Sorry, too late to add these in there too: (source for the first image here is the same for the last image above)

"The United States now produces nearly all of the natural gas that it uses. [...] In 2020, U.S. dry natural gas production was about 10% greater than U.S. total natural gas consumption." https://www.eia.gov/energyexpl...

Yes, but US production is 8% lower than in 2019. We should be at 100%. Anything less creates market volatility when global disruptions occur. None of this is to say that oil is good. Oil is not good, but domestic oil is better than foreign oil.

Pretending to be green by not supporting domestic production…while still burning the same or more oil is like saying you quit smoking because you don’t buy packs and just bum cigarettes off of everyone.

"We should be at 100%" - are you one of those that think the government should be forcing private companies to make business decisions?

So, we should nationalize energy?

I didn’t say that.

[deleted - already disappointed i'm supporting this thread]

B3, I think that anything taken from public lands should be nationalized.

So…yeah. I’d actually be for nationalized energy production so long as privatized energy production is also allowed to coexist. My problem with socialism isn’t the bells and whistles, it’s giving the government power to curb liberties. Nationalized energy doesn’t curb anyones liberties or require any expansion of police powers. UBI doesn’t either. If anything, nationalized energy would reduce the military adventurism…another big libertarian sore spot…

I mention UBI because we could distribute profit through UBI. Anyways, I think the libertarian party has clouded what libertarians actually care about…mostly civil liberties…and has cemented it on the right. Left libertarianism is a thing too.

And I consider myself on the libertarian center…not the libertarian right.

You being you, again. You do realize that if government nationalized energy production, there would not exist a competitive private market? Look at drugs, prescription and non, Healthcare, education..........blah blah blah.

We have public and private schools. We could have both. I also don’t care if one out competes the other into non existence…my only line is that govt can’t ban individuals from starting private energy companies or buying private energy. The existence of public schools is only a problem if the state where to ban private educational facilities for example.

Don’t you find it more problematic that private companies are given permits to extract resources on public land? Public land should be for the people to share equally…

I don’t want state monopolies. I also don’t like public private partnerships (aka fascism)

Having a public and private realm coexisting in the marketplace is not an issue.

share equally? Sounds like evil socialism again. Where's my pitch fork and torch, time to defend civil liberties again!

editor: the previous comment was brought to you in part by the generous contribution from Big Pitchfork & Torch inc.

*sips coffee*

Socialism as an ideology IS evil. As an ingredient it’s not.

as are all ideologies.

Agreed. Libertarianism is not an ideology though.

Yeah, having jla on ignore is a little weird in this context. I can read his post that kicks off the thread, but then nothing after. It's not all that bad if I'm being honest.

If it's an -ism, it's an ideology.

Correction: 

Is authoritarianism an ideology?

Whereas totalitarianism strongly emphasizes an official and overarching ideology serving as a blueprint for the remaking of society, authoritarianism is less concerned with ideology. When authoritarian leaders come to power, they often have a set of policy goals—such as eliminating corruption or resurrecting the economy—as well as what Juan Linz (1975) calls a “mentality” about the purpose of their rule. But this is quite different from the kind of ideology present in an ideal type totalitarian system.

My frustration is that we stopped importing Russian oil…not too hard because it’s only like 5%…but then pander to the Saudi’s to pump more who are arguably as bad or worse than the Russians. Oil had been the central theme in every conflict since Vietnam.

T0 - nothing you just wrote is correct.

Chad, challenge acceptable. What is incorrect? Biden didn’t pander to the Saudi’s to pump more, and then get humiliated?

x-jla

You're not very good at trolling, lying, writing, or understanding that words have meanings . . . .

Here are the things you said that are incorrect

1. Oil had been the central theme in every conflict since Vietnam.

Every conflict in the world since April of 1975?  

2.  That Biden pandered to the Saudi's. 

Pander: gratify or indulge (an immoral or distasteful desire, need, or habit or a person with such a desire, etc.).

Sorry that your disability doesn’t allow you to sort through the nuances of speech. Statement “Americans are overweight”. EA and Chad - “false not all Americans are overweight”. Congratulations You have the communication skills of Dwight from The Office.

https://www.axios.com/biden-drill-oil-saudi-arabia-energy-costs-54682844-1ba0-417d-8d34-bbe5debba221.html

Biden absolutely pandered to the Saudis…by your definition…the Russians didn’t choose now to rebuild the Soviet Union because of astrology. It’s because of the absolute jokers in the WH, and the overall internal weakness projected by our culture wars. Do you think that their (Russia and China) instigating of the cultural wars with their troll farms isn’t related?

https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/mar/09/saudi-arabia-and-uae-leaders-decline-calls-with-biden-amid-fears-of-oil-price-spike

x-jla - 

1. Oil had been the central theme in every conflict since Vietnam.

Even if we were to assume that you're only counting conflicts involving America your statement is still incorrect. 

2.  That Biden pandered to the Saudi's.

None of those links supports your statement.  Trying to speak with a countries leaders to ask for a price brake on oil isn't pandering.  

Try harder sad little liar.  

You are a liar.

And a willing participant in the downfall of this country.

You’d think, that with the endless failures and lies of the Democratic Party, the endless “conspiracy theories and misinformation” that turned out to be the truth or even the official narrative, you’d be more open to hearing other perspectives and maybe put your pride on hold. How can someone be this wrong this often and not be humbled?

As for the wars, oil has dominated the geopolitical tension behind most wars, directly or indirectly. The world order is largely dictated by oil. The dollar is backed by oil since the 70’s opec…

My original point before the trolls popped in here was that we ought to be Energy independent.

x-jla - you've made a lot of statements. Provide reputable proof.

You know when you're in a bar, and the local barfly says, I haz thots. Yeah.

Do your own homework Chad.

x-jla 

Again - you make the claims - you provide the reputable sources to support your claims. 

 Again - if the claims you made are so widely known and accepted then it shouldn't be difficult for you to provide sources.

Go on . . . 

Your obvious tactic is to combat opposing viewpoints by demanding time consuming citation standards. Do you cite sources in conversations with peers? A forum, from what understand is a type of conversation. It is not a thesis paper. I don’t need to cite opinions or ideas that are the amalgamation of multiple sources, interpretation, and reasoning. Whenever I do give in and post a source, you people just delegitimize it. I’m not playing that game. For fucks sake, I’ve had you people question the integrity of articles from Science, papers from John Hopkins, etc. it’s a fools errand, and I’m not a fool. So, do your own homework , Chad.

As for Biden asking those 3 terrible regimes to increase production…this is widely reported on. It should take you 3 seconds on Google to find an acceptable article that confirms that. Venezuela, Iran, and Saudi Arabia are not morally superior to Russia. They are all terrible authoritarian states with lengthy records of human and civil rights violations. Saudi Arabia and Yemen… no moral difference imo from what Russia is doing. Only difference is…one country is in Europe and the other is in a place that few in the west cares much about. And probably skin color is a factor too. I finally agree with Omar on something. The problem with the US is that we’ve positioned ourselves are hypocrites. We have failed our post ww2 role as an ethical baseline for the world…much of this has to do with geopolitics of energy, corporatism, and bs politics.

The Achilles heal of the US is it’s hypocrisy. This goes way back to slavery, and the hypocrisy of the constitution. The US goal of the next century should be to stop being hypocritical, and start being that beacon of light that it could be. This starts with energy independence, because it will allow us to avoid these conflicts of interest and wars…My 2 cents…

x-jla-

I only ask for proof when someone makes unsubstantiated / unbelievable claims. 

If the person making the claim has a good reputation for being an honest and learned individual I am willing to assume their claims are true for the time being and engage with them in a discussion while I learn more and make up my mind.  

You do not have a good reputation of being honest or learned person.  Hence why I ask for proof of the majority of the claims you make.  

Chad, your track record of being a parrot of cnn like falsehoods and lies does not give you the authority to question anyone.

Show me where I've repeated 'CNN like falsehoods'. Show me where I've lied about anything on this forum.

I'll wait . . .

I thought this thread was about gas.

While the gasoline production is, the majority of the fuel is sourced from outside the U.S. so its really foreign-oil based. In general, Gasoline doesn't exist in nature, it is manufactured. (Exceptions may exist by happenstance but generally, it's a man-made product).

169.9 here in Northern Alberta

Nice

Chad Miller, you silly little troll. I never said that we don’t produce oil. Your low IQ is not my problem.

Correction:

As in all of our own…

Okay Lucy.

The end.

x-jla - you're even less skilled at trolling than you are at telling the truth.

Run along little dishonest troll. 

this is definitely a top 5 xlax dunk.

It is odd how obtuse x-jla is. The man is either mentally unbalanced or a dishonest troll. Being that x-jla has admitted to latter I really don't know why this site allows him to remain here. 

I have no respect for x-jla but I'm also loosing respect for Archinect for allowing such a dishonest and disreputable user to continue to post lies.  I'm all for free speech but at this point everything x-jla posts is an attempt at trolling with a known lie of some kind.

Lol. Let’s revisit that covid thread and compare what I was saying with the cdc data that was being admittedly withheld. Let’s see who was parroting misinformation and lies. You are intellectually dishonest. What did I say that was a lie?

T0

Go back and read your own thread, several others and myself called out the lies you told. 

And those “lies” were ALL ended up being “truths”

Provide proof.

T0

I only remember you exist when I see a post of yours. When that post is an attempt at trolling by lying I call you out on it.

Free speech isn't free of consequences.  If you don't like being called out for trolling and lying then stop doing it.  

All depends on where you live. Out here in western Colorado those trucks and flags are still everywhere.

Yeah this isn't going to change anything for those who drive giant trucks. They drive those for the image, not for better gas mileage.

Then maybe they can shut the fuck up about the price.

“Let them eat Tesla”

Teslas are cheaper than most pickup trucks. These are choices with consequences, why should I feel sympathy?

“Choices with consequences” I don’t disagree, but is that a consistent belief or only for a certain type of person? Can we now recognize other scenarios where choices have consequences? Like student loans, having 5 kids while living on welfare, drinking oneself into homelessness, etc..?

Big problem that I see from both “sides”

*of these debates is a complete philosophical inconsistency in how the “other” is treated. I personally think that choices are partly due to one’s internal decisions (agency) and partly due to pressures from their environment. The pick up truck culture is a thing. If you grew up in the country, there is a sort of social pressure to drive a pickup truck. It’s dumb, but it’s just as real as dressing a certain way if you live in an inner city. Breaking through that is going to require good design and marketing. The success of Tesla was due to the fact that the car is sexy. The Prius was a virgin mobile. The Tesla broke that stereotype. It’s not all about performance and economics. There are certainly cultural connotations to transportation, as there is with architecture.

^except larry David. He was sexy in his Prius.

There's a fairly substantial difference between taking out loans at 18 on the advice of essentially all of society and buying a big fuck-off truck at 40 cause you think it makes you a man.

I believe that.

“Let them eat Tesla”

Nah, Teslas are shit.

The problem with cheap gas is that it doesn't incentivize infrastructural / modal shifts on a societal level. As long as the destructive choice is the most convenient choice, people will make that choice.

The problem with expensive gas is that people still need to drive 20 miles to work. “Choice” is not really a thing for most people.

It’s the working and middle class that get screwed the most- as usual. The professional class and wealthy don’t really care about a few extra bucks at the pump.

Or they just work from home a little

*more to compensate…

So, the amount of pain that would need to be imposed before any “societal shift” occurs is probably pretty high. Especially when the ones with the power to “shift” don’t give a shit. I agree in theory, but it’s not plausible that such a change will happen in actuality.

The three big 'American' auto manufactures have stated they are going all EV for their trucks and SUV's by 2026. That seems to be a rather large 'societal shift' if it happens.

I guess I'm not so fatalistic.

I am - then again I know I'll be dead in 7-10 years so I don't care.

Electric SUVs will be great. The prices will make it so that the wealthy will transition first, followed by the upper middle, then middle, etc….decades later, maybe the working class will be able to buy them as the tech advances and becomes cheaper.

x-jla - 

What is your basis for this assumption? I ask because current EV's are expensive they are not out of reach of the middle class.

“A developed country is not a place where the poor have cars. It's where the rich use public transportation”

The amount of infrastructural change required for that in a country the size of the US is astronomical. The embodied energy of such a change, assuming we are talking rail of some sort would be great. Assuming this would get through the endless political and economic hurdles, the time frame to implement such a change for it to have a positive carbon impact is on the order of several decades…at least. In the meantime, high gas prices will affect the working and middle class, and economic development in general. I like optimism, and big ideas, but realistically high gas prices will cause decades of negative impacts before the adjustments happen and provide an return on investment. High gas may be good for long term progress, but will inevitably cause lots of short term regression. I’m not saying your wrong, I’m just saying that you are putting the long term above the short term. That’s a hard sell for most people.

Chad, the current EVs are not out of reach, but it’s going to take a lot of time before they replace the remaining 99.5-98% if gas vehicles in the US. We went from 0.14%-1.8% EV in 5 years in the US. (Wikipedia). That’s great progress, but it’s still going to take decades even if that rate doubles. Keep in mind also that 40 something million used vehicles are sold each year. No one is going to buy an electric car with first selling or trading in their old car. So, even if these things take off, It’s going to take a long time for us to phase out all of those used vehicles.

And until then, the burden of high gas prices will be disproportionately felt by the people with less money.

I agree that it will take a long time for all gas vehicles to be phased out. I agree that infrastructure change will be needed. I disagree that the infrastructure change and imbodied energy required would be 'astronomical'. It will take time and money. 

 All of this is besides the point. You're original opinion was that it will take decades for the middle class to afford EV's. The middle class can afford EV's now.

As for the the change impacting those who make less money - that's obvious.  The poor ALWAYS feel the increased cost of goods more than others with more money.   Putting long term goals in front of short term ones is what is needed in any type of forward thinking society.  Prioritizing short term goals are what has caused the majority of problems in any society.  If we want to survive as a species we have to be looking at the long term. 

I am putting the long term before the short term because in this case I believe that if we don't, the long term will not have the opportunity to exist.

The goals are difficult but not impossible.

Hard to conceive of the survival of the species as a priority when there is so much wealth being spent to undermine the viability of survival as an individual.

There is a human rights price to pay for China’s efficacy at these kinds of things. In a Democratic liberal society things don’t get done as quickly.

*efficiency

It all just costs money.

Anyone can do what China has without violating anyone's human rights but it will cost you a lot of money. 

In addition - violating someone's human rights has rarely stopped the government or big business from doing something in America. 

Well, I think commercial vehicles will become mostly electric much sooner than private vehicles. The high gas prices may be a big factor for companies to replace their fleets. As for China, their system is completely different from ours. It’s not only financial will. Something like eminent domain to clear way for a new rail system may not be contested in China, but it would be here, and rightfully so. The years of court procedures to carve paths within cities, between cities, etc. In cities like Manhattan, it’s a little different. They have a basic infrastructure already in place and the density to support transportation. In Phoenix or LA public transportation will not work in its traditional form. Maybe, in the form of some type of decentralized public transportation- like many small self driving electric transportation pods that can use the existing infrastructure. Let’s also think about unintentional consequences. Do we have enough of the needed rare earth metals for the batteries? The mining of these metals is not without environmental consequences. Gas is definitely not a long term answer, but I don’t feel like public transportation is either. In my honest opinion, we need to completely rethink the idea of transportation, and remove the daily dependence on transportation. Also not an easy or fast track solution. Idk.

x-jla wrote:

". . . but I don’t feel like public transportation is either. In my honest opinion, we need to completely rethink the idea of transportation, and remove the daily dependence on transportation. Also not an easy or fast track solution. Idk. "

Then all communities need to be no larger than what a person can walk or bike in 10 minutes - approximately 1.5 to 3.0 miles.

You incorrectly think that going to all EV's isn't possible because of the 'astronomical' infrastructure change required.  Your words.    How much infrastructure change would be needed to make everything in a city reachable by waling or biking for ten minutes?

The infrastructure change was in response to tduds. I think EV is totally possible. I just think that it’s going to take some time. During that time, the negative impact of high gas prices will do more damage than good. The optimal transition would be to keep gas prices low while transitioning to EV. Like I said, we went from 0.14% - 2% EV in just 5 years. That’s alot. As prices come down and more EV options become available in a variety of sizes and styles, that rate should increase. My only gripe is that during this transition, which can take decades, at least 1 decade to be very optimistic, the burden will be greater and for longer among the middle, lower middle, and working class. That burden should not be dismissed. I have been paying 100$ extra a week. My work requires I drive alot. I can afford it. I don’t like it, but it’s not going to break me. Many-most people cannot afford an extra 500$ a month until EV becomes a viable option for them.

x-jla - 

You're contradicting yourself.  That or you don't actually understand the topic and can't make up a coherent option.  

You stated that the money needed to change over EV's would be 'astronomical' and it would mostly impact the poor and middle class.   

You also went on to say that we should get rid of public transportation and the concept of daily dependence on transportation. That will exclusively impact the poor and middle class.

You then go on to say  that the government should somehow keep oil prices artificially low while EV's and public reliance daily transportation are implemented.  This money will have to come from somewhere and that somewhere will be taxes the middle class pay. 

In summary - you seem to be against change because it will economically hurt the middle class but what you want to do will hurt the middle class while not providing a long term solution to the issue of dependence on fossil fuels.  

'option' should have been 'opinion' - typo.

Where did I say any of this? Your reading comp is terrible. ^ for any other readers on archinect take this as a case study in chads dishonest take, and persistence to torn conversations into arguments.

My stance is that low gas prices slow the transition away from gas consumption. I'd be happy to look at any studies that have been done which show otherwise (I'll admit I haven't looked into any that confirm my opinion, but maybe I should). 

My stance is also that efficient vehicles already exist and are readily available. We can incentivize fuel efficiency and also incentivize alternative modes of transit. Maybe not for everybody, but for most. Whenever this comes up folks like to trot out the example of the rural american who lives miles from anything and obviously can't rely on transit, but when you look at the actual US population that's a single digit percentage. Most of us live in places that could easily be retrofitted for better walkability, bus, and eventually light rail. We're not even building from scratch, there's obsolete infrastructure and under-utilized rights of way all over the place. It won't be easy, and I agree the political motivation is dismal, but it's not as insurmountable as many believe.

And in addition to all that I still don't feel sympathy for people who can afford to pay $80,000 for a truck that gets 10mpg and gripe about an extra $200 at the pump. Plenty of perfectly capable cars (and smaller trucks even!) that get 4-5x better mileage. Unlike a student loan, you can sell your truck.

xjla - My reading comprehension is just find, you simply can't remember what you've posted . . .

You stated that the money needed to change over EV's would be 'astronomical' and it would mostly impact the poor and middle class.  

xjla wrote:

“Electric SUVs will be great. The prices will make it so that the wealthy will transition first, followed by the upper middle, then middle, etc….decades later, maybe the working class will be able to buy them as the tech advances and becomes cheaper.”

“The amount of infrastructural change required for that in a country the size of the US is astronomical. “

You also went on to say that we should get rid of public transportation and the concept of daily dependence on transportation

 xjla wrote:

“:Gas is definitely not a long term answer, but I don’t feel like public transportation is either. In my honest opinion, we need to completely rethink the idea of transportation, and remove the daily dependence on transportation. “

You then go on to say  that the government should somehow keep oil prices artificially low while EV's and public reliance daily transportation are implemented.  This money will have to come from somewhere and that somewhere will be taxes the middle class pay.

xjla wrote: 

“The optimal transition would be to keep gas prices low while transitioning to EV.”

Who would keep the gas prices low – the government

“ You also went on to say that we should get rid of public transportation and the concept of daily dependence on transportation”. No I didn’t. I said that we should reduce the dependence upon transportation - hence work from home, virtual spaces, walkable communities with integrated shopping, offices, etc. your reading comp is bad.

“ Who would keep the gas prices low – the government”. I never said that the government should keep gas prices low. The government shouldn’t put political hurdles in place to make domestic production artificially difficult. The only thing I said about govt involvement is that public land resources should be nationalized. The govt should not be issuing permits for private industries to extract public resources for private gains.

“Electric SUVs will be great. The prices will make it so that the wealthy will transition first, followed by the upper middle, then middle, etc….decades later, maybe the working class will be able to buy them as the tech advances and becomes cheaper.”

“The amount of infrastructural change required for that in a country the size of the US is astronomical. “

^cute how you put two separate responses to two completely different people together to give the impression that the latter is about EV, when in fact it was about a public transportation system big enough to displace need for gas- hence the topic. Dishonest as cnn.

Tduds wrote “ Unlike a student loan, you can sell your truck.”. No offense but this is why we use the term “libtard”

The ven diagram of people who use the term libtard and who have opinions worth listening to is nothing but 2 separate circles, separated by miles of empty space.

You can't sell a truck?

I know. I don’t like saying it either. Yeah, you can sell a truck…to presumably someone who will drive it…which then brings us full circle k.

xjla 

Both of those quotes were from you in this conversation.  

I bet! There are a lot of people who need high clearance vehicles for work. 

 Never understood people who drive jeeps / trucks and don't need them for some reason. Never understood owning a lifted truck for your everyday vehicle. 

Here's an explanation https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0305829818775817

I'm still tooling around in the same car I ever bought & in HS I couldn't have cared less how many MPG the thing got. I just thought it looked cool. It's on my list of things to replace, but it was behind a 20% down payment fund for when we buy a house. My wife's car is even older, we're planning on replacing that in the coming months.

Admittedly I'll probably ignore MPG entirely again & get whatever SUV appeals to me. Currently thinking about a used BMW X3. I like sitting up high so I can see more of my surroundings (like over the car in front of me), so I'll probably always drive an SUV barring if I ever make it into the sports car tax bracket.

I assume 2-3 SUV's from now my vehicle will be both Electric & Self Driving. TBD how the car market advances.

I drive a Subaru and am up high enough to see over / around other vehicles other then full size trucks. I also get 30 - 45 mpg in town / highway. 

Also if you're going to be waiting to get a new SUV for a few years it will be Electric. Ford, Doge, and GMC are all going fully electric for their trucks and SUV's by 2026.

Just put a hold on a Toyota Rav4 Prime! We've been trying to find a plug-in hybrid since December, it's absurd how in demand and under supplied the EV market is right now. Still won't have it for another 6-8 weeks, but at least we're in the queue!

Nice. I'm looking at that too, not seriously just yet tho since supply issues and whatnot. Don't think I can swing the plug-in on my house's existing meter (100amp). Likely to look at reg hybrid if ever they become available.

You have to scale this up, to have a significant portion of the worlds cars EV…and even then, Cars are only responsible a fraction (20%?) of CO2 production.

Is the medicine worse than the disease?

I do not think anything will be solved simply by switching gas powered cars to electric powered cars. I don't know of anyone serious who is saying this.

Incidentally, I just came across this essay. https://theconversation.com/how-a-few-geothermal-plants-could-solve-americas-lithium-supply-crunch-and-boost-the-ev-battery-industry-179465

Well that’s promising, and geothermal in general is also promising.