House passes bill to sue OPEC over oil prices

[biggiy05]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080520/pl_nm/congress_opec_dc


This should be interesting. Sadly I don't see gas prices going down from it. Gas prices keep climbing and climbing.

[Gerudo]

i got gas for my dad last night and spent 60 bucks on about 14 gallons or so, and that was with the 10cent card promotion at country fair. i hope gas prices go down. shit, 3 bucks a gallon even sounds reasonable right now.

everytime i go to the pump, i say "this is just pathetic". we ARE at the mercy of OPEC, as the article says. its bullshit.

[phattonez]

This is what happens when you build cities that are so spread out that you don't really have a choice but to own a car. City planners killed us with this design.

As for this bill, this is what happens when you don't elect representatives who know anything about economics.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ni/panic_peak_oil.jpg

[rock_nog]

I suspect it's not so much that politicians don't know that as it is that "Yeah, on the oil front we're frickin' screwed," just doesn't isn't a terribly effective campaign slogan. People won't accept that the they can't just keep driving their big-ass SUVs down the driveway to check the mail, and politicians keep coming up with new ways to distract the public from the fact that without a major infrastructure overhaul, there's not a damn thing we can do about oil prices.

[biggiy05]

The Government is just as guilty as the oil companies. They can do more to help lower prices but they won't. How many times have gas prices been mentioned during the presidental campaign? How many times has anyone said even a word about a plan to lower prices.

[phattonez]

People won't accept that the they can't just keep driving their big-ass SUVs down the driveway to check the mail, and politicians keep coming up with new ways to distract the public from the fact that without a major infrastructure overhaul, there's not a damn thing we can do about oil prices.

Which is exactly why public transit has seen a tremendous jump in ridership ;). The people would support it if it were offered. Instead, more freeways are just jammed down our throats while we're here with our hands tied behind our backs because of what city planners have done to our cities.

EDIT: Biggiy, the government has said a lot about lowering oil prices, but it's not gonna happen. The presidential candidates have talked about eliminating gas taxes during the summer, but it's a ridiculous idea. It would promote our car culture at a point when we know it's dying, would save the average family about $20, and mean the loss of billions in government revenue. There's really nothing that the government can do about the oil prices unless we want to give up our ideas on free market economies. My idea would be to raise gas taxes right now when people are finding alternatives so that we can fund new infrastructure that will get us off of our crippling oil dependence (and hopefully onto a nuclear power dependence :)).

[Master Ghaleon]

I hope this is the right step to settle down the increase of gas.

[Gerudo]

City planners killed us with this design.[/img]i really doubt that city planners concieved that gas prices would come to about 4 bucks a gallon.

[ZTC]

If the House and Senate would actually allow drilling for oil, new refineries to be built, and new nuclear plants to be built; gas prices wouldn't be that bad then. Damn hippies.

[phattonez]

i really doubt that city planners concieved that gas prices would come to about 4 bucks a gallon.

Suburban design was never sustainable, even without high gas prices. We're seeing the problem now. People living out in the suburbs are completely dependent on gas since there is no viable public transit alternatives out there.

[AlphaDawg]

If the House and Senate would actually allow drilling for oil, new refineries to be built, and new nuclear plants to be built; gas prices wouldn't be that bad then. Damn hippies.Right on! Right on! Increasing supply is the only feasible way to lower gas prices. Oil is the lifeblood of our economy and will continue to be so for many, many years, so there's only so much we can do to lower our demand.

It's a damn shame President Bush basically had to go over to Saudi Arabia last week and beg them for more oil. If BJ Clinton hadn't vetoed the bill allowing for drilling in ANWR the oil would be flowing from that barren wasteland by now. And the caribou and polar bears would be doing just fine, thank you.

This bill to sue OPEC is asinine, as are other "solutions" proposed by Congress such as a "gas tax holiday" and a "windfall profits tax." Thankfully it stands no chance of passing the Senate or being signed by the President.

