Comments on: Republicans and the oil weapon: what Obama should do

By: Scholars and Rogues » New Wilderness Society poll is political, not statistical

Sat, 26 Jul 2008 22:28:20 +0000

[...] Republicans and the oil weapon – what Obama should do [...]

By: Brian Angliss

Brian Angliss — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 16:36:00 +0000

Right, pete. And the U.S. doesn’t export massive quantities of gasoline overseas either. Oh, that’s right, we do, don’t we?![sarcasm off]

Check out the exports – 1.424 million barrels of oil worth of “petroleum products” every day. The EIA defines “petroleum products” as follows:

“Petroleum products are obtained from the processing of crude oil (including lease condensate), natural gas, and other hydrocarbon compounds. Petroleum products include unfinished oils, liquefied petroleum gases, pentanes plus, aviation gasoline, motor gasoline, naphtha-type jet fuel, kerosene-type jet fuel, kerosene, distillate fuel oil, residual fuel oil, petrochemical feedstocks, special naphthas, lubricants, waxes, petroleum coke, asphalt, road oil, still gas, and miscellaneous products.”

By: pete c.

pete c. — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 16:29:15 +0000

If drilling in new places is going to aleviate our pain, then that must mean the domestic oil ill only be used domestically, right, I mean nobody would want to sell it to China or India, right?

By: Jeff

Jeff — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 01:41:59 +0000

I agree to Brian. Interesting article.
Like to read more on that.

By: Bob

Bob — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 15:52:37 +0000

I agree that simple messages work best. The Republicans currently are espousing an “all of the above” policy. It sounds good, but I don’t get a warm fuzzy about anything other than- more drilling.

I would lke to see Obama agree to allowing the states to determine if they want off shore drilling. Agree with McCain on this point then quickly up the ante by endorsing the Pickens Plan ( http://www.pickensplan.com/ ). Doing this will move the argument further down the road. Instead of debating the relative value of the first step, let’s keep our eyes on the ultimate goal….energy independence without destroying the environment or the economy.

Senator Obama has seaid “Perfect should not be the enemy of good”. This is an opportunity to live that. Drilling may not help immediately and it is not the ultimate solution, but it is not entirely bad either. Agreeing to this essentially takes the argument off the table and will force the other side to engage on the question “Then what?”

By: Brian Angliss

Brian Angliss — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 23:10:16 +0000

Uh oh – you mentioned a hockey stick, JS. That means you’ve just discredited yourself and your entire post – just ask any global heating skeptic….

By: JS OBrien

JS OBrien — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 22:46:40 +0000

Denny:

Haven’t you realized yet the the press doesn’t matter? Complex messages don’t matter? What matters are simple messages that tie your candidate to good things and their candidate to bad things.

Cost of travel to and from work is currently 48.5 cents per mile, I believe, in an automobile. It’s not deductible, currently. Pre-crisis levels would be some point in time before gasoline price increases looked like a hockey stick. The details would obviously be worked out before the speech — or not.

Like I said, details don’t matter.

By: Dr. Denny

Dr. Denny — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 18:55:38 +0000

A terrific post. But, if I were still the annoying, cynical reporter I used to be, I’d be picking apart Sen. Obama’s rhetoric. There’s plenty of opportunity to ask, were this speech actually delivered, “Hey. What does THAT mean?”

For example, what is “cost of travel” to and from work? What do you mean by “pre-crisis levels”? 1979? 1992? 2001? 2008? Sooner or later, his rhetoric would unravel because it is essentially vague.

Nonetheless, I really appreciate the exchange of ideas offered in the comments. That buy-back of SUVs is a damn good idea. And I’ve got an ’04 Liberty you all can have …

By: JS OBrien

JS OBrien — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 18:18:43 +0000

Pie is good. And I agree with you and Brian, IF a bunch of swing voters in swing states own SUVs.

By: Super Jesus

Super Jesus — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 18:17:13 +0000

Okay then, I revise my suggestion so that people get a huge tax incentive to buy a more fuel efficient vehicle, or if they cannot afford to do that they will get…free pie!

(everyone loves pie!)
Super J.

By: JS OBrien

JS OBrien — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 18:11:46 +0000

Cool idea, Brian! And it might even work pre-election. Probably, you’d want to give owners of gas-guzzlers a certain amount of money in excess of actual resale value, or pre-criisis resale value or something, but I think it’s a great idea if it’s affordable.

Of course, I wouldn’t want to do it unless the stats show me that independent voters in swing states tend to own SUVs.

By: Brian Angliss

Brian Angliss — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 17:39:16 +0000

One thing that might work (although it’s probably post-election) is a federal gas-guzzler buy-back program. Drivers sell their gas guzzler to the feds which then resells it for scrap and the drivers get a more fuel efficient vehicle in return. It’d take some planning, of course, but it would do wonders for getting aggregate fuel efficiency up. And it’s necessary over the long run.

By: JS O"Brien

JS O"Brien — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 17:30:24 +0000

Sam;

Good! I like it!

Super J:

I hear ya. I don’t like the tax break idea either, but one has to win an election, doesn’t one? The break for buying a fuel efficient vehicle is a good idea, but won’t play all that well to people who don’t have the money to do that.

By: Super Jesus

Super Jesus — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 17:26:31 +0000

Good post. I have to disagree with your bullet point #2 tax break as it would only serve as a back door subsidy for the oil companies and would in the end artificially increase demand and ultimately increase gas prices. Rather it might make more sense to replace that point with one that offers substantially greater tax incentives to encourage the purchase of more fuel efficient vehicles. It might even make sense to link that tax benefit to the mileage differential between your current vehicle and the new one and your estimated annual work mileage. I’m talking out my ass now but you get the idea. Good stuff you have here.

Super J.

By: Dr. Slammy

Dr. Slammy — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 17:17:23 +0000

I might also add that the oil from the new drilling may not be sent out of the US – that is, we will not allow companies to drill and then sell to China.