do you honestly believe that oil companies will just absorb the tax increase...? they are a corporation publicy owned and traded. if their profits do not increase, the people that run the companies lose their jobs because stockholders want to see the value of their holdings rise.
taxing something is never the solution to limiting it, especially in a market economy. comeon. it does not help anything.
if driling were allowed perhaps they could invest larger portions of their profits into finding new drilling sites, and perhaps even better cleaner fuels and energy sources. (thats me being idealistic and stupid)
anyway. if you tax the oil companies more, one of two things happens, the tax gets passed back to you in the form of higher prices, or the oil companies lay off all those middle americans that this is supposedly going to help?
why dont the oil companies invest the huge profits that they are making NOW into alternative energy.
Also, the guys running these companies dont really give a shit about the long-term stability of their companies. Nor do they care about their share-holders. Even if they drive their companies into the ground, most of the CEO's have packages set up where they will walk away with millions upon millions of dollars on top of the stock that they all sell before the collapse of their companies
how again does using more oil and perpetuating the myth that we are not both running out of it and doing irrevocable harm to the environment buy us more time?
why dont the oil companies invest the huge profits that they are making NOW into alternative energy.
I'd like to counter with another question. Why did hardly anybody invest in ethanol prior to huge gov't incentives?
The reason why OIL companies aren't investing in alternative energy is two parted.
1.) They are oil companies. Nobody tells the alternative energy companies they need to invest in fossil fuels, likewise it oil companies shouldn't be forced into a market that isn't their business.
2.) There is no profit in alternative energy. It succeeds, like ethanol, on gov't mandates and incentives. Cost of PV panels is something like $4.50/watt. It's coming down, but that's still pretty darn expensive compared to oil/gas/coal.
3.) Why don't we make Apple pay a windfall profits tax on Ipod sales or make them fund a gov't mandated pet project. Their profit margins are far more than oil & gas. Why don't we force them to lower their prices for the poor saps that can't afford a new laptop?
What should be done rather than tax the company because they make a profit is tax the product so you discourage its use. Put European style fuel taxes on the pump prices and you'll see big changes. Just look at the changes brought on by the regular market forces price rise. Likewise, tax the shit out of electrical power and suddenly that PV array for your house will look like a good deal...and leaving lights on in unoccupied rooms will stop pretty darn quick.
Oh, and take those taxes and invest them in things like public transit, rail, etc. DO NOT let the consuption tax income go into the politicians pet election projects like all the social programs everyone clamors for. Infastructure only. Problem solved.
I really don't set out to be the defender of all things oil related but the bias is just so absurd its sickening. I don't look at the world in a Google = good / Exxon = bad filter. I don't desire to punish a company or something I might not agree with. However I do wish to encourage things I do care about. There's a big difference and real solutions will not come forward until people check their hatred at the door.
Your system won't work because currently there is NO practical alternative to fossil fuels for transport. Even if people wanted to change, or if taxes were astronomical, what would they change to?
If you want to ship something, or see your mother across the country, or even get to work, for most people that involves fossil fuels. Simple life choices in the USA involve consuming gas.
The difference with an IPod is that it is not a practical necessity. It is a luxury, and most of us understand that. We can turn off our Ipods, and our quality of life doesn't suffer. But take away our gas, or price us out of gasoline, and all kinds of "essential" parts of our lives suffer.
and I realize that won't solve transportation, but energy for buildings is a good start, and a better electric car that can be re-charged from that solar energy is also a good start.
i always get a little suspicious of those who insist they are soooo even minded and only see things through reason's prism..
anyway, a few things should be set straight.
-there is a huge difference bw ipod and oil. first of all the government and oil companies can be seen as working together to provide, yes, a necessity. and the windfall tax is a brilliant piece of marketing, its not really a new tax instead its reducing a tax break that the oil companies were given when oil was at a lower price point than it is now. the break was given to encourage further production and exploration. thats how government and oil work together. they need one another and its fine. but now when the scales tip drastically to one side it is not unreasonable to ask oil to give something up to the govnt that has helped it so much in the past.
-next the oil companies already have many leases already granted to drill out in the waters off of our coasts but they havent yet. why is a point of speculation and depending on your tilt u can argue that one. but the fact stands if they desperately need to they could but they are not.
-oil companies are businesses, just bc we call them that they are not strictly limited to oil. being good businessmen they realize this and have diversified into energy companies -all kinds of energy, alternative, renewable, etc..
-dont be fooled by the tiny footprint of the drill itself, its not the rig that does the damage to a sensitive ecosystem. its the massive infrastructure required to service it. you people are architects right? youve seen what happens to the roads and areas near construction sites. now (to be generous) imagine a 2 lane road paved right through any ecosystem (like your house) and see how well you adapt.
when will we wake up and realize that drilling is not the answer as some have already stated. im sure many of the people pushing for more oil are the same that refuse to give clean needles to junkies, but is it better to give them the hit itself? yes it will be painful, but it already is getting there and we dont have much choice left. look at the outcry over spills and leaks from poorly designed rigs and transport systems. the oil companies miraculously adapted and came up w better systems that dont damage or fail as often. why cant we do the same w alternatives?
I don't have anything against the oil companies themselves, but I really don't see the point in *subsidizing* them so they can make even more money at the expense of the progress of the country.
The point is, lets not care that they are oil companies, whatever they have done in the past, it's up to them to adapt and evolve in response to the natural market conditions they find themselves in... This is about the consumer. If market forces are leading to increased prices and creating competitive pressures on oil companies from alternative fuel companies, let them survive through adaptation, and lets not privelege oil consumption. It's survival of the fittest, I really don't give a shit about oil companies, not that I have anything against them, but it's for their own good to have to make progress...
