Aaron,

Your basic premise with these WWCBD posts is that increasing supply is more important for reducing the price of oil than decreasing demand and so therefore Brown's plan--which places a higher priority on reducing demand than increasing supply--is flawed, no? After all it takes a lot of gas to keep that Mustang rolling without putting a certain insurance agent into the poor house so you have a vested interest in lower gas prices.

Unfortunately, I think you need to swing that Kool-Aid pitcher around and take a sip of your own poison.

Read the aricle below regarding the dramatic drop in the price of oil over the past three weeks.

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080805/oil_prices.html
Excerpt
Quote
AP
Oil falls as low as $118 on demand concerns
Tuesday August 5, 11:43 am ET
By Stevenson Jacobs, AP Busines Writer
Oil prices decline as low as $118 on concerns that US slowdown is hurting fuel demand

NEW YORK (AP) -- Oil prices kept falling Tuesday, sinking as low as $118 a barrel on growing concerns that a U.S. economic slowdown and high energy costs are curbing consumer demand for gasoline and other petroleum products.
Unquote

It's pretty simple. The U.S. consumes 25% of the world's oil (20.7 million bbl/day) and can today only produce a little over 6% of the world's supply (5.1 million bbl/day). If we increase our production by 20% through exploitation of ANWR and offshore sites we will only increase the world's total supply of oil by 1-2%. But if we cut energy consumption by just 10% we can reduce worldwide demand by 2.5%. And obviously, unless oil is created in the Earth's mantle naturally (a favorite theory of denizens of WorldNet Daily) then it's obvious that increasing supply will shorten the life of the world's total supply of oil while increasing demand will lengthen it. In sum, domestic drilling cannot have as much positive impact on worldwide oil prices as reduction in domestic demand.

So WWCBD? He would focus on reducing demand as a higher priority over increasing supply. That just makes sense.

And, as usual, Errin', your post contains a big error. You said: "There simply is not enough Nickel-Cadmium to stripmine out of the Forests of Canada to make Priuses" How did you come to that conclusion? Hybrid batteries are made from nickel-metal hydride and do not require any cadmium. The total amount of nickel needed to manufacture hybrid NiMH batteries is a trivial percentage of worldwide nickel demand. Nickel is used in the production of stainless steel, and this is by far the biggest component of nickel demand worldwide. And the next generation Prius battery will be Lithium-Ion--no nickel or cadmium. This will allow owners to recharge their cars at home and will further increase the car's total energy efficiency.

Yes we need to increase our supply of oil. I support a safe and sane effort to increase production. But that's not the answer to the oil price problem. Ultimately, we have to reduce demand for oil by reducing consumption and developing alternatives. The sooner we start the better off we will be.

Bob

**Reposted due to an error in original post**

Aaron,

Your basic premise with these WWCBD posts is that increasing supply is more important for reducing the price of oil than decreasing demand and so therefore Brown's plan--which places a higher priority on reducing demand than increasing supply--is flawed, no? After all it takes a lot of gas to keep that Mustang rolling without putting a certain insurance agent into the poor house so you have a vested interest in lower gas prices.

Unfortunately, I think you need to swing that Kool-Aid pitcher around and take a sip of your own poison.

Read the aricle below regarding the dramatic drop in the price of oil over the past three weeks.

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080805/oil_prices.html
Excerpt
Quote
AP
Oil falls as low as $118 on demand concerns
Tuesday August 5, 11:43 am ET
By Stevenson Jacobs, AP Busines Writer
Oil prices decline as low as $118 on concerns that US slowdown is hurting fuel demand

NEW YORK (AP) -- Oil prices kept falling Tuesday, sinking as low as $118 a barrel on growing concerns that a U.S. economic slowdown and high energy costs are curbing consumer demand for gasoline and other petroleum products.
Unquote

It's pretty simple. The U.S. consumes 25% of the world's oil (20.7 million bbl/day) and can today only produce a little over 6% of the world's supply (5.1 million bbl/day). If we increase our production by 20% through exploitation of ANWR and offshore sites we will only increase the world's total supply of oil by 1-2%. But if we cut energy consumption by just 10% we can reduce worldwide demand by 2.5%. And obviously, unless oil is created in the Earth's mantle naturally (a favorite theory of denizens of WorldNet Daily) then it's obvious that increasing supply without taking some meaningful steps to reduce demand will cause us to run out of oil sooner than if we focus instead on reducing demand. In sum, domestic drilling cannot have as much positive impact on worldwide oil prices as reduction in domestic demand.