[rock_nog]

How the hell much oil do you think is in ANWR, anyway? It's a myth, a fairy story. Politicians use it as another excuse to make it look like they're actually trying to do something. If we relied solely on ANWR, it'd be dried up within a year. If we paced ourselves, it wouldn't make a sizable enough contribution to impact prices. Oh, and we don't need more refineries - as I keep saying, we're not running at anywhere near full capacity, and actually, refiners are scaling back production in anticipation of decreased demand due to higher prices. In fact, major plans to do some serious upgrading that would greatly increase refining capacity were scrapped because the oil industry saw no need for any increased capacity.

The long and short of it is, we need to go nuclear, and we need to switch to electric cars.

EDIT: The other problem with ANWR is that it maintains the illusion that our oil-consuming culture is sustainable. It isn't. We need to accept that fact.

[Cloral]

This bill to sue OPEC is asinine, as are other "solutions" proposed by Congress such as a "gas tax holiday" and a "windfall profits tax." Thankfully it stands no chance of passing the Senate or being signed by the President.

Those 'solutions' are the sort of thing that show just how stupid our elected officials think we are. Then again, I can't speak for everyone in this country, so they're probably right to some degree (that there are a lot of stupid people who buy this crap).

[AlphaDawg]

The USGS estimated in 1998 anywhere between 4.3 to 11.8 billion barrels of recoverable oil in ANWR. If it were to provide 5% of our current 20 million barrel-per-day daily consumption it would last between 12 and 32 years. (source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_Refuge_drilling_controversy#Estimates_of_oi l_reserves))

I suspect there's a lot more recoverable oil there now because oil is well above the $40 per barrel price the study assumed. Also don't forget all of the recoverable oil off our coastlines, and shale oil deposits throughout the US which just so happen to be the largest in the world by far (source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_shale_reserves#North_America))

No, these are not permanent solutions. They're not meant to be. Necessity is the mother of invention. We'd all be driving electric cars already if they were economically feasible. If oil prices keep going up as they are, they may soon be.

And nowhere have I ever stated opposition into going nuclear.

[Icey]

It isn't in most politicians' interest to do anything to decrease oil prices. Why bother? Demand for oil is incredibly inelastic, which means you can put hefty taxes on it without decreasing purchases - and you can increase your revenue just by raising taxes. Oil companies are big campaign contributors. Suing OPEC simply won't happen, and there's no international law on cartels as far as I know, or at least no viable one, so it's totally pointless. In fact, it's probably double speak - it passed so the congressmen can say 'hey we're trying!' but they know it won't mean anything.

Until people react to oil prices in a way that actually makes it necessary for politicans to actually do something, they won't. No one is lining up to get their gas, and so it's just not as big a deal as it was in the late 70s. There isn't a whole lot of real pressure on our politicians to find solutions. There isn't real pressure on the oil companies - their sales are almost constant, if not rising.

No one can fix this problem but you. Sick of oil prices? Find a way to use less gas.

I also don't believe we're at peak oil. Major new reserves are found frequently.

[The_Amaster]

Well, I for one take the bus and ride my bike...

...although I can't drive yet, so that may be a factor...

Quite honestly, at this point out best bet just needs to be alternative fuel. And not the over-hyped Ethanol, but electric and hydrogen power. Heck, didn't Honda just release a H-car recently or something. I saw an ad for it, I think.

[Aegix Drakan]

Here's how I think this'll work out.

government sues OPEC.
OPEC settles for an out of court settlement to bribe the government into shutting up.
OPEC increases gas prices to compensate for the money they spent on the settlement.
Consumers are even more screwed.
OPEC sits back and laughs.

[ZTC]

...with the politatians pissing away the money taken from that settlement. Thus is our government.

[rock_nog]

Man, OPEC's got our collective balls in a damn vice-grip. We do anything to piss them off, they're just gonna make it tighter. All the while, apparently a lot of OPEC countries have a deal with oil companies that oil companies are required to invest in green technologies in said countries if they want to drill for oil. Just look at the UAE - they're well on their way to being completely self-sufficient, energywise, and completely free of oil dependency.