It's not like people don't have alternatives. They do. Public tranist. Passive energy in their homes. As these things (naturally) are becoming more cost effective and sensible, why should we give oil an unnecessary edge? People are selling their gas guzzlers in favor of fuel efficiency, and considering public transit alternatives and denser living as more economically sensible alternatives, I say good, if that's what the market is pushing, why argue with the market, especially when it's good for society and for the environment?
People want to save money, let them change their spending habits. Why subsidize the status quo when the status quo is anyway destructive to the environment, cannot be sustained in the long run, and promotes an *innefficient* way of life, one that makes us less competitive economically in the global marketplace?
The problem is not in letting the market dictate people's spending habits, because if we did this, people would just choose energy efficient alternatives... The problem is in trying to limit the choices in the market, and to subsidize an insufficient and self-destructive energy lifestyle... Lets not do stupid things that are essentially subsidizing oil, and pretending to be working of the consumer...
Lets make progress for a better future, not cling to inadequate technologies and political players of the past which only make our country worse off and weaker in the global marketplace...
I don't think anyone is saying that things don't need to change, it is just how drastic the repercussions will be i things change too quickly.
I'd love to see solar on every home, or better yet, large arrays and great public transit would be wonderful, but these can't happen overnight.
It is great to think that people will change their spending habits, oil companies will adapt and evolve, etc. It will happen.
The big question is: How much are you willing to suffer? Slowing spending will slow the economy and eventually it will come full circle - less spending, less building, architects without jobs.
It is easy to point the finger (I, for one, am glad Hummer owners and McMansion builders are suffering), but I am not sure where the comfort line is when it does make it back to you kick you in the butt.
How many are willing to give up their jobs or career progression to make the world change faster?
A precarious balance, imho, with no easy answers. I am starting to lean against drastic changes, though, as I do enjoy business growing and a good economy.
Trace: "The big question is: How much are you willing to suffer? Slowing spending will slow the economy and eventually it will come full circle - less spending, less building, architects without jobs."
The energy problem is something that needs solutions, but offshore drilling isn't the answer... Lets not throw away our assets in a panic because we feel a pinch... Offshore drilling won't help, it'll only encourage people to spend unwisely... Lets invest smartly in the future...
The best thing for consumer spending IMHO is to give consumers choices... Competitive markets that encourage innovations and competitive pricing are good for consumer spending. If you prop up oil companies over the diverse alternative energy options that are already possible, it's not like the consumer is going to see savings. The reason: the less competition you have, the more power the "monopoly" has to dictate price, especially in a market for an essential good that has no substitutes... Subsidizing oil will not result in any price benefits to the consumer... The way to control prices is to encourage competition, not to stifle competition (i.e. from substitute energy options for the consumer, etc)... Investing in new industries is good for the economy, makes the economy stronger, actually creates jobs, makes it more competitive...
Look at it this way: if people all drove fuel efficient or electric cars or rode bikes and took the transit, implemented solar and passive energy strategies in their homes, the net effect would be lower demand for gasoline / oil from consumers. Lower demand from consumers means less competition for energy needed in manufacturing, less competition for energy affecting building... Competition drives prices down... Subsidizing a monopoly would only drive prices up or limit competition... Also people buying energy efficient solutions creates more demand for those products, there is incentive for better products, which only encourage more consumer spending... Lets improve consumer spending by being competitive, not by force feeding people bad product...
"I'd love to see solar on every home, or better yet, large arrays and great public transit would be wonderful, but these can't happen overnight."
As far as the large arrays, they're not happening at all! So again I ask: why isn't the Solar Array Project a public works project right now? Might it have just a little bit to do with oil and coal industry lobbyists in Washington and the sheer amount of power and money behind them, and the fact that the present administration is practically in bed with them? Just maybe? What the fuck are we waiting for?
aqua, you can't compare a public service (energy) even when it is conducting by for-profit corporations to a luxury (ipods). ipods are not necessary to get around, to heat one's home. the comparison is far too simplistic, as is the idea of "let the market decide!" the market does wonderful things, and it must be taken into consideration when making government policy, but especially when considering a business that provides energy or the materials needed to produce energy as well as when the conduct of a business results in adverse consequences to the public (ie: resource depletion, pollution, etc) there must be an equal consideration given to protecting what is in the public interest.
oil companies may be extracting oil from their property (though often times they do so on or with government easements), but they are extracting a public resource. they should make a profit on it, they are investing in it and laboring to extract it, but because it is a public resource and because it is one that has become essential for daily survival there must be other limitations put on them. most americans are unaware of this, but before the industrial revolution, land rights in this country were much different than they are today. they were far less individualistic; you were required to permit free passage of other people across your land and the use of your land was restricted by the effects it would have on those around you. obviously, when we wanted to start building textile mills this had to change, and that's history, but we have this very narrow view of what it means to own land or a resource in this country that is relatively recent, and very much not in keeping with the original intent that land and resources were a commodity held, at least in part, in common by everyone.
furthermore, the conservative or strictly capitalistic notion of letting the market reign, not taxing oil companies, and especially not subsidizing alternative energy companies or public transportation would be an interesting philosophical argument if it was not completely hypocritical. the oil companies are heavily subsidized (despite their enormous and unparalleled profits, which are far less than that of apple). after the second world war, following heavy lobbying from esso and gm, the federal government created a sweeping plan to provide postwar housing and prosperity, and not surprisingly (given the money trail), they chose to plan automobile-centric suburbs and allowed gm to create fake companies to buy up public street car companies only to remove them and provide gm buses in their place. there is a very long history of subsidizing oil and automotive corporations even while and after they forced out all the competition.
