posted
Monday, Aug. 04, 2008 The Tire-Gauge Solution: No Joke By Michael Grunwald
How out of touch is Barack Obama? He's so out of touch that he suggested that if all Americans inflated their tires properly and took their cars for regular tune-ups, they could save as much oil as new offshore drilling would produce. Gleeful Republicans have made this their daily talking point; Rush Limbaugh is having a field day; and the Republican National Committee is sending tire gauges labeled "Barack Obama's Energy Plan" to Washington reporters.
But who's really out of touch? The Bush Administration estimates that expanded offshore drilling could increase oil production by 200,000 bbl. per day by 2030. We use about 20 million bbl. per day, so that would meet about 1% of our demand two decades from now. Meanwhile, efficiency experts say that keeping tires inflated can improve gas mileage 3%, and regular maintenance can add another 4%. Many drivers already follow their advice, but if everyone did, we could immediately reduce demand several percentage points. In other words: Obama is right.
In fact, Obama's actual energy plan is much more than a tire gauge. But that's not what's so pernicious about the tire-gauge attacks. Politics ain't beanbag, and Obama has defended himself against worse smears. The real problem with the attacks on his tire-gauge plan is that efforts to improve conservation and efficiency happen to be the best approaches to dealing with the energy crisis — the cheapest, cleanest, quickest and easiest ways to ease our addiction to oil, reduce our pain at the pump and address global warming. It's a pretty simple concept: if our use of fossil fuels is increasing our reliance on Middle Eastern dictators while destroying the planet, maybe we ought to use less.
The RNC is trying to make the tire gauge a symbol of unseriousness, as if only the fatuous believed we could reduce our dependence on foreign oil without doing the bidding of Big Oil. But the tire gauge is really a symbol of a very serious piece of good news: we can use significantly less energy without significantly changing our lifestyle. The energy guru Amory Lovins has shown that investment in "nega-watts" — reduced electricity use through efficiency improvements — is much more cost-effective than investment in new megawatts, and the same is clearly true of nega-barrels. It might not fit the worldviews of right-wingers who deny the existence of global warming and insist that reducing emissions would destroy our economy, or of left-wing Earth-firsters who insist that maintaining our creature comforts would destroy the world, but there's a lot of simple things we can do on the demand side before we start rushing to ratchet up supply.
We can use those twisty carbon fluorescent lightbulbs. We can unplug our televisions, computers and phone chargers when we're not using them. We can seal our windows, install more insulation and adjust our thermostats so that we waste less heat and air-conditioning. We can use more-efficient appliances, build more-efficient homes and drive more-efficient cars, preferably with government assistance. And, yes, we can inflate our tires and tune our engines, as Republican governors Arnold Schwarzenegger of California and Charlie Crist of Florida have urged, apparently without consulting the RNC. While we're at it, we can cut down on idling, which can improve fuel economy another 5%, and cut down on speeding and unnecessary acceleration, which can increase mileage as much as 20%.
And that's just the low-hanging fruit. There are other ways to reduce demand for oil — more public transportation, more carpooling, more telecommuting, more recycling, less exurban sprawl, fewer unnecessary car trips, buying less stuff and eating less meat — that would require at least some lifestyle changes. But things like tire gauges can reduce gas bills and carbon emissions now, with little pain and at little cost and without the ecological problems and oil-addiction problems associated with offshore drilling. These are the proverbial win-win-win solutions, reducing the pain of $100 trips to the gas station by reducing trips to the gas station. And Americans are already starting to adopt them, ditching SUVs, buying hybrids, reducing overall gas consumption. It's hard to see why anyone who isn't affiliated with the oil industry would object to them.
Of course, in recent years, the Republican Party has been affiliated with the oil industry. It was the oilman Dick Cheney who dismissed conservation as a mere sign of "personal virtue," not a basis for energy policy. It was the oilman George W. Bush who resisted efforts to regulate carbon emissions. And most congressional Republicans have been even more reliable water carriers for the industry's interests.