[AtmaWeapon]

I swear I replied to this thread but it's not there anymore?

Anyway, the jist of my post was that we don't really have the jurisdiction to do this and it's likely a move so the politicians can be all "Oh but we're doing all we can to lower oil prices!" and people will buy it. It's like trying to sue the internet.

Personally, I'm waiting for gas prices to get to $6 or $10 or whatever the magic number that makes America angry enough to do something about it rather than sit around and whine. A lot of it is our fault for insisting on driving huge trucks as our casual vehicles. Some of it is the fault of India and also China for industrializing out of nowhere and consuming vast quantities of oil that used to go to us. The rest of it is the fault of foreign entities that have our worst interests in mind but do, in fact, enjoy our money.

My hope is that when people start losing their jobs because they can't afford to make the commute someone somewhere is like "Hey wait, hydrogen fuel cells!" or some other technology that we already have but aren't using.

[phattonez]

My hope is that when people start losing their jobs because they can't afford to make the commute someone somewhere is like "Hey wait, hydrogen fuel cells!" or some other technology that we already have but aren't using.

That's called nuclear power.

[Cloral]

My hope is that when people start losing their jobs because they can't afford to make the commute someone somewhere is like "Hey wait, hydrogen fuel cells!" or some other technology that we already have but aren't using.

I love how people assume that we have all these amazing power technologies just lying around unused. OK, so let's use fuel cells. Where should we get all the hydrogen and oxygen from then? The common answer is hydrolysis, but that takes a lot of energy to do. And where do we get that power from?

The truth of the matter is we need to make a very concerted effort at moving towards these types of technologies. But we also have to understand that it is going to take a lot of work to bring these technologies up to the level that they need to be to serve our energy needs.

[Starkist]

That's called nuclear power.

I want a nuclear-powered car. That would rock.

[Daarkseid]

I want a nuclear-powered car. That would rock.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Nucleon

I imagine this will take off in the future when plutonium is available at every corner store.

[rock_nog]

Great Scott! Or, you know, we could always just wait for the invention of Mr. Fusion.

[The_Amaster]

7 more years, man, 7 more years.

Eh, personally my bet's on hydrogen cells, but...

[phattonez]

7 more years, man, 7 more years.

Eh, personally my bet's on hydrogen cells, but...

Ah yes, those magical hydrogen fuel cells that cost hundreds of thousands of dollars and do nothing about out dependence on oil (where do you think we get that hydrogen from).


And Starkist, I guess gas is the only thing that ever will and can run a car. I guess electric cars never happened? :rolleyes:

[AlphaDawg]

Remember, Mr. Fusion only powered the flux capacitor. Had it powered the engine Back to the Future III would have been about an hour-and-a-half shorter!

Marty: Doc, Buford Tannen's going to shoot you on Monday! Whoa, this is heavy!
Doc: Great Scott! Let's power up Mr. Fusion and get the hell out of here! Vroom!

Fin.

I still find it funny that every room in the house in the future had a fax machine! Even the closets! No mention of the Internet anywhere! I know that's because the movie was made before Algore invented the Internet, but still, that's pretty funny. It illustrates perfectly how movies/books/whatever predicting the future are made. Expand on whatever is currently all the rage technologically.

I wonder what the future in BttF II would have been like had the movie been made today and Marty had traveled to 2038...

[AtmaWeapon]

This is exactly why I want gas prices to get intolerable. We don't even really know how feasible some technologies are because we're not motivated to try them. I don't really think we have a magic bullet ready to shoot, but I do think if gas prices would get much higher people would take hybrids more seriously. Yes, they're worse overall for the environment, but in city traffic they get good mileage.

City planning is something else I blame, by the way. My car gets about 34-38 MPG when I can cruise between 67 and 75 MPH; the sweet spot seems to be 68; one time when my tires were messed up I had to stay below 70 but above 65 so I didn't get mowed down and unless my odometer's busted I got 38 to the gallon.