as if that weren't enough, oil companies still hold a near monopoly on our energy and transportation needs in this country, and they do so with a product whose manufacture, extraction and use creates irrevocable damage to our environment. plus, it's a resource that we're running out of globally, and a resource we're going to war over. all this while they are still subsidized and still making record profits.
government had a role in getting us into this mess by capitulating to the oil and automotive industries in their duty to protect the public from undue harm, and government now rightfully has a duty to restore the protection of the public good by switching subsidies to promote investment (which of course is different than continuing to subsidize operations) in new, clean, renewable energy industries, investing in a robust public transportation network, and taxing industries that are harmful to the public good. just as the government has subsidized oil and other industries to encourage investment, so too should this be done for more socially responsible, but costly industries and public infrastructure.
we need to be more responsible about which industries we subsidize and which industries we tax, and we need to have a longer view of things to prevent another mess like the one in which we find ourselves. opening the sea shelf to costly, damaging oil extraction that will provide little if any impact on prices is not in this responsible and foreward-thinking vein.
yea, fuck manifestos. enough lip service. let's start implementing some of these alternatives instead of saying shit like "these can't happen overnight" and "we'll have to study this...a lot of the technology is there now, fer chrissakes.
we'll see what Obama can do to spark some of this if he get in (probably not much).
it's nice that the oil cos., who are in the business of making money, not oil, want to add more land they can drill on...
i'd like to see congress eliminate the billions in subsidies that the oil cos. obtain each year and have that money spent on grants and tax breaks for solar/wind (which are expiring this year)
oil derricks require large amounts of infrastructure, and that would place a very heavy burden in already fragile landscapes. i think the idea of nationalizing the fields is brilliant. americans would actually be able to benefit (similar to norway - are they new or old europe, i can never remember)
while we are at it, we should let weyerhauser mow down the remainder of the national forests, and coal companies knock down mountains. oh wait...
oh, and mccain, who was against offshore drilling before he was for it, has already received $750,000 in campaign contributions from not so little oil. i thought he was against those kinds of things? ah, must have been before he was for it... clowns
What's so sad about the green movement is that 99% of the shit we do to make buildings "sustainable" now was par for the course before HVAC and electric lights were invented.
bRink - don't think I am suggesting that more oil is the answer, far from it. I am all for a complete change to more sustainable energy sources and think subsidizing big oil is ludicrous.
The question I posed was more in the gray area that no one wants to talk about. It is easy to be extreme on either side, but that would cause a massive wave of slowdown in our economy. Sure, we'd pull out, but it could be decades.
That's my simple point - there needs to be a balance in the immediate future with a plan to move away from oil short/med/long term.
i think it's easy to get rather one sided on issues like energy policy...
you're right there needs to be a balance between immediate problems and short, medium, and long term goals...
i guess when it comes to oil, in the immediate future, that means a degree of policy to affect both demand and supply...
my point of view is that so often there is a tendency to prioritize supply over demand... seeing this is as primarily a supply issue... IMHO, demand is inevitably (and likely very soon) expanding while there is a limit to how much new supply can be tapped...
sure, developing alternative fuels involves growing pains, but if we continue with our dependency on oil, the energy crisis is only going to get worse and worse. there are far worse things than paying $5 a gallon for gas... unless we have sufficient renewable alternatives in place, given that countries like china are emerging as industrial powers, our economy isn't just going to go through growing pains, it could be far more catastrophic... imagine an energy meltdown, skyrocketing oil prices without viable alternatives in place... it would be an economic meltdown... a meltdown like that can be avoided if we are no longer dependent on it...
I'm generally in favor of any policy that helps stop the bleeding and cure the wound, and generally against policies that are ineffective, and act more to socially anaesteticize people. The market pain of high prices due demand and supply is a necessary evil if the market is to provide the essential economic incentives for changes in energy consumption, and development of energy alternatives.
china is already pushing heavily for renewable energy solutions, they are fully advancing towards a competitive advantage in energy consumption... making renewable alternative energy readily available is essential to remain competitive in a global marketplace...
Emerging markets have it made, really. They can choose the infrastructure they build. It could be solar in one place, wind in another, etc., etc. We,on the other hand, have an efficient system that is only good for oil (or at least mostly).
It's funny (and kinda cool) to think about some kid in Africa with a small solar array having web access, fresh water and electricity - he could theoretically be far more advance and nimble than all of the US. We better do something or we'll be left to fade and die.
The Dems made some interesting points this week. Obviously, they are biased, but good arguing points: the oil companies currently have 68 million acres of land that they own the rights to drill in and 14 years of supply, they have just chosen not to (I am sure there are logical reasons why, like cost, etc.).
Not hard to see that the big oil wants rights to drill anywhere, particularly easy access places that will secure they stay in business for another 3-4 decades.
Probably should be common knowledge, given how often we hear that 'we must drill in Alaska', etc. Glad to hear something from the Dems regarding energy and call the bs coming from Bush.
"Use it or Lose it" is what they're calling things.
The U.S. currently imports 65% of its oil! 65%. This is a number that cannot be solved by the future potential of alternative energy or domestic drilling alone.
Energy dependence in America is a three-phase process. The sequence of which is utterly imperative..