John McCain has been a notable exception. He is not an oilman; he has pushed to regulate carbon emissions; and he opposed Bush's pork-stuffed energy bill, which Obama supported. He also opposed efforts to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and until recently opposed new offshore drilling. But now that gas prices have spiked, McCain is running for President on a drill-first platform, and polls suggest that most Americans agree with him. It's sad to see his campaign adopting the politics of the tire gauge, promoting the fallacy that Americans are powerless to address their own energy problems. Because the truth is: Yes, we can. We already are.
posted
Poor dumb McCain. He' been makin the rounds today amittin he was full of it about tire inflation.
He better be careful, though, because the traditional republican interest is in helping the oil companies take our money and inflating tires will cut into their profits. The party first republicans (that's the base) will get P. O.ed with him again.
Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The part that the Dem's don't seem to get...
While we want to reduce our dependance on oil, which can be done by the tire pressure and tune up stuff; what were also trying to do is reduce our dependance on FOREIGN oil.
It's one thing to say we need to conserve so we use less of it altogether. But to stonewall more drilling here so we aren't sending billions of dollars overseas each year is just suicidal.
quote:We can use those twisty carbon fluorescent lightbulbs. We can unplug our televisions, computers and phone chargers when we're not using them. We can seal our windows, install more insulation and adjust our thermostats so that we waste less heat and air-conditioning. We can use more-efficient appliances, build more-efficient homes and drive more-efficient cars, preferably with government assistance. And, yes, we can inflate our tires and tune our engines
The environmental wackos would prefer that YOU (not them) just give up your car and house and live in a hut. Al Gore encourages you to ride your bike, while he's jetting around in a private jet. The wackos want you to use twisty bulbs while they're living in mansions with utility bills that are greater than your mortgage payment. The wackos want you to become carbon neutral by purchasing carbon credits FROM THEIR COMPANIES!!!
This is ridiculous! Instead of being a country of scarcity and decline, we should be drilling EVERYWHERE there is oil while we are aggressively encouraging alternative energy sources. However, this entire environmental wacko movement is based on a philosophy of scarcity and the wackos will fight every energy source, whether it's wind, solar, nuclear, shale, etc. This entire scam is about a move to socialism - NOT THE ENVIRONMENT.
Posts: 1577 | From: Ohio | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Saying that offshore drilling that will only put out 200.000 barrels a day by 2030 not going to do it.
Increasing our domestic supply while reducing our overall oil use will make that 'measly' 200,000 barrels go along way, Bond.
If the oil people are so concerned about domestic production why weren't theydrilling more here years ago?
We would be if Bush Sr. and Bill Clinton hadn't stopped it dead in it tracks...
The Congressional moratorium was first enacted in 1982, and has been renewed every year since. It prohibits oil and gas leasing on most of the outer continental shelf, 3 miles to 200 miles offshore. Since 1990, it has been supplemented by the first President Bush’s executive order, which directed the Interior Department not to conduct offshore leasing or preleasing activity in areas covered by the legislative ban until 2000. In 1998, President Bill Clinton extended the offshore leasing prohibition until 2012. One person familiar with the deliberations inside the White House said that Mr. Bush was briefed on Tuesday by his top aides, including Joshua B. Bolten, the chief of staff, and that the aides recommended lifting the executive order.
25 years ago we could have been getting oil independant. By now we'd be almost there if we had.
Posts: 1802 | From: Utah | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by SeekingFreedom: The part that the Dem's don't seem to get...
While we want to reduce our dependance on oil, which can be done by the tire pressure and tune up stuff; what were also trying to do is reduce our dependance on FOREIGN oil.
It's one thing to say we need to conserve so we use less of it altogether. But to stonewall more drilling here so we aren't sending billions of dollars overseas each year is just suicidal.
VOTE PARIS!!! ;)
Do you actually believe that with 33 billion acres of offshore dilling rights that they have refused to drill in for years, that giving them the right to drill in more will have any effect? Hell, man, they have plenty of places off shore with proven reserves they won't touch now!
Are you simply a glutton for punishment?
