Cap-and-trade will seriously damage gasoline refining
posted at 1:36 pm on August 24, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
Most of the focus on the damage coming from cap-and-trade has focused on electrical prices and their multiplier effect throughout the economy, but that won’t be the only place consumers feel the pinch. The Wall Street Journal reports on a study which shows that gasoline refining in the US — already unable to meet demand — will get further damaged by Waxman-Markey. Production will drop by 17% after it goes into law, and the US will have to import even more of its gasoline, leading to higher prices and more reliance on foreign producers:
Proposed federal legislation aimed at curbing global warming would drastically reduce domestic fuel production, according to a new study commissioned by the oil industry as part of its campaign to oppose new restrictions.
The report’s findings, which are expected to be released Monday, project that by 2030, U.S. refining production could drop 17% from today’s levels if the climate bill is passed as currently proposed. The drop would have to be made up by foreign imports, the study says, meaning the U.S. could end up relying on other countries for 19.4% of its refined fuel — nearly twice the amount it imports today.
The American Petroleum Institute, the U.S. oil industry’s main trade group, commissioned the study in an effort to hammer home its argument that restrictions on emissions will be a burden on U.S. refiners. Although part of an attempt to derail the bill, the report gives the first detailed prediction of the legislation’s impact on refining operations. The report was done by EnSys Energy, a consultancy that specializes in the refining sector.
The report also underscores the bleak prospects for refiners, who have had profits wiped out by slumping demand during the recession.
During the 2008 price escalation, most Americans realized that our dependence on foreign producers left us vulnerable to supply shocks and whims of hostile regimes overseas. Even though we buy most of our oil from the Western Hemisphere, with Canada and Mexico our primary partners, oil prices reflect a worldwide market. Embargoes and production reductions by other producers raise prices of crude oil around the world. The same is even more true of refining exporters, a narrower category where individual producers can have a bigger impact.
In 2008, both John McCain and Barack Obama proposed solving the problem with an explosion of renewable-energy resources, but McCain understood that it would take decades to bring that to fruition and proposed an aggressive use of American oil, coal, and natural-gas resources in the next 15 years as a transition. Obama paid lip service to this idea but in practice has opposed it. Waxman-Markey’s allowances tilt heavily towards electricity production and almost ignore refiners. While the growth of demand for gasoline will decline as cars get more efficient, the demand itself will not drop nearly enough to compensate for the lack of domestic production.
The result? We will either make ourselves even more reliant on more expensive imports, or we will run out of gasoline during peak demand periods. The latter will lead to rationing such as that seen during the 1973-4 and 1979 energy crises, where people waited for hours in long lines to get limited supplies of gasoline for their primary transportation. Waxman-Markey leads directly to that result, and not in 20 years but in just a few years after implementation.
Instead of making ourselves more self-reliant, the Obama administration will put us even more at the mercy of foreign suppliers of energy. Will we wait until we get stuck in those rationing lines to realize it?
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
So you’re saying that the industry is secretly in favor of cap-and-trade? I am second to none in my respect for the intellect of oil industry personnel — though I’m pretty sure there are some bright people in public service — but they are indeed human and protecting their own self-interests is a pretty universal trait.
You’re familiar with supply and demand, right? Diminished demand in the face of constant supply sends prices down.
Bleeds Blue on August 24, 2009 at 3:03 PM
They are an international company. Demand by countries not in deep recession (which will soon pretty much be confined to the USA, thanks to the Obama “administration”) is only going to increase.
And there are no subsitutes for oil even in our slumping country and there are none on the horizon.
NoDonkey on August 24, 2009 at 3:07 PM
If we can keep Obama from passing unicornfairyrainbowhappycare, there isn’t a snowball’s chance in hell this will see the light of day.
jhffmn on August 24, 2009 at 3:08 PM
Bleeds Blue,
Why don’t you lead us all by example? Turn off your computer never to turn it back on, give away your car, walk from now on to wherever you need to go, and disconnect your home from the power grid?
rukiddingme on August 24, 2009 at 3:08 PM
rukiddingme on August 24, 2009 at 3:08 PM
That will happen the moment Barack Obama sends his precious offspring to public schools on public transportation.
But they’re just fine for you and your kids, really they are.
NoDonkey on August 24, 2009 at 3:15 PM
Not too bright, are you? Diminished supply with constant demand level means price increase or shortage. How do you expect a law to change demand?