1. End Ban on Offshore Drilling. Before we can pull out of overseas drilling we must insure the domestic capacity to cover a substantial percentage of our consumption.
2. Stop Drilling on Foreign Soil. Pretty self-explanatory. Terrorism, et al.
3. Invest in Alternative Energies. While alternative means may not currently possess the economies of scale for mass production, they are our only hope to fighting environmental decay and ensuring our energy independence. The investment should be increased as resources become available for allocation via phases 1 and 2.
1. change our consumption patterns to reflect market prices...
americans import so much, but we also produce enough already... we are already one of the largest producers of oil in the world, i think second only to saudi arabia but the problem is that we consume way too much relative to other nations... we consume 1/4 of the worlds oil, even though we represent less than 1/20 of the global population...
i failed to mention before that post that this is only the supply-side of the argument. the demand-side, on the other hand, is something that we as architects and planners can influence greatly.
as an aside, an interesting bit of research that i used in argument of my thesis...
not only does our sprawl addicted lifestyle eat up energy resources, but from a humanistic perspective it drastically lowers the bar on public health (most of it rather obvious, but some persuasive facts nonetheless)
Jim Puplava has an excellent essay on oil in his weekly podcast this week. From a financial perspective but he clearly has more intelligence on the subject than your average elected official. Worth a listen.
aquapura, nice program... definitely worth listening to... very informative.
I think the majority of my points of view still stands, given the information in that article...
I think it's interesting that despite all of the talk about supply on the one hand, when Jim Puplava was asked what he would do if he were President, all of the things he focused on were demand related things.
The only way to avert an insurmountable energy crisis is to begin changing our energy consumption patterns immensely, and begin dramatic development of energy alternatives. This is where dramatic efforts need to be placed, you can't stall on this, because sooner or later oil cannot last... It's going to be tough, but I think people are resourceful enough to respond to it...
I think, in campaign talk, there is something missing, if only because it would be unpopular to mention it: that people need to do their part to change their daily oil consumption... Of course no politician is going to say this openly because people don't like to be told that they are to blame for the energy crisis, or that they have to deal with their own problems of paying at the pump... But the pain in the pocketbook is simply the market telling you as a consumer not to consume so much... This is why consumers are cogs on a demand curve... The market works because people's choices in spending are dependent on price... Price determines how much people are willing to consume of the good... This works, so long as we have alternatives (that we have a choice)... That choice of alternatives can be changing our commuting patterns, changing our lifestyle, or buying a fuel efficient car, or retrofitting our homes for solar or energy efficiency, living in more efficient spaces, and choosing things which involve less fuel to produce (for example locally grown produce) because their prices contain the embedded fuel costs... The prices are also the market telling companies that it is becoming more profitable to be energy efficient, and cities that they need to build transit infrastructure, and *governments that the opportunity costs of investment in alternative renewable energy are getting lower (i.e. the cost of doing nothing is going up)... This is what has happened in Europe and Asia and the rest of the world, and this is why other countries have developed as cultures that are more energy conscious, less dependent on oil than we are... It hurts, but nobody said market force are painless, just as change and rehab are not painless... But I think we're resourceful enough that we will survive...
And it requires leadership in the right direction to do this. I think the most irresponsible thing that can be done right now is to encourage continued ongoing oil consumption by engaging this problem as a supply only issue, when it is most critical that we should be thinking about ways to change consumption... Social anaesthetics are what will kill us...
bRink - I think if you would listen to that program on a weekly basis you'd hear Jim continually talk about the need for more rail based mass transit and suggest people buy fuel efficient cars. He even has talked about how he lives in a walkable community. His argument, and I agree, is that we need to learn how to conserve energy now because in the near future it'll be forced on us because there will not be adequate energy.
As for the supply side he does make an excellent point. When energy scarcity hits, or when prices get high enough, the environmentalists will be bulldozed over by a very angry public. The outer continetal shelf, ANWR, etc. will be opened up carte blanche as quickly as possible in a manner where real environmental damage will happen. My argument for opening up those lands now is that we aren't in a crisis yet and good oversight and regulation will still rule. Still, that doesn't mean the production should be wasted on fueling SUV's. I'd raise an european style gas tax to fund things like rail and pedestrian based development and research into alternative energies.
They should just charge more taxes for gas guzzlers. Seems fair to me, but that obviously would never fly. Automakers are suffering too much, even though it is their stupid fault.
We do need a national rail system and soon. Flying is such a pain in the ass compared with taking a train from downtown. I'd gladly help pay for that instead of war/defense.
Of course, that will take decades to implement and cost as much as a war.
I just hope all this equalizes, from a purely selfish point of view, as I do like making a living. I pray this is just a wake up call, not an end all.
Bush Calls for End to Ban on Offshore Oil Drilling
do you honestly believe that oil companies will just absorb the tax increase...? they are a corporation publicy owned and traded. if their profits do not increase, the people that run the companies lose their jobs because stockholders want to see the value of their holdings rise.
taxing something is never the solution to limiting it, especially in a market economy. comeon. it does not help anything.
if driling were allowed perhaps they could invest larger portions of their profits into finding new drilling sites, and perhaps even better cleaner fuels and energy sources. (thats me being idealistic and stupid)
anyway. if you tax the oil companies more, one of two things happens, the tax gets passed back to you in the form of higher prices, or the oil companies lay off all those middle americans that this is supposedly going to help?
i love how people would destroy thousands of years of ecological growth in some of the most biodiverse habitats in the world for the thought of instant gas price reduction. Thank God© gas prices are going up, if it takes a rise in gas prices for this country to realize how fucking ignorant is has become, so be it.
over_under
why dont the oil companies invest the huge profits that they are making NOW into alternative energy.
Also, the guys running these companies dont really give a shit about the long-term stability of their companies. Nor do they care about their share-holders. Even if they drive their companies into the ground, most of the CEO's have packages set up where they will walk away with millions upon millions of dollars on top of the stock that they all sell before the collapse of their companies
how again does using more oil and perpetuating the myth that we are not both running out of it and doing irrevocable harm to the environment buy us more time?
I'd like to counter with another question. Why did hardly anybody invest in ethanol prior to huge gov't incentives?
The reason why OIL companies aren't investing in alternative energy is two parted.
1.) They are oil companies. Nobody tells the alternative energy companies they need to invest in fossil fuels, likewise it oil companies shouldn't be forced into a market that isn't their business.
2.) There is no profit in alternative energy. It succeeds, like ethanol, on gov't mandates and incentives. Cost of PV panels is something like $4.50/watt. It's coming down, but that's still pretty darn expensive compared to oil/gas/coal.
3.) Why don't we make Apple pay a windfall profits tax on Ipod sales or make them fund a gov't mandated pet project. Their profit margins are far more than oil & gas. Why don't we force them to lower their prices for the poor saps that can't afford a new laptop?
What should be done rather than tax the company because they make a profit is tax the product so you discourage its use. Put European style fuel taxes on the pump prices and you'll see big changes. Just look at the changes brought on by the regular market forces price rise. Likewise, tax the shit out of electrical power and suddenly that PV array for your house will look like a good deal...and leaving lights on in unoccupied rooms will stop pretty darn quick.
Oh, and take those taxes and invest them in things like public transit, rail, etc. DO NOT let the consuption tax income go into the politicians pet election projects like all the social programs everyone clamors for. Infastructure only. Problem solved.
I really don't set out to be the defender of all things oil related but the bias is just so absurd its sickening. I don't look at the world in a Google = good / Exxon = bad filter. I don't desire to punish a company or something I might not agree with. However I do wish to encourage things I do care about. There's a big difference and real solutions will not come forward until people check their hatred at the door.
Your system won't work because currently there is NO practical alternative to fossil fuels for transport. Even if people wanted to change, or if taxes were astronomical, what would they change to?
If you want to ship something, or see your mother across the country, or even get to work, for most people that involves fossil fuels. Simple life choices in the USA involve consuming gas.
The difference with an IPod is that it is not a practical necessity. It is a luxury, and most of us understand that. We can turn off our Ipods, and our quality of life doesn't suffer. But take away our gas, or price us out of gasoline, and all kinds of "essential" parts of our lives suffer.
I don't mind companies making profits, but I do mind control of the market and hindrance to alternatives.
Take those taxes that Aqua mentions and do this:
http://ecolocalizer.com/2008/05/10/solar-energy-could-power-us-many-times-over
http://www.americanenergyindependence.com/solarenergy.html
As one of the articles points out, we built stuff like the Grand Coulee and the Hoover dams as public works projects.
Why isn't the solar energy project a public work? Hmm, I wonder.
and I realize that won't solve transportation, but energy for buildings is a good start, and a better electric car that can be re-charged from that solar energy is also a good start.
government must find new resources to pay for this!
which reminds me this
i always get a little suspicious of those who insist they are soooo even minded and only see things through reason's prism..
anyway, a few things should be set straight.
-there is a huge difference bw ipod and oil. first of all the government and oil companies can be seen as working together to provide, yes, a necessity. and the windfall tax is a brilliant piece of marketing, its not really a new tax instead its reducing a tax break that the oil companies were given when oil was at a lower price point than it is now. the break was given to encourage further production and exploration. thats how government and oil work together. they need one another and its fine. but now when the scales tip drastically to one side it is not unreasonable to ask oil to give something up to the govnt that has helped it so much in the past.
-next the oil companies already have many leases already granted to drill out in the waters off of our coasts but they havent yet. why is a point of speculation and depending on your tilt u can argue that one. but the fact stands if they desperately need to they could but they are not.
-oil companies are businesses, just bc we call them that they are not strictly limited to oil. being good businessmen they realize this and have diversified into energy companies -all kinds of energy, alternative, renewable, etc..
-dont be fooled by the tiny footprint of the drill itself, its not the rig that does the damage to a sensitive ecosystem. its the massive infrastructure required to service it. you people are architects right? youve seen what happens to the roads and areas near construction sites. now (to be generous) imagine a 2 lane road paved right through any ecosystem (like your house) and see how well you adapt.
when will we wake up and realize that drilling is not the answer as some have already stated. im sure many of the people pushing for more oil are the same that refuse to give clean needles to junkies, but is it better to give them the hit itself? yes it will be painful, but it already is getting there and we dont have much choice left. look at the outcry over spills and leaks from poorly designed rigs and transport systems. the oil companies miraculously adapted and came up w better systems that dont damage or fail as often. why cant we do the same w alternatives?
I don't have anything against the oil companies themselves, but I really don't see the point in *subsidizing* them so they can make even more money at the expense of the progress of the country.
The point is, lets not care that they are oil companies, whatever they have done in the past, it's up to them to adapt and evolve in response to the natural market conditions they find themselves in... This is about the consumer. If market forces are leading to increased prices and creating competitive pressures on oil companies from alternative fuel companies, let them survive through adaptation, and lets not privelege oil consumption. It's survival of the fittest, I really don't give a shit about oil companies, not that I have anything against them, but it's for their own good to have to make progress...
It's not like people don't have alternatives. They do. Public tranist. Passive energy in their homes. As these things (naturally) are becoming more cost effective and sensible, why should we give oil an unnecessary edge? People are selling their gas guzzlers in favor of fuel efficiency, and considering public transit alternatives and denser living as more economically sensible alternatives, I say good, if that's what the market is pushing, why argue with the market, especially when it's good for society and for the environment?
People want to save money, let them change their spending habits. Why subsidize the status quo when the status quo is anyway destructive to the environment, cannot be sustained in the long run, and promotes an *innefficient* way of life, one that makes us less competitive economically in the global marketplace?
The problem is not in letting the market dictate people's spending habits, because if we did this, people would just choose energy efficient alternatives... The problem is in trying to limit the choices in the market, and to subsidize an insufficient and self-destructive energy lifestyle... Lets not do stupid things that are essentially subsidizing oil, and pretending to be working of the consumer...
Lets make progress for a better future, not cling to inadequate technologies and political players of the past which only make our country worse off and weaker in the global marketplace...
I don't think anyone is saying that things don't need to change, it is just how drastic the repercussions will be i things change too quickly.
I'd love to see solar on every home, or better yet, large arrays and great public transit would be wonderful, but these can't happen overnight.
It is great to think that people will change their spending habits, oil companies will adapt and evolve, etc. It will happen.
The big question is: How much are you willing to suffer? Slowing spending will slow the economy and eventually it will come full circle - less spending, less building, architects without jobs.
It is easy to point the finger (I, for one, am glad Hummer owners and McMansion builders are suffering), but I am not sure where the comfort line is when it does make it back to you kick you in the butt.
How many are willing to give up their jobs or career progression to make the world change faster?
A precarious balance, imho, with no easy answers. I am starting to lean against drastic changes, though, as I do enjoy business growing and a good economy.
fun with headlines...
Bush Calls for Ban on Oil, End to Offshore Drilling
Ban on Offshore Oil Drilling Calls for End to Bush
Calls for Ban on Bush, End to Offshore Oil Drilling
End to Bush Calls for Ban on Offshore Oil Drilling
Oil Calls for End to Ban on Drilling Bush Offshore
any others?
Who are you? Bryon Gysin?
I keep reading it as:
'Bush Calls for Eno to Ban on Offshore Drilling'
Trace: "The big question is: How much are you willing to suffer? Slowing spending will slow the economy and eventually it will come full circle - less spending, less building, architects without jobs."
The energy problem is something that needs solutions, but offshore drilling isn't the answer... Lets not throw away our assets in a panic because we feel a pinch... Offshore drilling won't help, it'll only encourage people to spend unwisely... Lets invest smartly in the future...
The best thing for consumer spending IMHO is to give consumers choices... Competitive markets that encourage innovations and competitive pricing are good for consumer spending. If you prop up oil companies over the diverse alternative energy options that are already possible, it's not like the consumer is going to see savings. The reason: the less competition you have, the more power the "monopoly" has to dictate price, especially in a market for an essential good that has no substitutes... Subsidizing oil will not result in any price benefits to the consumer... The way to control prices is to encourage competition, not to stifle competition (i.e. from substitute energy options for the consumer, etc)... Investing in new industries is good for the economy, makes the economy stronger, actually creates jobs, makes it more competitive...
Look at it this way: if people all drove fuel efficient or electric cars or rode bikes and took the transit, implemented solar and passive energy strategies in their homes, the net effect would be lower demand for gasoline / oil from consumers. Lower demand from consumers means less competition for energy needed in manufacturing, less competition for energy affecting building... Competition drives prices down... Subsidizing a monopoly would only drive prices up or limit competition... Also people buying energy efficient solutions creates more demand for those products, there is incentive for better products, which only encourage more consumer spending... Lets improve consumer spending by being competitive, not by force feeding people bad product...
"I'd love to see solar on every home, or better yet, large arrays and great public transit would be wonderful, but these can't happen overnight."
As far as the large arrays, they're not happening at all! So again I ask: why isn't the Solar Array Project a public works project right now? Might it have just a little bit to do with oil and coal industry lobbyists in Washington and the sheer amount of power and money behind them, and the fact that the present administration is practically in bed with them? Just maybe? What the fuck are we waiting for?
aqua, you can't compare a public service (energy) even when it is conducting by for-profit corporations to a luxury (ipods). ipods are not necessary to get around, to heat one's home. the comparison is far too simplistic, as is the idea of "let the market decide!" the market does wonderful things, and it must be taken into consideration when making government policy, but especially when considering a business that provides energy or the materials needed to produce energy as well as when the conduct of a business results in adverse consequences to the public (ie: resource depletion, pollution, etc) there must be an equal consideration given to protecting what is in the public interest.
oil companies may be extracting oil from their property (though often times they do so on or with government easements), but they are extracting a public resource. they should make a profit on it, they are investing in it and laboring to extract it, but because it is a public resource and because it is one that has become essential for daily survival there must be other limitations put on them. most americans are unaware of this, but before the industrial revolution, land rights in this country were much different than they are today. they were far less individualistic; you were required to permit free passage of other people across your land and the use of your land was restricted by the effects it would have on those around you. obviously, when we wanted to start building textile mills this had to change, and that's history, but we have this very narrow view of what it means to own land or a resource in this country that is relatively recent, and very much not in keeping with the original intent that land and resources were a commodity held, at least in part, in common by everyone.
furthermore, the conservative or strictly capitalistic notion of letting the market reign, not taxing oil companies, and especially not subsidizing alternative energy companies or public transportation would be an interesting philosophical argument if it was not completely hypocritical. the oil companies are heavily subsidized (despite their enormous and unparalleled profits, which are far less than that of apple). after the second world war, following heavy lobbying from esso and gm, the federal government created a sweeping plan to provide postwar housing and prosperity, and not surprisingly (given the money trail), they chose to plan automobile-centric suburbs and allowed gm to create fake companies to buy up public street car companies only to remove them and provide gm buses in their place. there is a very long history of subsidizing oil and automotive corporations even while and after they forced out all the competition.
as if that weren't enough, oil companies still hold a near monopoly on our energy and transportation needs in this country, and they do so with a product whose manufacture, extraction and use creates irrevocable damage to our environment. plus, it's a resource that we're running out of globally, and a resource we're going to war over. all this while they are still subsidized and still making record profits.
government had a role in getting us into this mess by capitulating to the oil and automotive industries in their duty to protect the public from undue harm, and government now rightfully has a duty to restore the protection of the public good by switching subsidies to promote investment (which of course is different than continuing to subsidize operations) in new, clean, renewable energy industries, investing in a robust public transportation network, and taxing industries that are harmful to the public good. just as the government has subsidized oil and other industries to encourage investment, so too should this be done for more socially responsible, but costly industries and public infrastructure.
we need to be more responsible about which industries we subsidize and which industries we tax, and we need to have a longer view of things to prevent another mess like the one in which we find ourselves. opening the sea shelf to costly, damaging oil extraction that will provide little if any impact on prices is not in this responsible and foreward-thinking vein.
this sure is the thread for manifestos
yea, fuck manifestos. enough lip service. let's start implementing some of these alternatives instead of saying shit like "these can't happen overnight" and "we'll have to study this...a lot of the technology is there now, fer chrissakes.
we'll see what Obama can do to spark some of this if he get in (probably not much).
it's nice that the oil cos., who are in the business of making money, not oil, want to add more land they can drill on...
i'd like to see congress eliminate the billions in subsidies that the oil cos. obtain each year and have that money spent on grants and tax breaks for solar/wind (which are expiring this year)
oil derricks require large amounts of infrastructure, and that would place a very heavy burden in already fragile landscapes. i think the idea of nationalizing the fields is brilliant. americans would actually be able to benefit (similar to norway - are they new or old europe, i can never remember)
while we are at it, we should let weyerhauser mow down the remainder of the national forests, and coal companies knock down mountains. oh wait...
oh, and mccain, who was against offshore drilling before he was for it, has already received $750,000 in campaign contributions from not so little oil. i thought he was against those kinds of things? ah, must have been before he was for it... clowns
What's so sad about the green movement is that 99% of the shit we do to make buildings "sustainable" now was par for the course before HVAC and electric lights were invented.
What a crazy game going on right now...Turkey and Croatia
sorry, wrong thread...HAH!
bRink - don't think I am suggesting that more oil is the answer, far from it. I am all for a complete change to more sustainable energy sources and think subsidizing big oil is ludicrous.
The question I posed was more in the gray area that no one wants to talk about. It is easy to be extreme on either side, but that would cause a massive wave of slowdown in our economy. Sure, we'd pull out, but it could be decades.
That's my simple point - there needs to be a balance in the immediate future with a plan to move away from oil short/med/long term.
trace, yeah you've got a good point...
i think it's easy to get rather one sided on issues like energy policy...
you're right there needs to be a balance between immediate problems and short, medium, and long term goals...
i guess when it comes to oil, in the immediate future, that means a degree of policy to affect both demand and supply...
my point of view is that so often there is a tendency to prioritize supply over demand... seeing this is as primarily a supply issue... IMHO, demand is inevitably (and likely very soon) expanding while there is a limit to how much new supply can be tapped...
sure, developing alternative fuels involves growing pains, but if we continue with our dependency on oil, the energy crisis is only going to get worse and worse. there are far worse things than paying $5 a gallon for gas... unless we have sufficient renewable alternatives in place, given that countries like china are emerging as industrial powers, our economy isn't just going to go through growing pains, it could be far more catastrophic... imagine an energy meltdown, skyrocketing oil prices without viable alternatives in place... it would be an economic meltdown... a meltdown like that can be avoided if we are no longer dependent on it...
I'm generally in favor of any policy that helps stop the bleeding and cure the wound, and generally against policies that are ineffective, and act more to socially anaesteticize people. The market pain of high prices due demand and supply is a necessary evil if the market is to provide the essential economic incentives for changes in energy consumption, and development of energy alternatives.
china is already pushing heavily for renewable energy solutions, they are fully advancing towards a competitive advantage in energy consumption... making renewable alternative energy readily available is essential to remain competitive in a global marketplace...
Emerging markets have it made, really. They can choose the infrastructure they build. It could be solar in one place, wind in another, etc., etc. We,on the other hand, have an efficient system that is only good for oil (or at least mostly).
It's funny (and kinda cool) to think about some kid in Africa with a small solar array having web access, fresh water and electricity - he could theoretically be far more advance and nimble than all of the US. We better do something or we'll be left to fade and die.
The Dems made some interesting points this week. Obviously, they are biased, but good arguing points: the oil companies currently have 68 million acres of land that they own the rights to drill in and 14 years of supply, they have just chosen not to (I am sure there are logical reasons why, like cost, etc.).