Maybe we should let you have to learn that lesson AGAIN.
But, you see, in order for you to take that punishment and learn that lesson AGAIN, you want to insist that I (and the rest of the people) suffer through it with you and waste OUR money with yours. No thanks. Go be a dummy on your own nickel an leave ours alone.
Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by bdgee: But, you see, in order for you to take that punishment and learn that lesson AGAIN, you want to insist that I (and the rest of the people) suffer through it with you and waste OUR money with yours. No thanks. Go be a dummy on your own nickel an leave ours alone.
ROFLMAO
Oh, that's a good one, Bdgee...
That's been my statement to the Dem's for years. Waste your own money...but leave me alone.
posted
Besides, what's to stop the Gov from leasing to companies (other than the big 5) with the limits that the oil produced only be sellable to american refineries? And then offer incentives to american based refineries with the limitation that the gas is only sold to american gas stations? Both of these would lower domestic prices while removing the dependance on foreign sources. Add that to the consevation movements and we're moving toward energy independance.
Posts: 1802 | From: Utah | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by SeekingFreedom: Besides, what's to stop the Gov from leasing to companies (other than the big 5) with the limits that the oil produced only be sellable to american refineries? And then offer incentives to american based refineries with the limitation that the gas is only sold to american gas stations? Both of these would lower domestic prices while removing the dependance on foreign sources. Add that to the consevation movements and we're moving toward energy independance.
More than just few of the billions of barrels of oil produced in the U.S, are sold elsewhere and requiring that it not be sold elsewhere would only cause the cost of oil to go up. With the cost of shipping figured in, generally it is possible to sell oil produced here to some place else and import other oil for our own use at a considerable savings. What you propose would disallow those billions of dollars in savings.
Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
With the cost of shipping figured in, generally it is possible to sell oil produced here to some place else and import other oil for our own use at a considerable savings. What you propose would disallow those billions of dollars in savings.
Are you talking about the same grade of crude in this example, Bdgee? Because that doesn't make any economic sense at all if you are.
Posts: 1802 | From: Utah | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Producing more oil here (increase domestic drilling\refining) will lower the need for imported oil. No matter how you look at that, it will only lower the price of oil for us. Even on the global level, lower demand by the U.S. will mean more to go around the rest of the world which will, again, lower the price.
How is that not a win\win?
Posts: 1802 | From: Utah | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by SeekingFreedom: Producing more oil here (increase domestic drilling\refining) will lower the need for imported oil. No matter how you look at that, it will only lower the price of oil for us. Even on the global level, lower demand by the U.S. will mean more to go around the rest of the world which will, again, lower the price.
How is that not a win\win?
it really is simple.
we can increase our production at max to offset imports by 2%....
OPEC can decrease their production by less than 1/4 of 1% to offset that and still make the exact same money....
the only viable alternative is to decrease our consumption by at least 25% and increase our production...
the "political" problem is that historically? when OPEC decided to open the valve? everybody in the US just bought more...
when i got out of HS and was broke and trying to make my way into the world? gasoline cost just as much as it does today adjusted for inflation... and nobody learned that lesson then... as a matter of fact? Reagan undid alot of conservation measures...
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
There seems o be a whole bunch of economics (as well as other realities) that flies right passed your head, without even slowing down, let alone attempting to soak in. It's as if you have a defensive shield to protect you from facts and reality.
Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
There seems o be a whole bunch of economics (as well as other realities) that flies right passed your head, without even slowing down, let alone attempting to soak in. It's as if you have a defensive shield to protect you from facts and reality.
Feel free to share them, Bdgee. I'm still waiting to hear anything by childish taunting from you.
Posts: 1802 | From: Utah | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
There seems o be a whole bunch of economics (as well as other realities) that flies right passed your head, without even slowing down, let alone attempting to soak in. It's as if you have a defensive shield to protect you from facts and reality.
Feel free to share them, Bdgee. I'm still waiting to hear anything by childish taunting from you.
The only thing you are waiting (or willing) to hear is the echo of your own memorized regurgitations from the RNC.
We have heard that same very old crappy logic-less proposals for decades and EVERY attempt to implement them has led to economic disaster.
Once again, we are about to buy out the banks (read that as the very rich republican establishment) from the latest free market money transfer of wealth from the slim pocket of the poor and middle class (via the U. S Treasury) into the off shore hidden fortunes of the very rich, never to see the light of taxation in the U. S. again.
We have heard the idiotic drivel you espouse and seen the results of it before. Try learning something from history. At least try to show the courtesy of ceasing to try to shove it down our throats (again and again, without even the respect of admitting it is purely propaganda, is without basis, and is only your opinion) blown all out of proportion , as if hearing that simple minded B.S. were our lot in life.
If you want to be treated with respect, try providing just wee bit yourself and stop acting as if you are god's special tutor to the masses on political and economic fact that is passed down from on high to you via the RNC talking points.
Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
we import about 15 million BPD. 2% of that would be 300,000 BPD.... that's the high end of the realistic increase in daily production in the US...
300,000 BPD represents less than 1% of OPEC production.... we are already 2 million BPD short on the world oil market.... so increasing by 300,000 would help a little, but the cuts OPEC have to make would be much less than that to keep the price high.......
OPEC produces 30 to 32 million BPD.....
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The only thing you are waiting (or willing) to hear is the echo of your own memorized regurgitations from the RNC.
No, Bdgee, I was waiting (in vain apparently) for actual dialogue. Yet once again, all I get is another post filled with nothing but taunts and insults. Sadly, nothing more or less than I expected.
If you don't agree with my opinions, offer your point of view and move on. You don't have to 'convert' to my point of view any more than I have to accept yours. If you have a problem with the data I offer (when offering fact to back up a point) then correct me with more accurate facts.
Otherwise, don't ask that I show more 'respect' when none has been forthcoming from you since you returned to posting on this board.
Posts: 1802 | From: Utah | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
My concern with using those numbers, Glass,(which are similar to those I've heard mentioned on tv), is that that is only utilizing current production capabilities as a metric. We have the resources to invest in increasing that capability. It's the lack of such investment in domestic oil production that is forcing us to remain enslaved to other countries.
I agree with you that we need to reduce our dependance on oil...period. But current technology requires it's use for a while yet. And as long as that need exists, we would be better served in my opinion by using our own assests rather than having to beg for them from foreign nations. Those assests are quite substancial if we are but willing to invest in accessing them.
Posts: 1802 | From: Utah | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
There currently is offshore drilling going on. Doesn't seem to be that much production from it.
The whole idea that offshore drilling will somehow help to relieve the US from dependance on foreign oil is nothing more than a political ploy during an election year.
Besides the fact that any new drilling will have no effect for years to come, there just isn't enough.
IMO, we would be better off spending the money on developing alternatives to oil that would truly end our dependance on foreign oil.
Posts: 3255 | From: Los Angeles California | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
We have the resources to invest in increasing that capability
and 300,000 BPD takes that into account... you have to remember that US oil has been being tapped for 100 years already...
Prudhoe bay wells peak within a year or two and drop off. we've already taken out 13 billion barrels there since '77 and production will continue to drop...
this is normal in offshore drilling...
in other words? we in the US are chasing a moving target...
if you consider that there is a finite amount of oil and you want to be the last one with oil? do you think taking it out now is a good long term plan?
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by SeekingFreedom: The only thing you are waiting (or willing) to hear is the echo of your own memorized regurgitations from the RNC.
No, Bdgee, I was waiting (in vain apparently) for actual dialogue. Yet once again, all I get is another post filled with nothing but taunts and insults. Sadly, nothing more or less than I expected.
If you have a problem with the data I offer (when offering fact to back up a point) then correct me with more accurate facts.
Otherwise, don't ask that I show more 'respect' when none has been forthcoming from you since you returned to posting on this board.
Look closely in the mirror and read your own words very slowly so that they may possibly sink in, even past the vitriol and habitual language of hate and intended insult that you can't seem to distinguish from facts and which ever lace through your patterns of speech when any topic, opinion, stance, or iota of information is in consideration, but which does not march in step wih the propaganda of the likes Limbugh or Coulter.
"If you don't agree with my opinions, offer your point of view and move on. You don't have to 'convert' to my point of view any more than I have to accept yours."
Take it to heart and learn to not belittle and slander everything you can't understand or don't want others to understand.
Offer information and facts to back up your claims, particularly when you offer opposition to someone's point, instead of your constant habit of responding with personal attacks and insinuating labeling and insult, which is what you do provide in lieu of information.
You have every right to an opinion, but you owe it to others to stop the insulting insinuations and labeling. Debate, contrary to republican practices, is more than slandering and insulting those with different views.
Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by glassman: We have the resources to invest in increasing that capability
and 300,000 BPD takes that into account... you have to remember that US oil has been being tapped for 100 years already...
Prudhoe bay wells peak within a year or two and drop off. we've already taken out 13 billion barrels there since '77 and production will continue to drop...
this is normal in offshore drilling...
in other words? we in the US are chasing a moving target...
if you consider that there is a finite amount of oil and you want to be the last one with oil? do you think taking it out now is a good long term plan?
Just don't forget about the 4.3B barrels in North Dakota which are currently just starting to be tapped. Offshore would give US a small nugget compared to that. How about we develop that instead on the offf-shore BS?
-------------------- It is impossible to make anything foolproof because fools are so ingenious. Posts: 3311 | From: St. Louis | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
i am not even convinced the oil co's give a chit about the offshore being opened... the oil rigs to drill and explore the deep waters cost hundreds of thousands per day to lease, and cost billions to build... it is not in their interest to make heavy investments like that if we are going to invest heavily in alternatives...
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Let's get real and tell the truth for just one moment. The TRUTH is that the left hates big oil. In fact, they hate big business (case in point - Walmart).
This entire thing is not about oil or energy - it's about control! Bond openly said what the wackos on the socialist left believe: "Nationalize is the only answer that and a rope".
Posts: 1577 | From: Ohio | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Propertymanager: Let's get real and tell the truth for just one moment. The TRUTH is that the left hates big oil. In fact, they hate big business (case in point - Walmart).
This entire thing is not about oil or energy - it's about control! Bond openly said what the wackos on the socialist left believe: "Nationalize is the only answer that and a rope".
and the truth is you hate them for that?
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
No, I don't hate them. However, I do think that they are trying to destroy our way of life.
Posts: 1577 | From: Ohio | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged |
even by your own admission you don't want to work "for the man" that's one of the few things you and i seem to have in common...
what i see is big business without conscience... the only thing "right" is making a profit... and being concerned about that that doesn't make me a socialist...
it's just one example after another of corporate entities showing no moral compass... i don't like rules and regs, but when you have none, or just ignore the ones you have? chaos rules... and i see chaos.... if you ask all the "leftists" (here anyway) if they want to move to China and live like they do? i bet you'll get a resounding no in response...
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:if you ask all the "leftists" (here anyway) if they want to move to China and live like they do? i bet you'll get a resounding no in response...
I wish they would move to China! Unfortunately, what they want to do is change the United States into a socialist state, apparently complete with killing anyone that doesn't agree. Again, here's what Bond said:
quote:Nationalize is the only answer that and a rope
posted
but you would be happy there... nobody questions authority there ever.... and every revolutionary thought is immediately squashed by tanks... no foolin' around with tear gas and water cannons, they go right to the "good stuff"
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:but you would be happy there... nobody questions authority there ever.... and every revolutionary thought is immediately squashed by tanks... no foolin' around with tear gas and water cannons, they go right to the "good stuff"
...except, I am not a socialist. I don't want to be part of a socialist society. I believe in FREEDOM and Capitalism! I don't want government to control me. You are confusing the police fighting CRIME in the US with the government squashing freedom in China. That is an important difference.
Posts: 1577 | From: Ohio | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Were Up]](graemlins/wereup.gif)