Vashta.Nerada on August 24, 2009 at 3:16 PM
Interesting point, I’ll go let India and China know they should halt industrial development. We wouldn’t want them driving demand up and putting a wrench in your logic.
jhffmn on August 24, 2009 at 3:17 PM
Um, how do you plan to reduce demand?
blink on August 24, 2009 at 3:17 PM
Vashta.Nerada on August 24, 2009 at 3:16 PM
To be fair, if it kills our economy, demand for oil will probably drop.
So we’ve got that going for us.
NoDonkey on August 24, 2009 at 3:17 PM
But then you’d have no one to argue with, and what fun would that be?
The larger point, though, is that except for a few weirdos that annoy even mainstream lefties like myself, no one is advocating going back to the stone age. A gradual reduction in the emission of greenhouse gasses through new technology and conservation measures is all we’re after (in this regard). This is somtehing that is entirely within the capacity of the American economy.
You do realize that cap-and-trade is already in effect regarding SO2 emissions and has brought a significant reduction in atmospheric sulfur dioxide (and thus acid rain) at a cost far less than originally expected.
Bleeds Blue on August 24, 2009 at 3:20 PM
Why would it kill the economy? Because price increases due to the tax? If so, then those price increases would offset any price decreases due to decreased demand.
blink on August 24, 2009 at 3:21 PM
NoDonkey on August 24, 2009 at 3:07 PM
Your logic has gone way over Bleeds Blue’s head. It can not understand your facts. Hence the sounds of silence.
rukiddingme on August 24, 2009 at 3:21 PM
So you support nuclear power, yes?
And how do you propose reducing the emission of water vapor?
SO2 is a pollutant. CO2 isn’t.
blink on August 24, 2009 at 3:23 PM
So in other words, do as you say, not as you do?
rukiddingme on August 24, 2009 at 3:23 PM
Ugh… Can this be over please? While I still have 2 cents to rub together?
TCJ on August 24, 2009 at 3:23 PM
Huh? What constant supply?
That doesn’t sound like a constant supply to me. If anything, the opposite will be true. And it will not just affect fuel. Try living without plastics that keep food from spoiling. The ripple effect will be far worse.
But hey, this was a report from the evil oil industry. I’m sure Waxman-Markey is only for our own good.
/Sarc
JohnnyD on August 24, 2009 at 3:23 PM
Libs are complete MORONS when it comes to economics.
Cap & Trade will push our energy developers to China, India & the Mid East.
If this keeps up we will by buying 100% of our energy abroad. And this is Obama’s plan. He is in the White House for one reason. To destroy America.
You can discuss all the ramifications of National Health Care, Cap & Trade, Card Check and the whole Marxist agenda. Once the energy developers leave then it all really becomes a moot point. GM won’t need to worry about bail-outs. It will be dead. Where will those UAW workers turn to? Obama will be run out on a rail. What will GE do? Import foreign made wind turbines?
For what? The factories will be gone. No one in America will have a job except for the Federal workers that are employed to seize your assets.
izoneguy on August 24, 2009 at 3:26 PM
Vashta, you are correct, correct a law will not reduce demand unless the law further hamstrings manufacturing. (think energy quotas)
What Bleeding Blue forgets is that we are facing an Oil Cartel that when its member cooperate can pretty well hit any target they want for a per barrel cost. So even if the law produces magic unicorns with the ability to cause demand to drop, OPEC can cut production pretty much keeping prices just where they want them. They’ve done it before.
A few months ago OPEC said they wanted oil to be at $75 per barrel. Last Friday, we hit that.
Duncan Khuver on August 24, 2009 at 3:28 PM
Actually, given that I live in a smallish row house, have only one car for four drivers, walk to work most days while my wife telecommutes and my daughter takes the subway to school, if everyone did as I did we’d be a much less oil-dependent, carbon emitting nation. Not that I’m asking everyone to.
The point though is that the ingenuity of the affected industries and their scientists and engineers allowed them to find ways of reducing SO2 emissions at a relatively low cost. The same ingenuity brought to bear on CO2 will have the same result.
And I’m down with nuclear power. I always like to see the U.S. following France’s lead. First nukes, and then we can do something about our food…
Bleeds Blue on August 24, 2009 at 3:28 PM
Uh, yeah.
It will raise consumer prices and the price of our goods overseas. It will result in further increases in unemployment.
It will result in an additional burden on domestic businesses that are reeling from the Obama recession.
On the other hand, if we scrapped this stupid idea and vigorously pursued the exploitation of oil in this country, we would reduce unemployment, produce oil cleanly (we produce oil cleaner here than anywhere else in the world) and grow our economy.
NoDonkey on August 24, 2009 at 3:29 PM
Bleeds Blue, it has yet to be proven that CO2 emissions are causing climate change. Cap and trade cannot be about reducing emissions, it is rather a scheme for distributing wealth.
Why the necessity to be fundamentally dishonest about the genuine purpose of cap and trade? Why does it have to be put in place by stealth? Can it not stand on its own merits of wealth distribution (or rather balanced resource consumption) around the planet?
Should we not also be strident in our concerns for how soot deposits from Chinese particulate emissions are causing higher solar absorption at the poles?
An honest debate would test whether Americans would willingly reduce resource consumption in the name of equity and justice. Since socialists already know the answer, they have to lie instead, and obfuscate. Such is the basis of socialism – a government that is perpetually dishonest.
That is a way of life that cannot tolerate, and reject.
shaken on August 24, 2009 at 3:32 PM
Raise consumer prices because the energy prices are higher?
This is Bleeds Blue’s logic flaw.
He’s trying to say that if you increase the cost of energy, then demand will fall, then prices will fall because of the diminished demand.
Burning any hydrocarbon releases CO2. It doesn’t matter how much SOX or NOX you remove, the AGW crowd will still consider oil dirty.
blink on August 24, 2009 at 3:34 PM
I read a lot of history. One constant theme in modern history is that leftists always lie about their true motives, whether it be the Comintern, or the democrat party. All leftist theorists from Marx to Alinsky consider it to be a rule to live by, as their true motives would not be acceptable to a majority.
Vashta.Nerada on August 24, 2009 at 3:36 PM
Shaken —
Run this by me again. You’re claiming that the entire Climate Change debate is really a smokescreen for a global attempt to redistribute wealth? By….how? Enlighten me.
And yes on the Chinese and the soot.
Bleeds Blue on August 24, 2009 at 3:36 PM
Please define “greenhouse gasses”? Is it water vapor? Methane? CO2? What is it? See, that is the problem. One big all encompassing bloated bill will cause more problems than it set out to fix.
Those pesky unintended consequences have a way of ultimately showing up to cause further havoc (and legislation to fix it).
JohnnyD on August 24, 2009 at 3:36 PM
I’ll help. The political response to the false alarm of climate change is twofold: Reduction of suspect molecules by industrialized countries, and taxes in industrialized countries. Cap and trade adds artificial costs to manufacturers and industries in only first world countries, as the others are exempt. The tax platform specifically intends to tax wealthy nations and subsidize poor ones. That is nothing more than redistribution.
Vashta.Nerada on August 24, 2009 at 3:40 PM
Actually what I’m saying is that the adoption of new technologies and change in consumption pattern will reduce the demand. Additionally, to the extent that cap-and-trade acts as a tax, demand will fall, as well, and even if the end-price to the consumer — after taxes — is the same, oil industry profits will be lower.
The point made upthread about the cartel is well taken, it’s is likely that the most important determinant of gasoline prices in 2030 will not be the presence or absence of cap-and-trade, but the attitude of our good friends in Russia, Iran, and Venezuela.
Bleeds Blue on August 24, 2009 at 3:40 PM
I lived similarly until I wised up and moved to Texas.
Now I live in a big ol’ house and it’s wonderful. We don’t have policies against “sprawl” here and we don’t have “smart growth”. We grow as we please (thank you Governor Perry).
I have two teachers renting out my teeny-tiney smart growth condo in DC and paying my mortgage, so that’s my contribution.
I don’t live as well as a Democrat Congressman, a liberal commentator or Barack Obama, because they truly live like kings, but I get the satisfaction of not living how they would like me to.
NoDonkey on August 24, 2009 at 3:41 PM
So here you admit that it’s not about reducing prices for the consumer – it’s about reducing profits for the oil industry.
blink on August 24, 2009 at 3:42 PM
What is a change in consumption pattern, and how will that reduce demand.
blink on August 24, 2009 at 3:43 PM
No, it’s about reduce emission of greenhouse gasses. That was a hypothetical. CBO estimates that the cost of cap-and-trade will be small, and I believe it will be. I don’t much care about oil industry profits, as long as they are not rigging prices to inflate them (which they don’t seem to be).
Bleeds Blue on August 24, 2009 at 3:46 PM
1. No it won’t – see CAFE for a prime example. The government set higher mileage standards, and while devastating US car manufacturers, the folks buying the more efficient cars drove more, not less, so demand increased.
2.The oil industry is a percentage profit business. As the price per barrel increases, their profit actually increases; only the retailer suffers. So, in your quest to injure a capitalistic entity, you will fail on two levels.
Vashta.Nerada on August 24, 2009 at 3:46 PM
So why not go all the way with your convictions? Let me guess, it would not be convenient for you or your family?
I have just discovered the best method to reduce CO2. Bleeds Blue and all the other liberals should stop breathing if they are true believers in the cause!
rukiddingme on August 24, 2009 at 3:46 PM
You are evil for having two children. I have none.
You are evil for having a car. I have none.
You are evil because your daughter uses energy to commute. I don’t.
You are evil for living in a house. I don’t.
So, actually, if EVERYONE did as YOU do, we would be much MORE oil dependent.
blink on August 24, 2009 at 3:47 PM
All of the evidence actually confirms that man has nothing to do with “global warming” – and there is no evidence that we are even in a major warming period, considering that the ice caps have gotten thicker and that the temperatures in the last decade have dropped.
So, why this headlong rush to impose a cap and trade regime? It is not based on any science. therefore, it must be based on something.
Even leftist economists admit that imposing this cap and trade scheme will have serious effects on the U.S. economy. Although they try to shrug it off by claiming that all sorts of unknown “green jobs” will suddenly appear and creat wonderful wealth.
Now, I believe in man’s ingenuity, particularly when a profit motive is involved. Thus, I agree that someday – if there is true demand for “green energy”, such viable energy will be created. It cannot be imposed by the gov’t though, and pie-in-the-sky claims of “green jobs” will not defray the excessive economic costs of this cap and trade bill.
And, even the scientists who claim that man’s CO2 emmissions are causing “climate change” admit that enacting cap and trade will have an almost negligible effect.
With those facts in hand, what is the point of cap and trade. Why would any rational person support something that is intended to fix a problem that likely does not exist, and won’t actually accomplish anything even if it the problem does exist, but will definitely do great harm to our economy?
What possible other motive could there be for cap and trade except to punish capitilism and capitilists by putting an anchor on the U.S. economy while various 3rd world economies will not suffer from the same anchor? That, my friend, is wealth redistribution – from the U.S. to other nations.
Even if you believe in “climate change” (which 3 years ago was global warming, until the earth started to cool and 2 decades ago was the coming ice age before they decided the earth was heating up. And, in teh 1970′s, the same people also wanted all kinds of captilism punishing laws enacted to combat the coming population explosion that was going to kill us all) the cap and trade legislation is still asinine, as it will do nothing re: “climate change” and cause great harm re: U.S. economy.
Monkeytoe on August 24, 2009 at 3:48 PM
If you buy a more fuel efficient car, your consumption of gasoline will change, reducing demand. If you add insulation to your house, your consumption of electricity and/or gas will decline, also reducing demand.
Bleeds Blue on August 24, 2009 at 3:48 PM
No, it’s about reduce emission of greenhouse gasses.
Bleeds Blue on August 24, 2009 at 3:46 PM
Then stop pretending that it will reduce energy prices for anyone.
No it doesn’t.
blink on August 24, 2009 at 3:49 PM
Not true. How much gasoline is required to build and transport a new car? You’d be better off keeping the car that you have.
blink on August 24, 2009 at 3:51 PM
Cite please. Everything I have read finds the exact opposite. As I said, even lefty economists admit it will have major costs.
And, even if true, your citing the CBO to support your argument means that means you believe CBO when it says that Obamacare will cost trillions more than Obama claims?
Monkeytoe on August 24, 2009 at 3:52 PM
Not true. It would consume more energy to build and install the installation. It will increase energy demand.
The real question is why anyone would buy insulation? Because of increased energy prices? If so, then, again, stop pretending that this has anything to do will decreasing consumer energy prices.
blink on August 24, 2009 at 3:53 PM
I do live my convictions. I do not and have ever advocated that anyone go off the grid. Those people exist only in the fevered minds of hysterical conservatives and, perhaps, in California.
