• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama Green double down question

Is it time to double down on green energy that has never been more promising?


  • Total voters
    30
From 2001-2008 there wasn't a damn thing GWB could have done to stop oil prices from rising. American presidents can do a lot of things but there is little any of them can do about prices on a global market. From 2009-present there wasn't a damn thing Obama could do about oil prices, either. Saying so or even implying that there's a legal way for any US president to control the price of oil is, at this point in time, towing the Republican Party Line.

When GWB was in office and the Dems were screaming the same thing, it was the same answer - they were towing the Party Line.

Don't like being told you're towing the Party Line? Quit saying stupid ****!
That really doesnt address what I said.
 
2. do things that will make the cost of fossil fuels rise.
Do things like what?

Increase domestic production? Domestic oil production has been rising every year since 2009. The previous eight years (2001-2008) domestic production was falling.

The FET for fuel hasn't changed in a decade and is ~18c for gas and ~24c for diesel. Not a huge savings even if it were eliminated and what would we use for Interstate and US highway maintenance? Besides, I think Congress would have to change the FET.

Nationalize the oil industry like Venezuela did? They're be a revolt - and not just from Republicans!
No president would even suggest such a thing and anybody else suggesting it should be shot.


Seriously, what do you people think can be done by just the president - or even with the help of Congress - to radically alter the price of gas?
 
Can't burn fossil fuels forever. Gotta go for it.
Cell phones were also expensive and had the size of a brick at first but now they are slim and the battery last for a week or so. You get the idea, I think. :)

And just how did government "investment" contribute to that? Or any other technological advance?
 
And just how did government "investment" contribute to that? Or any other technological advance?
Shall I start listing all the NASA and military spin offs or can you Google those yourself?


Ed:
IDK about the phones but there are plenty of other examples out there.
 
Last edited:
Do things like what?

Increase domestic production? Domestic oil production has been rising every year since 2009. The previous eight years (2001-2008) domestic production was falling.

the increases in domestic oil production have come exclusively on private grounds, and is largely the result of approvals pushed through the Bush Administration. GOVERNMENT owned grounds - which Obama actually has impact on - are down 11% over the past two years, and the approval process has slowed to a trickle, meaning that even if we threw it all open tomorrow, we wouldn't see increased production for a year or two.

Seriously, what do you people think can be done by just the president - or even with the help of Congress - to radically alter the price of gas?

Remove Congressional and Presidential restrictions on drilling in the 80% of our waters currently off-limits. Streamline the approval process with hard deadlines for the bureaucrats to meet. Ditto for all other energy production methods - from coal to nuclear. Open up ANWR to drilling. Open up Federal lands for fracking, or sell them for that purpose.

Most importantly, even though it would not effect the immediate supply of oil, it would heavily impact the futures market. Right now oil is in high demand not least because people see demand increasing faster than supply. Reverse (or seriously mitigate) those expectations, and you can expect to see an oil sell-off, which would cause the price to tumble.
 
the increases in domestic oil production have come exclusively on private grounds, and is largely the result of approvals pushed through the Bush Administration. GOVERNMENT owned grounds - which Obama actually has impact on - are down 11% over the past two years, and the approval process has slowed to a trickle, meaning that even if we threw it all open tomorrow, we wouldn't see increased production for a year or two.
It doesn't really matter where the oil is from. The fact is domestic production is up three years in a row after dropping eight years in a row and it didn't have any affect on global prices one way or the other.

Remove Congressional and Presidential restrictions on drilling in the 80% of our waters currently off-limits. Streamline the approval process with hard deadlines for the bureaucrats to meet. Ditto for all other energy production methods - from coal to nuclear. Open up ANWR to drilling. Open up Federal lands for fracking, or sell them for that purpose.