Not hard to see that the big oil wants rights to drill anywhere, particularly easy access places that will secure they stay in business for another 3-4 decades.
Probably should be common knowledge, given how often we hear that 'we must drill in Alaska', etc. Glad to hear something from the Dems regarding energy and call the bs coming from Bush.
"Use it or Lose it" is what they're calling things.
The U.S. currently imports 65% of its oil! 65%. This is a number that cannot be solved by the future potential of alternative energy or domestic drilling alone.
Energy dependence in America is a three-phase process. The sequence of which is utterly imperative..
1. End Ban on Offshore Drilling. Before we can pull out of overseas drilling we must insure the domestic capacity to cover a substantial percentage of our consumption.
2. Stop Drilling on Foreign Soil. Pretty self-explanatory. Terrorism, et al.
3. Invest in Alternative Energies. While alternative means may not currently possess the economies of scale for mass production, they are our only hope to fighting environmental decay and ensuring our energy independence. The investment should be increased as resources become available for allocation via phases 1 and 2.
ryanj,
i think there's something missing from that list:
1. change our consumption patterns to reflect market prices...
americans import so much, but we also produce enough already... we are already one of the largest producers of oil in the world, i think second only to saudi arabia but the problem is that we consume way too much relative to other nations... we consume 1/4 of the worlds oil, even though we represent less than 1/20 of the global population...
good point bRink.
i failed to mention before that post that this is only the supply-side of the argument. the demand-side, on the other hand, is something that we as architects and planners can influence greatly.
Those are a bit old... I think China is the second largest consumer of oil by now, or it will be... Not sure...
as an aside, an interesting bit of research that i used in argument of my thesis...
not only does our sprawl addicted lifestyle eat up energy resources, but from a humanistic perspective it drastically lowers the bar on public health (most of it rather obvious, but some persuasive facts nonetheless)
Jim Puplava has an excellent essay on oil in his weekly podcast this week. From a financial perspective but he clearly has more intelligence on the subject than your average elected official. Worth a listen.
http://www.netcastdaily.com/broadcast/fsn2008-0621-3a.mp3
aquapura, nice program... definitely worth listening to... very informative.
I think the majority of my points of view still stands, given the information in that article...
I think it's interesting that despite all of the talk about supply on the one hand, when Jim Puplava was asked what he would do if he were President, all of the things he focused on were demand related things.
The only way to avert an insurmountable energy crisis is to begin changing our energy consumption patterns immensely, and begin dramatic development of energy alternatives. This is where dramatic efforts need to be placed, you can't stall on this, because sooner or later oil cannot last... It's going to be tough, but I think people are resourceful enough to respond to it...
I think, in campaign talk, there is something missing, if only because it would be unpopular to mention it: that people need to do their part to change their daily oil consumption... Of course no politician is going to say this openly because people don't like to be told that they are to blame for the energy crisis, or that they have to deal with their own problems of paying at the pump... But the pain in the pocketbook is simply the market telling you as a consumer not to consume so much... This is why consumers are cogs on a demand curve... The market works because people's choices in spending are dependent on price... Price determines how much people are willing to consume of the good... This works, so long as we have alternatives (that we have a choice)... That choice of alternatives can be changing our commuting patterns, changing our lifestyle, or buying a fuel efficient car, or retrofitting our homes for solar or energy efficiency, living in more efficient spaces, and choosing things which involve less fuel to produce (for example locally grown produce) because their prices contain the embedded fuel costs... The prices are also the market telling companies that it is becoming more profitable to be energy efficient, and cities that they need to build transit infrastructure, and *governments that the opportunity costs of investment in alternative renewable energy are getting lower (i.e. the cost of doing nothing is going up)... This is what has happened in Europe and Asia and the rest of the world, and this is why other countries have developed as cultures that are more energy conscious, less dependent on oil than we are... It hurts, but nobody said market force are painless, just as change and rehab are not painless... But I think we're resourceful enough that we will survive...
And it requires leadership in the right direction to do this. I think the most irresponsible thing that can be done right now is to encourage continued ongoing oil consumption by engaging this problem as a supply only issue, when it is most critical that we should be thinking about ways to change consumption... Social anaesthetics are what will kill us...
bRink - I think if you would listen to that program on a weekly basis you'd hear Jim continually talk about the need for more rail based mass transit and suggest people buy fuel efficient cars. He even has talked about how he lives in a walkable community. His argument, and I agree, is that we need to learn how to conserve energy now because in the near future it'll be forced on us because there will not be adequate energy.
As for the supply side he does make an excellent point. When energy scarcity hits, or when prices get high enough, the environmentalists will be bulldozed over by a very angry public. The outer continetal shelf, ANWR, etc. will be opened up carte blanche as quickly as possible in a manner where real environmental damage will happen. My argument for opening up those lands now is that we aren't in a crisis yet and good oversight and regulation will still rule. Still, that doesn't mean the production should be wasted on fueling SUV's. I'd raise an european style gas tax to fund things like rail and pedestrian based development and research into alternative energies.
They should just charge more taxes for gas guzzlers. Seems fair to me, but that obviously would never fly. Automakers are suffering too much, even though it is their stupid fault.
We do need a national rail system and soon. Flying is such a pain in the ass compared with taking a train from downtown. I'd gladly help pay for that instead of war/defense.
Of course, that will take decades to implement and cost as much as a war.
I just hope all this equalizes, from a purely selfish point of view, as I do like making a living. I pray this is just a wake up call, not an end all.
gas guzzlers already pay more taxes (per mile driven)
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.