Bleeds Blue on August 24, 2009 at 3:54 PM
Only a lefty can believe that increasing regulations on things will reduce costs.
I guess that explains how lefties believe that a 1,000+ page new law, to be followed by thousands of new regulations, to regulate health insurance will somehow reduce health care costs.
Monkeytoe on August 24, 2009 at 3:54 PM
Right, you only advocate taking steps which are essentially meaningless from an energy perspective.
Rounding errors.
blink on August 24, 2009 at 3:56 PM
But you feel good about yourself advocating them.
blink on August 24, 2009 at 3:56 PM
You neglected to read my post earlier, where I used this precise example (CAFE standards) to prove that demand for gasoline increased, not decreased, so your analogy fails.
Vashta.Nerada on August 24, 2009 at 3:58 PM
If the lefties were really serious about reducing energy use they would advocate for a law making air conditioning illegal.
That would probably do more than the cap and trade bill.
I guess you can’t hide the costs to consumers in such a plan though. And, it does not punish the right people.
Monkeytoe on August 24, 2009 at 3:59 PM
Bleeds, are you still breathing? We are trying to reduce CO2, remember? And when you do disconnect from the grid, maybe then you (and your beliefs) might have some credibility.
rukiddingme on August 24, 2009 at 3:59 PM
Cost of C&T as estimated by CBO (and response by your buddies at Heritage).
You’re getting very silly here. Certainly it takes energy to manufacture insulation. That doesn’t mean it won’t save energy over time. And I’m not sure I aver said C&T was about reducing consumer prices. It’s about reducing carbon emissions.
Bleeds Blue on August 24, 2009 at 4:00 PM
I respect THOSE people more than I respect you. Because:
1. They aren’t hypocritical.
2. They don’t delude themselves into thinking that tiny little feel-good measures amount to anything.
blink on August 24, 2009 at 4:01 PM
I think you fail to realize the brilliance of cap & trade. B/c of the harm it will do to the U.S. economy, people will have much less purchasing power. therefore, they will do less of everything – driving included. therefore, they have that covered.
When CAFE started, there was an explosion in affordable cars and people driving, which has never let up since. Cap & Trade gets around that by taking a whack at our economy.
Monkeytoe on August 24, 2009 at 4:01 PM
I utterly disbelieve that increasing CAFE standards was a major determinant in driving patterns. I await your proof.
Bleeds Blue on August 24, 2009 at 4:02 PM
An example of stating the obvious if I ever saw one.
Dr. ZhivBlago on August 24, 2009 at 4:03 PM
Where’s the proof in anything you have stated? the mythical green jobs that are going to appear out of nowhere? Man made global warming? CO2 emmissions causing global warming? that Cap and Trade will accomplish anything vis a vis global warming (I forget, it’s climate change now that we’ve cooled in the last decade – convienent that)? That cap & Trade will not harm the economy?
For someone who wants to enact an enormous new bill on faith, you demand evidence?
Monkeytoe on August 24, 2009 at 4:05 PM
I know a way to reduce a LOT of unnecessary pollution that is released into the atmosphere. We just need to pass another law that smokers can inhale all they want, but they CAN NEVER EXHALE their pollution into the atmosphere. Why aren’t all the environmentalists all over this? There is NO necessity for anyone to smoke. However, I don’t believe anyone would say that there is no necessity for cooking food and heating houses during the winter.
I would agree with rukid. that all those liberals who truly believe that CO2 is a pollutant should immediately stop exhaling it into the atmosphere. If they DO NOT DO SO then they are nothing but hypocrites and we shouldn’t pay any attention to their ignorant rants.
TruthToBeTold on August 24, 2009 at 4:05 PM
No. You just indicated that reduced consumer prices would result. I’m glad you see your error.
blink on August 24, 2009 at 4:05 PM
http://www.davidbarber.org/research/cafe.html
http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/BG1458.cfm
Vashta.Nerada on August 24, 2009 at 4:09 PM
What I said was that industry profits would be reduced (hence the oil industry’s commissioning of scary anti-C&T propaganda).
And, not that scientists are infallible, but the overwhelming consensus of climatologists is the global warming is real and caused by man. Evolution, too.
Bleeds Blue on August 24, 2009 at 4:13 PM
You don’t vote on science.
Especially when the voters involved are looking for grants or tenure based on the result.
Vashta.Nerada on August 24, 2009 at 4:17 PM
Neither of those studies even attempts to find a direct cause and effect between more stringent CAFE standards and increased driving. Saying that CAFE standards have not reduced oil imports and individual consumption is not the same thing. Declining real gas prices, increasing affluence, suburban sprawl — there are any number of factors that may or may not have driven the increase. CAFE standards do not appear to be one of them.
Bleeds Blue on August 24, 2009 at 4:19 PM
From Barber: “My personal belief is that consumption would have increased regardless, in which case CAFE has reduced oil consumption, and should be moved from the ‘costs’ column to the ‘benefits’ column.”
Bleeds Blue on August 24, 2009 at 4:20 PM
Bleeds,
By the government’s calculation you have exceeded your daily C02 exhale limit. Remember, we have to CAP your breathing and if your go over the limit then you have to pay the appropriate TAX. The tax penalty will be decided by one of the many “breathing panels” put in place by the legislation and said panel will let you know what days you are not allowed to exhale. Thanks for being a believer!!
rukiddingme on August 24, 2009 at 4:29 PM
Check your comment from 3:03pm.
blink on August 24, 2009 at 4:32 PM
I planted a tree. I’m offset.
Bleeds Blue on August 24, 2009 at 4:32 PM
No. Politics aside, AGW is losing all its scientific support.
blink on August 24, 2009 at 4:33 PM
Answer to exit question…. Of course we will!
Griz on August 24, 2009 at 4:33 PM
Are you serious?
blink on August 24, 2009 at 4:36 PM
AGW has been a gravy train for grant-funded research for too long. To the scientists invested in AGW, AGW must be plausible or happening otherwise the cash trough dries up.
daesleeper on August 24, 2009 at 4:37 PM
Yes, I said diminished demand reduces prices, a pretty non-controversial statement. I never said that the point of C&P was to diminish consumer costs, though, but rather that its adoption would hurt the oil industry’s bottom line, which is a different thing.
Bleeds Blue on August 24, 2009 at 4:37 PM
Nah. Though I have planted a tree or two in my time.
Bleeds Blue on August 24, 2009 at 4:38 PM
Sorry, tree credits do not qualify for this program (you did read the legislation didn’t you?). The only approved remedy for your egregious behavior is to plug your nose and mouth.
rukiddingme on August 24, 2009 at 4:38 PM
This has nothing to do with the point of C&P. This has everything to do with your defense of it. In your defense you made a claim about reducing the price of energy. Own it, or admit your mistake. Don’t attempt to spin it away.
blink on August 24, 2009 at 4:43 PM
This is what I said:
“If cap and trade diminishes demand for oil, prices will drop and oil companies will earn less. That’s why oil companies have been funding anti-climate change “studies” and propaganda for years.”
Bleeds Blue on August 24, 2009 at 4:45 PM
So you really don’t do anything which will result in meanginful CO2 reduction?
Because you (and all of us) probably would have to pull from the grid in order to reduce CO2 output below the levels considered “safe” by AGW scientists.
blink on August 24, 2009 at 4:45 PM
Nice try, but this is what you said:
blink on August 24, 2009 at 4:47 PM
Check my comment at 2:50 for the first quote. And it doesn’t strike me that the second quote contradicts the first, in fact, it underscores it.
Bleeds Blue on August 24, 2009 at 4:51 PM
blink on August 24, 2009 at 4:47 PM
Hey blink, Bleeds is obviously confused. He lost his train of thought when he switched over to the other thread trying to convice everyone that cash for clunkers was a smashing success.
rukiddingme on August 24, 2009 at 4:52 PM
Here’s your comment on 2:50.
I am challenging your logic. You’re saying that a tax on oil will increase the price of oil which will cause demand for oil to drop which will cause prices to drop.
It’s stupid logic. Just admit it.
blink on August 24, 2009 at 5:01 PM
Ha ha. One of the guys on Michelle Malkin’s website claimed that C4C was good because it was creating a more robust used-car market. When everyone jumped on him for not knowing that the cars are required to be destroyed, he lashed out at everyone for “insulting” him.
C4C is a great example. It won’t cause any drop in oil demand (other than a rounding error).
blink on August 24, 2009 at 5:04 PM
No. To use your language, what I’m saying is that a “tax on oil” would decrease industry profits, which is not the same thing.
Can we agree that an increase in price would cause a drop in demand? Good.
Assuming that demand drops, there would likely be a drop in prices. However — read closely here — the cost to the consumer, which includes both the underlying cost of the oil and the cost of the tax, may or may not be lower than the pre-tax cost. Probably not, unless demand really fell off the table. However, since the underlying cost of the oil would have fallen, the profits to the companies would drop, as well. I make no predictions anywhere about the costs to consumers.
In addition, if people make a move away from oil to another energy source, that would decrease demand, as well, which might actually lower the cost to consumers of the oil they do buy and which would certainly hurt the oil companies’ bottom line, as well.
Which is why they hate C&T and release suspiciously timed studies on it.
Bleeds Blue on August 24, 2009 at 5:11 PM
HA linked an article a while back that showed hybrid owners drove about 25% more miles per year than non hybrid owners.
And what’s wrong with off-the-grid houses?
BadgerHawk on August 24, 2009 at 5:12 PM
That makes sense. The more you drive, the more value a hybrid offers you.
Bleeds Blue on August 24, 2009 at 5:16 PM
Before I just wrote off all the damage the Obama Admin. is inflicting upon us to his delusional belief in his marxist/socisalist teaching and that he intends well but the results are disasterous.
More and more however I’m starting to fall into the camp of those who believes this is malicious intent from Obama and Co.
They want to change this country to something it was never intended to be, not help it out of a temporary economic slump.
Yakko77 on August 24, 2009 at 5:25 PM
Yeah, but I think the point of the article was that people who bought a hybrid drove more as a result, not that they already drove more. It was a while back, though, so don’t quote me on it.
I’m reading through the rest of the comments. Pretty interesting discussion. I know a couple different people who, two or three years ago, were convinced that CO2 was the worst thing ever. They’ve both since become convinced that global warming (or is it climate change?) is a sham. I like how Glenn Reynolds puts it; I’ll start believe it’s a crisis when the people telling me it’s a crisis start acting like it’s a crisis.
I think we’re a few years out from the debate being sufficiently settled, and not in your side’s favor.
BadgerHawk on August 24, 2009 at 5:27 PM
Fantasy logic.
What other energy sources would cause people to move away from oil?
blink on August 24, 2009 at 5:46 PM
We’re making progress here.
blink on August 24, 2009 at 5:47 PM
Welcome back, Carter.
http://www.thoseshirts.com/wbc.html
Sadly, not an original joke anymore.
gekkobear on August 24, 2009 at 6:12 PM
Bleeds Blue on August 24, 2009 —see gullible
hillbillyjim on August 24, 2009 at 7:31 PM
Higher tax equals less employment and a lower standard of living not to mention more jobs going overseas to countries not stupid enough to buy into the Gorebull warming/climate change folderol.
Period.
Ya wanna “fix” health insurance? Employ more people. Simple. Lower taxes, not make up new ones. For Chrissakes, people, even a dumb hillbilly can figger this out. A new energy tax by any name will add to the rolls of the unemployed and the uninsured. How are we going to pay more for energy, more for unemployment bennies and more for health insurance? Gawd.
The climate is going to do what the climate is going to do, just as it has done for eons. Even scientists who are “certain” that another Ice Age will occur have absolutely NO IDEA when that might happen, for instance. The IPCC does NOT amount to an “overwhelming consensus”, BTW.
hillbillyjim on August 24, 2009 at 7:48 PM
I thought that Waxman-Markey was dead on arrival in the Senate.
slp on August 24, 2009 at 7:50 PM
We need to keep reminding them why.
Congress is going to need LOTS of reminding all the way up till the midterm next year and into 2012.
Yakko77 on August 24, 2009 at 9:05 PM
What will GE do? Import foreign made wind turbines?
from izoneguy
Got news for you buddy. Most wind turbine structures, ie, the towers, blades, are fabricated in Europe and shipped to the US, assembled here using turbines made in America by GE. I’ve seen the port yards lined with them being off-loaded, seen the convoys of towers and blades rolling down the highways to the prairies, seen the wind farms. Only recently have there been any manufacturing plants cranking out these behemoths in the US to any extent. Why? Turns out the shipping costs from overseas soared last year when the price of diesel to power the ships from Europe also went way up there. Kinda ironic huh?
Robert17 on August 25, 2009 at 7:23 AM
I’m certain someone else has pointed to this little factoid in a previous post…but why the push toward electric cars when the administration is so against coal, which is used to make electricity??
Yellowdog12 on August 25, 2009 at 11:31 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2