Most importantly, even though it would not effect the immediate supply of oil, it would heavily impact the futures market. Right now oil is in high demand not least because people see demand increasing faster than supply. Reverse (or seriously mitigate) those expectations, and you can expect to see an oil sell-off, which would cause the price to tumble.
"Drill, Baby, Drill" while you ignore belittle options for the other half of your statement - "demand increasing faster than supply"? *shakes head*
 
Last edited:
Green, you mean solar and wind that does not save one drop of oil. All that green does is create electricity, and we have natural gas and coal to make electricity for centuries.

Double down on wind and solar is a wast of money, if the private sector want to do wind and solar, more power to them.

Thus far there is no green anything that can replace oil. Ethanol helps but not nearly enough.
 
Shall I start listing all the NASA and military spin offs or can you Google those yourself?

Good point. Has it occurred to you that these were incidental spinoffs from the main effort which was directed elsewhere? I don't deny the existence or the utility of the spinoffs - computers from WWII, telemetry from the rocket programs of the forties, velcro from the space program, internet from DARPA - but the obvious conclusion from these examples is that we should shut down the departments of energy, HUD, commerce, etc. and give the money to the military.
 
It doesn't really matter where the oil is from.
that is not true for two reasons:

1. the cost of transportation, which spikes with peak piracy seasons (which we are currently in), and
2. the increased volatility due to the larger percentage of supply subject to removal by a geopolitically fractured and unstable region.

The fact is domestic production is up three years in a row after dropping eight years in a row

yes. It is also a fact that that higher domestic production is despite the current administration rather than because of it.

it didn't have any affect on global prices one way or the other.

that is incorrect, it was simply insufficient to maintain oil prices, as it is too little increase, both in raw and as a percentage.

"Drill, Baby, Drill" while you ignore belittle options for the other half of your statement - "demand increasing faster than supply"? *shakes head*

:shrug: if you really want to reduce demand, you are free to advocate the detonation of multiple strategic nuclear devices over China's Eastern Seaboard.

Here are a few basic key facts:

Despite year-to-year fluctuations, global demand for oil is going to continue to increase.

Despite rising demand, oil remains more efficient, more effective, and cheaper than the alternative forms of energy, despite decades of subsidy to that field.

Recognizing that alternatives are not going to be replacing oil as a fuel (and, by the way, that is hardly the breadth of our economic dependence on oil. Oil is in everything from crops to plastics to the computer screen you are looking at) any time soon, if we wish to reduce the price, then we need to increase the supply of oil.

Because of the heavy impact of commodities and futures trading in the international oil market, any perceived potential future increases or decreases in the supply of oil will have highly exaggerated effects on the price of oil.




I don't belittle alternate energies; I like 'em. I think some of them are cool as all get out. If it was cheap enough, I would be putting solar cells on my roof and setting up little watermills by my gutters. One day that technology will be developed enough to be plausible, and I think that will be great.

What I do belittle is the religion of "green", of "green technology", of "sustainable population growth" of "alternative fuels". The people who seek to support alternative energies for their own sake and seek to do so with others money get my derision for doing so, and deserve it.
 
Ethanol helps but not nearly enough.

I completely agree with your post except for this part. 10% ethanol fuel lowers my gas mileage by 10%, and E-85 lowers gas mileage by 25% over regular gasoline. IMO ethanol is another government subsidy that screws the consumer in favor of the special interests that produce the stuff.
 
Good point. Has it occurred to you that these were incidental spinoffs from the main effort which was directed elsewhere? I don't deny the existence or the utility of the spinoffs - computers from WWII, telemetry from the rocket programs of the forties, velcro from the space program, internet from DARPA - but the obvious conclusion from these examples is that we should shut down the departments of energy, HUD, commerce, etc. and give the money to the military.

which is, in fact, experimenting with solar as a replacement for batteries. Because for the military, the cost is less important than the ability to increase combat efficiency. We don't build LHD's because we can make money selling cruises on them.
 
