Its Time To Get Outraged

Since about 1794 the USofA's energy policy
has been set by people who wear coats
in the Washington, DC area in the summer.
How swift is that?

 

Where in the Constitution does the Federal Government get the authority to control energy production and consumption?

 

Actually this would fall under Article I section 8, of the US constitution. Although they are not doing very well. This whole issue is out of hand.

 

It is the result of people not knowing what a huricane can do.

I am always amazed at how the category 5's are downgraded after the event ... I think the world would be devastated if God allowed a 5 to hit a major US city ...

Sometimes we cannot prepare for acts of God ...

 

Actually this would fall under Article I section 8, of the US constitution. Although they are not doing very well. This whole issue is out of hand. </font>[/QUOTE]I see you are not a strict constructionist.

 

I think it is probably counterproductive to try and officially lay blame.

The better question is why aren't those with the ability to solve the problem not doing it- namely the car mfrs and energy companies.

Cars can be made to get better fuel economy. Alternative fuels like electricity and ethanol.

We have seen this coming for a long time yet one of the things that only government can do realistically has been ignored. Why no new hydroelectric dams? Why no investments in wind generators?

The whole thing stinks... and it looks like Bush will be the fall guy.

 

If you want to play the blame game:

1. Blame the tree huggers and radical environmentalists who killed the Nuclear Power industry.

2. Blame the tree huggers and radical environmentalists who killed drilling in ANWR.

3. Blame the democrats in the Senate who went along with the tree huggers and delayed Bush's Energy Bill for 5 years and would still delay drilling in ANWR if that were possible.

4. Blame whoever is responsible for not bulding additional petroleum refining capability.

5. Blame whoever or whatever is responsible for not processing oil shale.

6. Blame those who continue to buy gas guzzlers. Probably the worst by far are the pleasure boats.

7. Also note that much of our garbage comes from products made from petroleum, plastics for example.

http://www.plasticsresource.com/s_plasticsresource/sec.asp?TRACKID=&CID=126&DID=228

 

I see you are not a strict constructionist.

I'm sorry, but in terms of oil refineries and gas consumption the authority falls under the commerce clause of Art. 1 sec 8, at the very least. Clause 1 clearly states:"The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States....."

Even Chief Justice Marshall stated in McCulloch v. Maryland (1819), "...It is the government for all; its powers are delegated by all; it represents all, and acts for all. Though any one state may be willing to control its operations, no state is willing to allow others to control them. The nation, on those subjects on which it can act, must necessarily bind its component parts."

Please tell me how the states would be able to make uniform energy policies? I would not find it practical for each state to have its own energy policy.

Oh, and by the way, I am a constructionist, but I am also reasonable. As stated before it would not be practical for the states to have their own policies.

 

Govt messing will only result in shortages. There is no legal requirement that any gasoline be sold in the USofA.

Why should gas be sold for less than people are willing to pay? 20 years ago I was driving a 350 Chev and moved to a 50 mile commute. I wasn't willing to pay 10 cents a mile for the commute and got a Geo which reduced costs to 3 cents a mile. Gas savings paid for the car in one year. I drove it 150,000 miles.

Now that I'm retired we drive a Toyota that gets 38 MPG and cost per mile is less than the old P/U at 10 MPG. I don't have any sympathy for people driving cars that get less than 20.

 

If any of our lib friends show up...

Aren't these gas prices exactly what you all have been wanting?

Didn't Algore write in his environmental whacko treatise that gas should be made much more expensive to cause people to reduce consumption?

Is the ire by libs not because of the prices but because the proceeds are going to the market and not being collected in taxes?

Isn't it hypocritical to simultaneously say that something should be done to reduce fossil fuel emissions and complain about Bush not doing anything about gas prices?

These questions apply to people who support libs and Dems also like BiR.

 

What type of events? Expensive gas? Yeah, it's a pain in the backside, but how does a commodity following the rules of supply and demand equate to someone "not planning" for it?

You incorrectly presume that gas will be cheap simply just because we have additional domestic resources. There's no guarantee of that. It will guarantee regular supply of domestic crude oil, but that is just one facet of many that make up the final price of gasoline.

Actually, we gat our oil from multiple and diverse sources. Plus, manufacturing facilities are spread out all over the nation. That's a good plan for natural disasters.

Why should gas prices be immune from the laws of supply and demand? And since when is something costing more an issue of national security? SHould our pocketbook be the primary dictator of what constitutes a national emergency? I never saw a state of natural emergency when coffee prices skyrocketed (well, it was an emergency in my house at least). But we live in a free market society. A free market doesn't guarantee that goods will be cheap. A free market guarantees that the price of goods will be decided by the consumer (the law of supply and demand). So if we want the price of gasoline to drop, we need to consume less.

None that would be acceptible to someone who believes that gas should be cheap as a matter of givernment policy.

 

I think much of it has to do with the fact that gas has been so cheap that people have no interest in buying vehicles that are fuel efficient. The only manufacturer, as far as I know, that has a goal of making every model more fuel efficient than the previous model is Honda Motor Corp.

GM stopped producing electric vehicles because they simply weren't selling. And in my area, the infrastructure is in place. I personally think that hybrid vehicles are the future, followed by hydrogen after that. Just my $.02.

I read a study recently that noted that most of the prime choices for hydroelectric facilities have been taken. The few remaining would not necessarily see sufficient benefit. I personally think a good alternative is pushing for more advanced solar technology. Solar panels are just staring to get cheap enough to afford. Hopefully in 20 or so years, small solar panels on rooftops will be affordable for the average consumer.

The POTUS du jour is always the fall guy. Doesn'a matter who it is.

 

I think much of it has to do with the fact that gas has been so cheap that people have no interest in buying vehicles that are fuel efficient. The only manufacturer, as far as I know, that has a goal of making every model more fuel efficient than the previous model is Honda Motor Corp.</font>[/QUOTE] The problem here is that I think the oil and car companies have engaged in a trust.

Hybrids are probably going to become very popular. Ethanol should because it would help free us from indirectly financing folks who want to blow up our buildings.

 

While there's probably been some under-the-table discussing from time to time, the bottome line is still consumer demand. Back in the early 80's, when gas was relatively expensive (more expensive than today when adjusted for inflation), auto makers were racing to make fuel efficient vehicles, because that's what people wanted. When gas was cheap in the late 90's the SUV became the car of choice, and even fuel-effient Saturn was forced to come out with an SUV or be left in the dust of fleeing customers.

 

If you listened to Rush Limbaugh today, you know that the blame can be placed upon "the Liberals."

Regards,
BiR

 

If you listened to Rush Limbaugh today, you know that the blame can be placed upon "the Liberals."

Regards,
BiR </font>[/QUOTE]Yeah, those big oil and energy liberals.

"1. Since oil is a national security/economic interest why has the government be bullied by environmentalists and not built new Refineries and drilling stations?"

Profits? Investing the money that would go towards building refineries into controlling other alternative energy forms that would truely be afordable to the consumer and not easily regulated and controlled by them. Ensuring the wealth of the elite by keeping us slaves to them?

Think they would like it if we found an energy source that we consumers could easily make ourselves in our own local communities like alcohol or hydrogen and bypassing their control over the market and our lives?

"2. Why are there no backup plans "just in case" of a natural disaster?"

Profits? Same as above.

"3. Why have gas prices been allowed to rise and rise and rise without any serious action? Why have they waited until now to take even a token action?"

Profits? Same as above.

[ September 01, 2005, 07:09 PM: Message edited by: poncho ]

 

BiR, You shouldn't be so hard on Rush, he has one side of his brain tied behind his back. Try to show some compssion for the poor guy.