With that data in mind, consider that I get more like 20 MPG when in stop-and-go city traffic. My 10 mile commute on roads with a speed limit of 65 gives me an average speed of 38 MPH; I spend 30% of the trip idling at red lights (I've used my GPS trip data to confirm this over the past two weeks). If I take the toll roads, I can cruise at 70 for the bulk of the trip, but then it is 15 miles instead of 10 and I still have to wait at 4 lights.

My point is I've noticed that I spend a ridiculous amount of my time accelerating, which consumes lots of gas, as opposed to cruising, which is efficient. It literally adds days to my gas tank when I'm either very early or very late to work so I avoid the bulk of the traffic and take advantage of the fact that the lights are timed for someone moving at about 71 mph (even though the speed limit's 65). Now consider how much gas this wastes on the scale of the half a million people that live in Austin. If I'm dropping 30% of my potential efficiency, I think it's safe to say the giant trucks I see around me are losing just as much. If we didn't put a stupid light up for every minor road that crosses the highway or, better yet, designed roads to not cross highways but merge gently into them, then traffic would flow more smoothly. There's parts of the city where it's done well; some of 183's exits flow directly into U-turn lanes so you don't spend 5 minutes idling at a light to make a left turn, in many places offramps flow directly into onramps, and in most places merge lanes are graciously long. In other places, it's like the road was designed to choke traffic; at one point I-35 splits its 8 lanes into two separate 2-lane roads for a mile, then merges them back together along with 3 onramps. I have never been through that part of town faster than 20 mph.

It's expensive to fix these problems now, but I'm hoping someone's learning from it.

[Cloral]

Your city has traffic lights on the highways? That's pretty messed up. Around here, all the highways are limited-access with no stoplights. Though that doesn't prevent them from slowing to about 10mph sometimes...

[rock_nog]

The funny thing about electric cars is, even if you factor in the pollution generated at coal-burning plants from which the electricity comes from, they actually still contribute a lot less to pollution than gas-powered cars. It has to do with the fact that a) with a power plant, there are far fewer practical constraints, and so you can produce energy a lot more efficiently, and b) it's a lot easier to install various filters which can trap pollution in a power plant than it is in a car.

[Icey]

Your city has traffic lights on the highways? That's pretty messed up. Around here, all the highways are limited-access with no stoplights. Though that doesn't prevent them from slowing to about 10mph sometimes...

Traffic lights on highways? What the hell...? I don't even know how that makes sense...

[Cloral]

I would think the toll way from AW's post would have to be a highway, and he spoke of red lights on it. If there's a toll way that isn't a highway or a bridge, then that's completely messed-up city design.

[phattonez]

Ever heard of meters? They're on onramps, offramps, and some transition roads. So if they're on there, then some might say that there are stoplights on the freeways, just a technicality.

[Cloral]

Yeah we've got some of those around here. But they don't stop traffic already on the highway.

Argh, this topic has become entirely about semantics. Probably my fault.

[MottZilla]

If you want oil prices to go down, you need demand to go down. So you need people to use less. Now I have a plan that will work but no one has the balls to do it, and that would be nuking China, India, Pakistan, and anyone else that particularly objects to this. After this, it is likely that these countries will consume much less oil due to a slight case of mass death. This will make your gasoline fill up much cheaper. And the good news is it won't cost you anything, because we already have the bombers, bombs, and missiles to do it with.

The thing is people don't understand their own existence. I don't think they understand the concept of Billions of humans on the earth. They don't understand their life style is much more comfortable than that of the vast majority of these people. They don't understand the limited resources and such.

It would certainly be nice if technology would bail us out. But without some truly amazing break-thrus we are left with the option of death. And I suppose it's not really an option either. The only options are will it be War, Lack of Resources, Disease?

Wasting less energy will certainly help us, but alot of shit has to change and will change one way or another.