I completely agree with your post except for this part. 10% ethanol fuel lowers my gas mileage by 10%, and E-85 lowers gas mileage by 25% over regular gasoline. IMO ethanol is another government subsidy that screws the consumer in favor of the special interests that produce the stuff.

and directly increases the price of food, making it harder for the poor to feed their families.
 
I'll enthusiastically decline, the return rate on investments of this nature have been abysmal so far.

Edit: Not to say that alternative energy shouldn't be a priority, but the "Green energy" sector has proven itself to be woefully impotent and ineffective.
 
Last edited:
Good point. Has it occurred to you that these were incidental spinoffs from the main effort which was directed elsewhere? I don't deny the existence or the utility of the spinoffs - computers from WWII, telemetry from the rocket programs of the forties, velcro from the space program, internet from DARPA - but the obvious conclusion from these examples is that we should shut down the departments of energy, HUD, commerce, etc. and give the money to the military.
Actually the velcro thing is a myth - NASA didn't invent that one. ;)

I think some green tech will come from the military - if not the underlying technology then at least plenty of data on cost, use, maintenance, wear, etc., aka field testing. And, yes, none of the spin-offs were "intended", they were gravy from the various programs that were being carried out. It was a steady supply of gravy, nonetheless. But look around, we don't do those big programs anymore so the R&D is dwindling. What's going to take it's place if we don't do what NASA and the military did for decades, namely hand over piles of cash to private companies to solve problems? I think there are more efficient means of doing it than they did in the past but it still needs to be done somehow or the rest of world is going to beat us to it.

You want to know what pushes me toward green as much as anything? The fact that China is investing in it, and not just to sell it overseas, while at the same time Europe is also pushing it for their own reasons. I've got to ask myself, What do they know that we don't or aren't admitting to ourselves or aren't being told? If it were just one or the other then maybe it's just a quirk. But both?? Hmmm.
 
:shrug: if you really want to reduce demand, you are free to advocate the detonation of multiple strategic nuclear devices over China's Eastern Seaboard.
:lamo Don't tempt me! :lamo
 
that is not true for two reasons:

1. the cost of transportation, which spikes with peak piracy seasons (which we are currently in), and
2. the increased volatility due to the larger percentage of supply subject to removal by a geopolitically fractured and unstable region.
Well, you broke up my paragraph but it was all one piece. I wasn't commenting on anything coming from overseas - it was domestic production we were discussing.
 
that is incorrect, it was simply insufficient to maintain oil prices, as it is too little increase, both in raw and as a percentage.
And this explanation is different from "it had no affect"? :confused:
 
ah, well then to deal with it holistically: yes it does matter if you want to try to claim that the Obama administration has anything to do with increases in domestic production and it also matters if you want to try to move from there to claim that the relatively small increases in supply produce the same effects that a massive increase in domestic supply would.
 
And this explanation is different from "it had no affect"? :confused:

yes. think budget baselines and movement from there.

If supply is X, Demand is Y and that gives you a Price of Z

Then when Demand goes to 2Y, if Supply stays at X then price (rough back of the napkin) moves to 2Z

If Demand goes to 2Y, however, and Supply goes to 1.5X, then Price moves to 1.75Z

Meaning that the .5 increase in supply has decreased the price of oil from where it would have otherwise been by .25.



in the more complex terms, the increase in domestic production was insufficient in the above model, and insufficient as a percentage of total production to reduce volatility.
 
ah, well then to deal with it holistically: yes it does matter if you want to try to claim that the Obama administration has anything to do with increases in domestic production and it also matters if you want to try to move from there to claim that the relatively small increases in supply produce the same effects that a massive increase in domestic supply would.
Or a massive decrease in domestic demand. :roll:

But - how long would this "massive increase" (and exactly what do you mean in bbl/day??) take to actually hit the refinery if we started drilling tomorrow - and is there refinery capacity to handle it?


And, yes, I'm aware that only about half our oil is burned in vehicles and that it has a ****load of other uses. It's one of the reasons I think burning it for fuel is wasteful and dangerous for our future. We can replace the fuel - except for planes - but what do we use for lubricants and plastics substitutes?? I don't know of any good alternatives to those as yet.
 