So WWCBD? He would focus on reducing demand as a higher priority over increasing supply. That just makes sense.

And, as usual, Errin', your post contains a big error. You said: "There simply is not enough Nickel-Cadmium to stripmine out of the Forests of Canada to make Priuses" How did you come to that conclusion? Hybrid batteries are made from nickel-metal hydride and do not require any cadmium. The total amount of nickel needed to manufacture hybrid NiMH batteries is a trivial percentage of worldwide nickel demand. Nickel is used in the production of stainless steel, and this is by far the biggest component of nickel demand worldwide. And the next generation Prius battery will be Lithium-Ion--no nickel or cadmium. This will allow owners to recharge their cars at home and will further increase the car's total energy efficiency.

Yes we need to increase our supply of oil. I support a safe and sane effort to increase production. But that's not the answer to the oil price problem. Ultimately, we have to reduce demand for oil by reducing consumption and developing alternatives. The sooner we start the better off we will be.

Bob

"Bob" - I can't begin to tell you how much I appreciate your comments.

Like most cynical liberals - you think my position is motivated out of self interest. The $100 extra a month in Gas for the Mustang isn't going to break me. What is a problem is the rising cost of food due to transportation costs, traffic jams because government refuses to build roads focused on forcing people into slime-infested buses and light rail...

Therein lies Charlie Brown's achilles heel - you and he want to use government to get people out of their cars and against their will into public transit or into tin can death traps.

These are issues that affect people - these are issues that are going to function like a noose around the neck of Colonel Klink.

1. Charlie Brown for Traffic Jams
2. Charlie thinks you should ride filthy buses and light rail to work
3. Charlie Brown thinks you should not be able to drive a car.

All this so we don't have to move a polar bear.

Second - Bob, your short-sightedness is astounding. Gas has gone from $2 to $4.50 since Pelosi has been speaker. The Genesis of this was when people like Ted Kennedy used to yell from the floor of the Senate "Drill over my dead body".

Well, guess what - Obama is talking about drilling now... where does that leave Charlie and you guys?

Pointing out that the cost of oil has dropped somewhat in the last three weeks is not the long-term fix. you have hardened your heart to the truth you will always deny.

It is not the role of Government to squander resources - while China is drilling our oil reserves off the coast of Cuba some 40 miles away from Florida.

The Democrats are the party of banning Nuke plants - while France gets 90% Of their energy from Nuke plants. The Democrats are the party of $4.50 gas because they have obsessively been on a rampage to force "alternative" energy on people and then blame the scientists and oil companies when the technology doesn't come overnight.

Checkmate - glad we got you nailed to the wall.

Charlie Brown for Congress - "Drill over my dead body, get your ass out of your car and ride the bus!"

Another Aaron error unmasked. This is past the point of getting ridiculous.

Aaron said: "...China is drilling our oil reserves off the coast of Cuba some 40 miles away from Florida."

The truth...
.
.
.
Quote
Cheney admits error in oil drilling comment
He asserted wrongly that China was drilling for oil off the Florida coast
Associated Press
updated 5:29 p.m. PT, Thurs., June. 12, 2008

WASHINGTON - Vice President Dick Cheney's office acknowledged on Thursday that he was mistaken when he asserted that China, at Cuba's behest, is drilling for oil in waters 60 miles from the Florida coast.

In a speech to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Cheney said on Wednesday that waters in the eastern Gulf of Mexico, long off limits to oil companies, should be opened to drilling because China is already there pumping oil.

"Oil is being drilled right now 60 miles off the coast of Florida," the vice president said. "We're not doing it, the Chinese are, in cooperation with the Cuban government. Even the communists have figured out that a good answer to high prices is more supply."

He cited his source as columnist George Will, who last week wrote: "Drilling is under way 60 miles off Florida. The drilling is being done by China, in cooperation with Cuba, which is drilling closer to South Florida than U.S. companies are."

Democrats pounce
Congressional Democrats pounced on the vice president's remarks and were backed up by independent energy experts, who called the assertion hyperbole at best and a falsehood at worst.

Cheney's office said in a statement to The Associated Press that the vice president had erred.
Unquote
.
.
.
Errin', if you can't get your facts straight you have no business posting broad statements about candidate Brown's energy policy.

Give me some verifiable references for these statements you made:

1. Charlie Brown for Traffic Jams
2. Charlie thinks you should ride filthy buses and light rail to work
3. Charlie Brown thinks you should not be able to drive a car.

Oh, I know. You can't. You just made them up. Just like so much else in virtually everything you post.

You're just full of hot air, incapable of leaving your partisanship behind and looking at things through clear glass instead of through smoke and mirrors. You are clogging this blog three or four times a day with posts that are worse than useless because they are mean spirited, deceptive and unsupported by facts. When your statements are proven wrong you retreat further into your partisan bubble.

When will the nonsense stop?
.
.
.
JEFF- some intervention is needed. Aaron is out of control. You must be embarassed by how he has hijacked this blog and turned it into a circus. Do you intend to do anything about it?

Bob

Aaron and Bob,

Nice to see an actual debate about an issue for a change!

I'd like to commend Bob. Unlike "Coward-Lee" Reid, Bob makes plausible issue-based arguments for his position--even if they are wrong.

Keep up the good work gents!

Thanks, Chris.

What did you find incorrect in what I have posted?

Bob

Guess what Bob, you still avoided answering the question.

And, China is drilling in close proximity to America - just maybe not in the instance that Cheney referenced.

In fact - everyone except us is drilling!

BTW - Bob, I am impressed at the speed of your Snopes.com responses. It certainly shows me that you are getting research assistance.

Snopes.com is owned by Google whose coporate policies are extremely progressive.

Next- some of the instances where you challenged me calling me errin, or a liar etc you used people's opinions to refute mine.

Nice Job, Bob... I 100% stand by my statements about Social Engineering by resource refusal. The Sierra Club is proud of you guys and they have had a lot to say as well.

You might want to stop begging Jeff Flint to put a muzzle on me and start debating.

Charlie Brown - let's reduce our dependence on Foreign Oil by pricing Gas so high common folk can't afford it thereby reducing demand.

Charlie Brown - let's spend gas tax money on public transit instead of roads.

That has been the policies of California Democrats for years.

It is the job of Government to serve the people - if people want to drive cars, Government is obliged to stop forcing mass transit on us and is also obliged to guide the economy to accomodate the will of the people - not forcing the economy into a Prius.

Now - start defending your position and stop whining.

Bob,

I didn't say that you were factually incorrect. However, I believe that market-driven production increases and alternative power sources are more effective solutions for future affordable energy than government-drive conservation mandates. Government is an obstacle, not a solution, to rising energy costs. The best thing government can do for American consumers is to get out of the way.

I have to put in my two cents here. Drilling is an answer, just as much as rapid transit is the answer. What we have are two converging problems happening; 1 - Decreasing worldwide oil supplies which are so overwhelming, that no amount of drilling will offset the steep decline in the 10-15 mammoth fields (Saudi, West Texas, Alaska North Slope, Mexico’s Cantrell, North Sea, etc.) that yield us the lion’s share of our oil. 2. Lack of American infrastructure to support any type of plan other than that of personal cars driving to/from big box homes to big box stores for supplies.

CB is 100% correct in moving forward with a plan for updating the 1st world’s most laughable and dilapidated rail and public transportation system. Republicans are 100% correct at clearing a path for domestic oil and gas production and exploration companies to fully exploit our own resources. What I cannot understand is why both sides cannot understand the enormous challenge that is ahead of us. We must secure safe and local oil sources while we make the infrastructure improvements NOW that will allow for a mobile and productive society for our children.

Very frustrated,
Brian Cornelsen
Auburn

Hi Brian and Chris,

Brian, I agree with you 100%. I have said here that I am in favor of environmentally sensible drilling in ANWR and in our offshore areas. In this respect I depart from Brown's plan which calls only for exploration and exploitation of current oil leases in terms of increasing supply. My view is held by a majority of Americans according to Gallup. Americans are not against sensible drilling, and i don't think the democrats really are either. What is happening is political posturing and negotiation.

But, like you, Brian--and like Charlie--I also don't believe that a simple focus on increasing supply is the real answer to our energy problems for the very reason you stated: New drilling will never replace diminishing existing production capacity. Peak oil is here or soon upon us. The only long-run answer is to decrease oil consumption and invest in alternative sources of energy.

The current high oil prices are just a warm up. This spring and summer we saw the effect of increasing demand and finite supply on oil price. The expectation of demand exceeding supply in the long run led to very high oil prices--$147/bbl in July. There was no actual shortage of oil this year driving prices up. The sharp increase in the price of oil created an inevitable reduction in short-term demand by both consumers and corporations. And demand is falling not only because of the high price of oil but because the high price has served as a brake on the economy which then needs less oil causing prices to fall further. If nothing is done about the fundamentals of this equation--finite supply and increasing demand--then we will just go through a series of cycles where oil prices go up and then come down but never to their earlier level. Over the long run prices will rise, rise, rise. And, as you noted, Brian, since opening new fields to increase supply will no longer be able to replace the reduced capacity of current fields then without demand reduction we are in a world of hurt.

Another factor in this equation often (always?) overlooked by the pump and run crowd is that the cost of producing a bbl of oil in ANWR or the offshore U.S. (not to mention from Canadian oil sands or U.S. shale) is much, much higher than the cost to produce a bbl from the existing onshore fields you listed. So the new supply will cost more per barrel which will cause further upward pressure on the price of oil as companies try to maintain their profit margins. Inevitably they will fail to maintain their margins. Industry consolidation will increase in speed which will reduce competition which will allow the remaining players to raise the price of oil.

On to your point, Chris, that the private sector can solve this problem. Chris, a laissez faire oil policy is why we have this problem. This isn't Kansas. The world's largest oil comapny isn't Exxon-Mobil. Exxon-Mobil is #17. The first 16 are nationalized oil companies. #1 is a company you may have never heard about--National Iranian Oil Company. These guys don't follow U.S anti-trust laws. They write their own rules and if they want they can just shut the spigots off and drive prices up in retaliation for the U.S. putting more supply on the market. They have done it before. Remember 1973 and 1979? So don't expect the free market to sort this out. This market ain't free.

So WWCBD? He would--and did--offer a sensible energy plan that recognizes the real issues with oil demand and supply. It's a smart, honest plan--one you will never get from the pump and runners. It's not perfect--some allowance for sensible drilling in ANWR and offshore should be included--but it is much better than a simple focus on drilling. Thank goodness the majority of Americans understand this.

Bob

Chris, a couple of further comments on the private sector.

Left on its own, the American automobile industry took little to no substantive action to increase fuel efficiency in vehicles. It took CAFE legislation and other government mandates to get us to our miserable current state of affairs where cars that could get 50-60 mpg were technically feasible in the 1980s (I owned one--a 1985 Jetta Turbodiesel) but the automobile companies catered to American consumer demands for ever larger and more powerful machines leaving the fuel efficient cars for the effete in Europe and Japan. As a result GM and Ford lost a combined $24.2 billion dollars in their most recent quarters as SUV and truck sales plummeted, GM's third worst ever and Ford's worst ever. GM's worst quarter ever was last year: A $39 billion dollar 3Q shortfall. Chrysler is on the ropes, too. We may not have a domestically-controlled auto industry in a few years at this rate. Didn't they learn anything in the 1970s?

And, as I noted before, private American oil companies aren't playing on a level field so they can't move the market as a whole much. They are certainly making money, though. And what have they done with their record profits? Well, very little has gone into R&D on alternative enregy sources. Exxon-Mobil is proud of a $100 million investment in an alternative-energy research program at Stanford while concurrently spending $8.8 billlion on stock buy-backs and $5.5 billion on oil exploration and development. Hardly a major commitment.

Bob

Hi Chris

Name calling aside, you say:

"The best thing government can do for American consumers is to get out of the way."

I agree with you. So this loops back to the still unanswered question about how McClintock's resurrected Auburn Dam project would be funded. Has McClintock himself clarified this issue?

Lee Reed