — which is OK, because our previous place was sold for considerably more than we paid, so we’re still ahead.

    But because we can and do make our payments, we are, I guess, not eligible for the big bailout that was passed recently.

    Why, you should be supporting President Obama! His latest plan

    is an expansion of an existing program to help borrowers who are not behind on their payments but cannot refinance because they do not enough equity in their home. Or they might be underwater–which means they owe more than their home is worth.

    C’mon, Pat, don’t be a fuddy-duddy; you, too, can join the welfare state! All you have to do is sign up, and, of course, mark your ballot for Teh Won this November!

    The Dana whose dear, departed mother was a mortgage banker (f68855)

  118. Some on the fringes even believe rising prices are part of a right-wing conspiracy to slow the economic recovery and thus hurt Obama’s reelection chances.

    it’s far more likely that our cowardly job-raping president is grateful grateful grateful to have something what can be cast as an exogenous factor for to blame little country’s laughingstock economy on

    plus he gets to blame oil companies

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  119. @ aphrael: re vehicle emissions…

    if Lost Angeles had the same number of vehicles it did back when that Siverado was licensed, instead of the larger number it does today our air quality would be substantially better.

    granted, the geographical situation of Lost Angels precludes it ever being a clean air haven, even without a large human population, it is the total number of clean vehicles here that causes the problem, not their individual cleanliness.

    now all you have to do is figure out how to control population numbers without destroying economic health.

    you can get back to me on that, at it may be a two pipe problem. 😉

    redc1c4 (403dff)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1207 secs.