I completely agree with your post except for this part. 10% ethanol fuel lowers my gas mileage by 10%, and E-85 lowers gas mileage by 25% over regular gasoline. IMO ethanol is another government subsidy that screws the consumer in favor of the special interests that produce the stuff.

Ok, if 10% ethanol lowers your mileage by 10%, then 100% ethanol would lower your gas mileage to "0." Meaning if you fill your tank with 100% ethanol you go nowhere. I never knew that. Further meaning putting ethanol in your tank is no different than putting water in your tank, it's useless. I swear I never knew that.
 
Or a massive decrease in domestic demand.

based off of what?

But - how long would this "massive increase" (and exactly what do you mean in bbl/day??) take to actually hit the refinery if we started drilling tomorrow - and is there refinery capacity to handle it?

we haven't built a new refinery for 30 years - I agree we'd have to expand that, fortunately, the new oil industry in the Dakota's is sitting next to giant tracts of land that nobody is using.

as for how much we are talking about? it's a good bit. there is more oil in the Rockies than there is in Saudi Arabia. Once we allow offshore drilling and the rigs are allowed to come in where it's easier, once fracking hits, once ANWR get's beefed up in production... :shrug: I don't know if we would be completely self-sustaining, but I wouldn't be terrifically surprised, especially since we would also be exploiting natural gas.

And, yes, I'm aware that only about half our oil is burned in vehicles and that it has a ****load of other uses. It's one of the reasons I think burning it for fuel is wasteful and dangerous for our future. We can replace the fuel - except for planes - but what do we use for lubricants and plastics substitutes?? I don't know of any good alternatives to those as yet.

the use of oil for other things doesn't make it's use as fuel wasteful or dangerous - again, oil remains cheaper than the alternatives. and the answer is that nobody is even working on answers to those questions, so the notion of the US 'weaning itself off of fossil fuels" is ridiculous.
 
The federal government should

1) Cut subsidies to all oil companies
2) Put in subsides for green energy

They should NOT give out free money to any company, though. Also, the Department of Commerce needs to remove the tariff on Chinese solar panels. What the hell is up with that? Are we trying to move towards green energy or not? Making solar panels more expensive is exactly what we SHOULDN'T do.
 
And just how did government "investment" contribute to that? Or any other technological advance?

Good point but I am not for that. Rather I am for some back up from the government to do research and experiment and may be some subsidies (why is it the oil industry can be subsidised and the green energy not?)
What is wrong with every suburb having its own power plant, be it solar, biomass or natural gas turbines? Co-generation is still the best way to utilise energy because the power plant produces 1/3 electricity and 2/3 hot water which can be used for heating the neighbourhood.
 
based off of what?
Off what was your "massive increase" in supply based?

as for how much we are talking about? it's a good bit. there is more oil in the Rockies than there is in Saudi Arabia. Once we allow offshore drilling and the rigs are allowed to come in where it's easier, once fracking hits, once ANWR get's beefed up in production... :shrug: I don't know if we would be completely self-sustaining, but I wouldn't be terrifically surprised, especially since we would also be exploiting natural gas.
The Rockies, yeah. It's been there for a century. Where will we find all the water and electrical power required to extract oil from rocks? This stuff doesn't come bubbling up out of the ground like in a Hollywood movie. There's a reason it's been sitting down there for over a century, untouched. It's only because of the high price of oil that it's even worth thinking about - kind of like EVs and hybrids. Strange how that works, isn't it?

To me the ANWR is our long-term investment. We're going to need that stuff some day for important things like lubricants, plastics, jet fuel, and other petro products that don't have a good substitute.

Go after that NG! We should be shifting the larger trucking fleets over right now just like UPS has been doing for years on it's own. Is anyone crazy enough to think UPS doesn't know transportation and shipping?
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom