• 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!

What if the AGW scare is to protect the price of fossil fuel?

Lord of Planar said:
That depends.

If the demonrats keep causing conflict all over the world, it will take a long time. If we can reduce worldwide conflict, nations will emerge sooner rather than later.
Click to expand...

I understand your concern, but I'm confident we'll find what we need. Why? Because we always have.
 
Jack Hays said:
I understand your concern, but I'm confident we'll find what we need. Why? Because we always have.
Click to expand...

I agree we will, but in the meantime, alternatives are getting cheaper, and the price of oil will likely increase.
 
cabse5 said:
SIAP. While production of renewable energy hasn't reached the level to compete with fossil fuel, the demand curve for fossil fuels will always be greater than renewable energy's.:doh
Click to expand...

How droll....

giphy.gif
 
expat_panama said:
if that were true the real price of oil would have gone up a long time ago. It hasn't, in fact it's about where it was 40 years ago:
Click to expand...
The price of oil does not have to increase relative to it's inflation adjusted price, but to the price of wholesale electricity.
What matters is the cost of a refinery to make their own feedstock, vs buying oil.
https://cleantechnica.com/2011/10/2...ty-drops-to-0-00-in-texas-due-to-wind-energy/
As we add more solar and wind to the grid, we will have more times when the supply exceeds demand,
and that is not really good, unless we have some place to store the excess.
The refineries have an almost unlimited capacity to make fuel from that surplus.
The rough numbers are that the Navy claims a 60% efficient process, (Sunfire says 70%).
The big players Exxon and Shell, ect, have not discussed their research in public.
but at 60% it would take 55 Kwh of electricity to make a gallon of gasoline.
This equates out to about $90 a barrel oil.
If the 55 Kwh was less cost, then the price would be lower.
Crud oil has been on a fairly steady increase, and all the fracking that pushed prices lower with oversupply,
has shortened well life.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Yes, but it will get more expensive. Expensive to the point alternatives will be needed without being subsidized.
Click to expand...

Maybe needing alternatives to fossil fuels isn't such a bad thing as long as the alternatives are viable.
 
Xelor said:
Do you truly not see how absurd it is to at once (1) promote ideas and ways to cut back on fossil fuel use and (2) do so to "protect the price of fossil fuel?" Surely you realize that the price of a commodity that people are being dissuaded from using is irrelevant. Control of supply is a tactic applicable to monopolistically competitive goods, not commodity goods; commodity sellers/producers are price takers, not price makers.

Were you smoking dope when you came up with that notion?

  1. [*=1]"Use renewable sources of energy."
    [*=1]Using renewable energy sources reduces demand of fossil fuels. (Shifts demand down/leftward)

    Z4ZMY.png


    Notice that P2 is lower than P1. That's what happens when demand and supply both shift "down"/left.

    3-3%20Equilbrium_06.jpg

    The above is when demand drops and supply stays the same.

cabse5 said:
SIAP. While production of renewable energy hasn't reached the level to compete with fossil fuel, the demand curve for fossil fuels will always be greater than renewable energy's.:doh

Xelor said:
How droll....

giphy.gif


cabse5 said:
Well, one can't just say fossil fuel bad...gotta use something else. Even though many have tried.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Red:
What? What does what "one can't just say" have to do with the conversation that preceded that statement?

You asserted that "the demand curve for fossil fuels will always be greater than renewable energy's," I responded as you see above. How does your remark in red text pertain to any of that?
 
cabse5 said:
Maybe needing alternatives to fossil fuels isn't such a bad thing as long as the alternatives are viable.
Click to expand...

Alternatives are great as long as they aren't being subsidized, and people will buy them.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Alternatives are great as long as they aren't being subsidized, and people will buy them.
Click to expand...

It makes more sense to tax fuels according to their negative effects, so as to discourage use of the more environmentally damaging ones. This provides, rather than requiring, a revenue stream, while giving the market free reign to produce the best solutions.
 
Surface Detail said:
It makes more sense to tax fuels according to their negative effects, so as to discourage use of the more environmentally damaging ones. This provides, rather than requiring, a revenue stream, while giving the market free reign to produce the best solutions.
Click to expand...
If you did a fair accounting, you might end up subsidizing fossil fuels, as they have both negative and positive effects,
and the positive effects are quite large.
Also if the Government, through taxation, handicaps one source of energy, how is that allowing the market to work?
 
longview said:
If you did a fair accounting, you might end up subsidizing fossil fuels, as they have both negative and positive effects,
and the positive effects are quite large.
Also if the Government, through taxation, handicaps one source of energy, how is that allowing the market to work?
Click to expand...

The positive effects of using fuels are general felt by the person or organisation using them. The negative effects are generally felt by everybody - these are known as negative externalities. A proper level playing field would take these into account.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Alternatives are great as long as they aren't being subsidized, and people will buy them.
Click to expand...

The farmers in my state of Iowa, for example, would bristle at that notion. The US has a capitalist-based economy with variations of socialism. The only example I can recall of a pure capitalist economy is in Russia.

Alternatives will be subsidized until people buy them willingly. My prediction is that fossil fuels will eventually become extinct like the animals that created them. People will never get the duck covered in oil from the oil slick created by the oil spill or the bird walking around with a plastic tab around their necks pictures out of their heads. The reasons for using alternatives fossil fuels are multi-faceted but all boil down to forced environmentalism. I know you bristle but alternative fuels is an example of big government at its finest. The swamp trying to get rid of the swampy environment?
 
Last edited:
Xelor said:
Red:
What? What does what "one can't just say" have to do with the conversation that preceded that statement?

You asserted that "the demand curve for fossil fuels will always be greater than renewable energy's," I responded as you see above. How does your remark in red text pertain to any of that?
Click to expand...

cabse5 said:
SIAP. While production of renewable energy hasn't reached the level to compete with fossil fuel, the demand curve for fossil fuels will always be greater than renewable energy's.:doh
Click to expand...
When the supply curve of renewable energy sufficiently moves to the right to satisfy all demands of energy consumption, the price of alternative fuels stabilizes and lowers. I have no doubt the demand curve for alternative fuels, right now, is to the right (is higher) than the demand curve for fossil fuels and will move further to the right (increase) with sufficient production and the price of alternatives may further increase due to inflation.

Ya feel better, now?
 
Surface Detail said:
The positive effects of using fuels are general felt by the person or organisation using them. The negative effects are generally felt by everybody - these are known as negative externalities. A proper level playing field would take these into account.
Click to expand...

The positive effects of using fossil fuels include much of the rise in modern civilization.
The availability of energy in a high density container, allowed humanity to remove the bonds that limited us to only muscle power.
The benefits are felt by everyone.
As to the negatives, they are theoretical, predictions, they may be out there, but most of the actual
side effects from our fossil fuel usages have been mitigated, by emission laws, and technology.
 
longview said:
The positive effects of using fossil fuels include much of the rise in modern civilization.
The availability of energy in a high density container, allowed humanity to remove the bonds that limited us to only muscle power.
The benefits are felt by everyone.
As to the negatives, they are theoretical, predictions, they may be out there, but most of the actual
side effects from our fossil fuel usages have been mitigated, by emission laws, and technology.
Click to expand...

Take a read. The economists explain it better than I can:

Negative externalities

Suffice to say that most economists regard carbon taxes as the most efficient way to account for the negative externalities of burning fossil fuels.
 
Surface Detail said:
Take a read. The economists explain it better than I can:

Negative externalities

Suffice to say that most economists regard carbon taxes as the most efficient way to account for the negative externalities of burning fossil fuels.
Click to expand...
That does not change that we have derived enormous benefits from using fossil fuels, and those would have to be weighed
against the perceived external costs. The external costs are perceived, because we do not have a way measure if
any actual harm is being caused by CO2 emissions.
We know about aerosol pollution, and have designed our heat engines to mitigate most of them.
As to CO2 actually being a pollutant, that is a bit subjective.
Added CO2 likely causes some warming, but that also may be a benefit.
 
Surface Detail said:
Take a read. The economists explain it better than I can:

Negative externalities

Suffice to say that most economists regard carbon taxes as the most efficient way to account for the negative externalities of burning fossil fuels.
Click to expand...

Implementing carbon taxes to punish some country for using too much CO2 is quite a leap when the AGW theory of man being the main cause of climate change has never been proven...and that CO2 makes up less than 5% of all greenhouse gases in Earth's atmosphere.
 
cabse5 said:
When the supply curve of renewable energy sufficiently moves to the right to satisfy all demands of energy consumption, the price of alternative fuels stabilizes and lowers. I have no doubt the demand curve for alternative fuels, right now, is to the right (is higher) than the demand curve for fossil fuels and will move further to the right (increase) with sufficient production and the price of alternatives may further increase due to inflation.

Ya feel better, now?
Click to expand...
First:
What I feel like has nothing to do with anything I've written; thus I won't answer your question about that.

Second:
The clarification you've provided above is no better than what you earlier wrote, and it's every bit as absurd.
SIAP. While production of renewable energy hasn't reached the level to compete with fossil fuel, the demand curve for fossil fuels will always be greater than renewable energy's.
Click to expand...
Third:
I'm not sure what exactly you're not realizing; it could be one or more of several things.
  • That changes in the prices of the two energy sources will shift their respective demand curves. Despite what it looks like from the graphs, quantity demanded is a function of price, not the other way round.
  • The difference between shifts in demand with changes in quantity demanded.





​


  • What causes a change in quantity demanded? Shifts in the supply curve. Or, if one prefers, things that shift the supply curve.
    1. Technology (obsolescence)
    2. Other goods (obsolescence)
    3. Number of sellers
    4. Expectations
    5. Resource cost
    6. Subsidies and taxes
  • What causes shifts of demand? Any one of five things:
    1. The price of the good or service.
    2. Prices of related goods or services. These are either complementary, those purchased along with a particular good or service, or substitutes, those purchased instead of a certain good or service.
    3. Income of buyers.
    4. Tastes or preferences of consumers.
    5. Expectations, typically expectations about whether the price will go up, but it can be other kinds of expectations.
When demand shifts downward (D[SUB]1[/SUB] --> D[SUB]2[/SUB]), is the quantity demanded at the original price (P[SUB]1[/SUB]) less than it was prior to the downward shift? Yes, of course.

Forth:
Effective demand for fossil fuels will not always outstrip that of renewable energy sources. It won't because
  • At some point, the value proposition (elasticity of demand; "worth-it-ness") of fossil-fuel produced power will not be greater than that of renewable energy/power. Put another way, fossil fuel energy/power will at some point become obsolete.
  • At some point, fossil fuels will become so scarce that some sort of alternative energy/power source will have to be demanded instead. As that point approaches, the demand curve for fossil fuels will progressively move left/downard.

What will happen is that effective demand for fossil fuel energy/power will decrease and the effective demand for renewable energy/power will increase. That's what will happen because fossil fuel energy/power and renewable energy/power are substitutes. Indeed, I dare say they are economically near perfect substitutes, if not actual perfect substitutes.

Substitute goods are those goods which can be used in place of one another for satisfaction of a particular want, like tea and coffee. Demand for a given commodity varies directly with the price of a substitute good. For example, if price of a substitute good (say, coffee) increases, then demand for given commodity (say, tea) will rise as tea will become relatively cheaper in comparison to coffee.

  • Substitute Goods


    2-substitutes-supply-demand.jpg


    In the diagram on the left, there is a fall in the price of Android Phones causing consumers to demand more. (movement along the demand curve). As a result, there is a fall in demand for the substitute (Apple iPhone) leading to less demand.
  • Cross Elasticity of Demand (XED)

    xed.png


    Substitute goods and cross elasticity of demand illustrated:
    • Assumptions:
      • Tea and coffee are weak substitutes.
      • Cost and Starbucks are close substitutes.

        xed-substitutes.png
 
Surface Detail said:
The positive effects of using fuels are general felt by the person or organisation using them. The negative effects are generally felt by everybody - these are known as negative externalities. A proper level playing field would take these into account.
Click to expand...

Please cite one such negative externality of CO2 production currently happening.
 
Surface Detail said:
It makes more sense to tax fuels according to their negative effects, so as to discourage use of the more environmentally damaging ones. This provides, rather than requiring, a revenue stream, while giving the market free reign to produce the best solutions.
Click to expand...

OK, prove the negative effect without using propaganda. Use evidence that would hold up in court.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom