OT: BP Oil Rig in the Gulf

[Smiley]

What a freaking mess, I sold my BP stock last week since when I first heard the story I thought TransOcean was going to be held liable, once I heard the BP boys taking financial blame it was time to get OUT. I don't think this thing is going to end well, are the lawyers lining up down south to represent as they should the harmed parties?

Who said Drill Baby Drill anyway :)

[SEABREEZE]

Thus far reports coming in that multiable class action lawsuits being filled

Wildlife now being affected

[fiamme red]

"Beyond Petroleum" indeed. :rolleyes:

[eddief]

I hear the train a comin...

[Ray]

Youse guys aren't really gonna try this again...

[fiamme red]

Youse guys aren't really gonna try this again...I think I'll start a Shimano vs. SRAM thread. We haven't had one of those in a while. :rolleyes:

[johnnymossville]

I was gonna say something about the spill, but decided to wait a few days. I'm late for a round of golf.

[rugbysecondrow]

Without being political, society needs to see this as a symptom of the greater problem, America's addiction convenience, which boils down to oil in this case. Drill baby drill...well that only makes sense in the context of an America that consistently chooses to not mind their manners and use sound judgement with regard to this resource. With each new road, people move further out, they drive bigger cars to get them there, then congestion hits on that road, then the cycle starts again and again. The vast delivery of services, buses, transportation, USPS...these are examples of inefficiency created out of convenience but are truly a resource issue. This isn't just about a Prius vs a Hummer or commuting by car vs by bike, but rather about a society that makes it decisions consistently against the practice of efficiency of resources.

So long as we keep using at the rate we are using, the spill is just a symptom of the greater problem and will be the least of our worries in years to come.

Don't hate the playa, hate the game.

[SPOKE]

Regarding oil rigs in the ocean not oil tanker accidents......how
many years has it been since the last accident even close to
this magnitude?

[mister]

^ not even a year ago...

"Halliburton also was the cementer on a well that suffered a big blowout last August in the Timor Sea, off Australia. The rig there caught fire and a well leaked tens of thousands of barrels of oil over 10 weeks before it was shut down. The investigation is continuing; Halliburton declined to comment on it.

Elmer P. Danenberger, who had recently retired as head of regulatory affairs for the U.S. Minerals Management Service, told the Australian commission looking into the blowout that a poor cement job was probably the reason oil and natural gas gushed out of control."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703572504575214593564769072.html

[johnnymossville]

Here's a list of some big ones. http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001451.html

[mister]

does BP have a good track record?

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/30/business/30labor.html?_r=1

[Louis]

I hear the train a comin...

It's all Vera Baker's fault...

[johnnymossville]

ironically, BP was to receive an award Monday from the Dept. of the Interior for "outstanding safety and pollution prevention performance by the offshore oil and gas industry."

The Luncheon has been canceled.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/05/03/interior-dept-postpones-luncheon-honoring-safety-measures-offshore-oil-gas/

[Ray]

This thread is still open? Was it something I didn't say? :cool:

-Ray

[Smiley]

This thread is still open? Was it something I didn't say? :cool:

-Ray
Probably a very important event that just happened that will shape up politics and conceptions that NOTHING can go wrong and if it does we got ur backside covered. As an engineer I am appallued that a BACK UP plan has failed to work, I dumped my stock in BP cause those guys are fools and they must have some pretty stupid lawyers since it was NOT their rig and not their workers that scootched the pooch on this one.
The governor of VA just recently said he wants to put in place drilling off the coast of VA Beach, I wonder how that idea is going down now. Anyway this affects a whole lot of folks and will affect how we view the enviroment for the younger generation that forgot about the Valdez.

[zap]

It's a major disaster if you are for drilling or against.

[Ray]

Probably a very important event that just happened that will shape up politics and conceptions that NOTHING can go wrong and if it does we got ur backside covered. As an engineer I am appallued that a BACK UP plan has failed to work, I dumped my stock in BP cause those guys are fools and they must have some pretty stupid lawyers since it was NOT their rig and not their workers that scootched the pooch on this one.
The governor of VA just recently said he wants to put in place drilling off the coast of VA Beach, I wonder how that idea is going down now. Anyway this affects a whole lot of folks and will affect how we view the enviroment for the younger generation that forgot about the Valdez.
Oh I know. I agree with the concern. My comment was because of how a similar thread got immediately shut down a couple of days ago in the wake of what I thought were totally non-political comments. I said roughly the following, which I don't think is political, but perhaps I'm wrong?

I made the point that something as complex as drilling for oil in the oceans (particularly now that the easy stuff has already been gotten out) is going to result in the occasional accident. I personally think there are a lot of good reasons to dislike oil companies but the lack of a perfect record on drilling disasters or tanker spills isn't one of them. There's nothing else we humans do that we manage to do perfectly - I don't think we can expect perfection with drilling or transporting oil either. Its our appetites for the stuff that ultimately makes events like this inevitable, as horrible as they are. We want energy as cheap as possible, we're gonna have the occasional mining disaster and oil spill. And some will be truly horrific. Like this one.

To be sure, if BP or Massey are found to have been cutting corners, they should be prosecuted for that, but perfection in energy extraction just isn't gonna happen any more than planes aren't going to occasionally crash and ships aren't gonna occasionally sink, etc.

As long as the thread is open, I thought I'd say it again. :cool:

-Ray

[dd74]

Zap nailed it.

The Gulf Coast, as far as economically, is ruined for the time being. No seafood, no recreation, which is how at least Louisiana makes its living. Whole towns will shut down because of this. Also, 15,000 men on that offshore rig lost their jobs, not including the 11 who lost their lives.

Now if all drilling were to stop, which would make this problem nonexistent, then possibly tens of thousands more would lose their jobs. We really don't want that in our economy. Nor do we want to import more oil from foreign countries.

I'm actually for the drilling. It is much safer than it used to be. And we do need cheap fuel simply because that's what our economy sustains. In other countries, fuel is $10 a gallon. No one in the U.S. can afford that and continue their lifestyle with automobiles.

Of course, I also hate driving, and would much rather do everything on bicycle (or possibly motorcycle if I had one), but the reality of one's way of life has to be first examined. If you have kids, have to haul stuff, or have a long commute, etc., you're going to need a vehicle. Unfortunately, it's the evil of the whole thing.

Now, as far as the conspiracy of this spill, the timing of Obama suggesting more drilling be done, and the Cap and Trade principles, well I'm not qualified to comment on that side of this issue.

[CNY rider]

. And we do need cheap fuel simply because that's what our economy sustains. In other countries, fuel is $10 a gallon. No one in the U.S. can afford that and continue their lifestyle with automobiles.



That price posted on the pump doesn't take into account nearly what that fuel actually costs us.
The entanglement in foreign wars; the support of dictatorial regimes that systematically trample human rights; the destruction of the natural environment. We pay for all of that, one way or another. Do you think the 9/11 terrorists were funded by money from innovators in semiconductor design? Biomedical researchers?

How will I know when gas costs "enough"? When I go past the grocery store and no longer see cars outside in the parking lot idling. Or when someone besides me gets there on a bicycle.

[eddief]

What else do you need to know?

"The CEO of British Petroleum said Monday that while he believes his company is not 100 percent to blame for the devastating oil spill off the Louisiana coast, it will aid businesses affected by the spill and continue efforts to stop the oil from reaching the shore."

"This is not our accident, but it's our responsibility," BP CEO Tony Hayward told CBS' "The Early Show" Monday.

[mister]

How will I know when gas costs "enough"? When I go past the grocery store and no longer see cars outside in the parking lot idling. Or when someone besides me gets there on a bicycle.

exactly.
when people stop driving SUVs to commute to work and they're the only person in the freaking vehicle. americans need to learn how selfish and careless they are and the effects they have on the environment.

i wish gas were $10 at the pump. gov't could tax the oil companies that make billions of dollars profit quarterly and pay for all of the debt.

[Climb01742]

a data point: where oil is drilled is no clue as to where it will be used. oil is a global commodity. regardless of where oil is drilled, it could end up anywhere in the world. the oil in the gulf isn't "america's" oil. it's BP's oil, it's the world's oil. all that oil is guaranteed to do is pollute america's gulf coast. it was never guaranteed to help us not buy "foreign" oil.

[BumbleBeeDave]

Youse guys aren't really gonna try this again...

. . . but the moment it goes that way my finger's on the trigger. If you wish to discuss the merits of oil usage, drilling or not, or a post petroleum economy, go right ahead. That can be a fascinating and educational discussion. But the moment it goes into assigning blame to any party or politician or another it's gonna get nailed shut pronto.

Ironically, this subject has some cycling content, IMHO. While not causing a sea change (definitely no pun intended) it's events like this in the aggregate that get people thinking about alternative modes of transport and the infrastructure to support them--and that can mean bicycles. :)

BBD

[mister]

What else do you need to know?

"The CEO of British Petroleum said Monday that while he believes his company is not 100 percent to blame for the devastating oil spill off the Louisiana coast, it will aid businesses affected by the spill and continue efforts to stop the oil from reaching the shore."

"This is not our accident, but it's our responsibility," BP CEO Tony Hayward told CBS' "The Early Show" Monday.

their damage liability is capped at $75 million dollars...
is that enough to help all the gulf coasts economies?

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/02/us/02liability.html

[Ray]

I'm actually for the drilling. It is much safer than it used to be. And we do need cheap fuel simply because that's what our economy sustains. In other countries, fuel is $10 a gallon. No one in the U.S. can afford that and continue their lifestyle with automobiles.

Whether its safer than it used to be or not, it seems to be empirically safer than hauling oil that might be pumped somewhere else all over the globe - THAT'S how the vast majority of oil that's been spilled has been spilled, right? So we choose our poison - do you want a ship to spill it or a pump to blow up? Again, it all comes back to us and our demand for the stuff. As Elvis Costello tells us, "Accidents will happen, it's always hit and run". We use less, there will be fewer accidents, but they'll still be some. And the only thing that's gonna change the demand is the supply/price...

-Ray

[SoCalSteve]

. . . but the moment it goes that way my finger's on the trigger. If you wish to discuss the merits of oil usage, drilling or not, or a post petroleum economy, go right ahead. That can be a fascinating and educational discussion. But the moment it goes into assigning blame to any party or politician or another it's gonna get nailed shut pronto.

Ironically, this subject has some cycling content, IMHO. While not causing a sea change (definitely no pun intended) it's events like this in the aggregate that get people thinking about alternative modes of transport and the infrastructure to support them--and that can mean bicycles. :)

BBD

I agree 100%...This is politics, but it does cross all party lines...Its not a he said-she said kind of thing...And, the fact is, that it can and should have an impact on cycling...

[rugbysecondrow]

Zap nailed it.



I'm actually for the drilling. It is much safer than it used to be. And we do need cheap fuel simply because that's what our economy sustains. In other countries, fuel is $10 a gallon. No one in the U.S. can afford that and continue their lifestyle with automobiles.

Of course, I also hate driving, and would much rather do everything on bicycle (or possibly motorcycle if I had one), but the reality of one's way of life has to be first examined. If you have kids, have to haul stuff, or have a long commute, etc., you're going to need a vehicle. Unfortunately, it's the evil of the whole thing.

.

People, governments and society as a whole have purposefully created these lifestyles that are dependent on cheap fuel/energy. I don't see it changing soon since politicians don't typically like to take stands, but would rather pass the buck.

[Rueda Tropical]

Fuel is not cheap, not even here. The price at the pump is not near the full cost. That cost is heavily subsidized by society. What would wiping out the gulf coast economy cost? How much does it cost for us to keep Mid East oil secure and flowing. What are the environmental costs, much of which are out of sight (Nigeria alone has a Exxon Valdez style catastrophic spill every year). What cost to being vulnerable to rising oil prices have on our living standards and economy? Drivers don't even bear the full cost of maintaining the roads they drive on.

Plus the long term cost of building an exurban structure dependent on "cheap" endless energy when we find out we just spent a century creating an economy crushing sized white elephant.

[pbjbike]

Without being political, society needs to see this as a symptom of the greater problem, America's addiction convenience, which boils down to oil in this case. Drill baby drill...well that only makes sense in the context of an America that consistently chooses to not mind their manners and use sound judgement with regard to this resource. With each new road, people move further out, they drive bigger cars to get them there, then congestion hits on that road, then the cycle starts again and again. The vast delivery of services, buses, transportation, USPS...these are examples of inefficiency created out of convenience but are truly a resource issue. This isn't just about a Prius vs a Hummer or commuting by car vs by bike, but rather about a society that makes it decisions consistently against the practice of efficiency of resources.

So long as we keep using at the rate we are using, the spill is just a symptom of the greater problem and will be the least of our worries in years to come.

Don't hate the playa, hate the game.

I so agree. Cheers :beer:

[Rueda Tropical]

A note on BP who made $5.6 billion in the first quarter of this year but decided to forgo "a remote-control shutoff switch that two other major oil producers, Norway and Brazil, require," in order to save $500,000 on the rig.

Our regulations of course are laxer as a result of industry lobbying.

[csm]

this is why I am for sourcing our oil overseas.

[wildboar]

It's all about the North Dakota/Montana Bakken Shale drilling now:

http://milliondollarway.blogspot.com/

KOG 52-Week Change: 497.22%

[CaptStash]

I understand exactly what BP's CEO is saying. In reality, BP chartered the rig, but the rtig itself was operated by a totally separate entity. It's the same as if you were a basketball team and had an airplane permanently chartered. It would be "your" airplane, but the the airplane owner/operator would be the ones who took care of maintenance and crewing it.

But: It is well understood in the oil world (a big part of my world by the way) that even if you don't operate the rig, tanker, refinery, if it is your oil making the mess, you are on the hook for cleaning it up.

BP itself does in fact have an very good safety record overall. Their other two major incidents from the last few years (pipeline spill in Prudhoe Bay and refinery explosion in Texas City) can arguably be traced to neglect previous to BP's taking over. That said though, the oil companies have a disturbing habit of talking out of both sides of their mouths. On their own equipment (ship, rigs) no money is spared and safety is job one. On chartered equipment, you are supposed to be really safety conscious, but, you know, watch that bottom line or we'll go with someone else.

My 2 cents worth.

Captstash....

[1happygirl]

I understand exactly what BP's CEO is saying. In reality, BP chartered the rig, but the rtig itself was operated by a totally separate entity. It's the same as if you were a basketball team and had an airplane permanently chartered. It would be "your" airplane, but the the airplane owner/operator would be the ones who took care of maintenance and crewing it.

But: It is well understood in the oil world (a big part of my world by the way) that even if you don't operate the rig, tanker, refinery, if it is your oil making the mess, you are on the hook for cleaning it up.

BP itself does in fact have an very good safety record overall. Their other two major incidents from the last few years (pipeline spill in Prudhoe Bay and refinery explosion in Texas City) can arguably be traced to neglect previous to BP's taking over. That said though, the oil companies have a disturbing habit of talking out of both sides of their mouths. On their own equipment (ship, rigs) no money is spared and safety is job one. On chartered equipment, you are supposed to be really safety conscious, but, you know, watch that bottom line or we'll go with someone else.

My 2 cents worth.

Captstash....

Reminds me of the one of the latest PBS Frontline shows on the Airline industry and the Buffalo crash. Same song on chartered airlines.

[oldfatslow]

Also, 15,000 men on that offshore rig lost their jobs, not including the 11 who lost their lives.

Now, as far as the conspiracy of this spill, the timing of Obama suggesting more drilling be done, and the Cap and Trade principles, well I'm not qualified to comment on that side of this issue.

Two comments:

1.) I don't know where the "15,000 men on that offshore rig" when there were only 126 people (of which 115 survived) aboard Transocean's Deepwater Horizon submersible drilling platform. http://www.deepwater.com/fw/main/Home-1.html

2.) Conspiracy Theory? Are you somehow implying that environmentalists blew up the rig which somehow caused undersea blow-out preventer to fail to create a huge environmental disaster as part of a plot to prevent broader drilling in the Gulf? Nonsense. I would be more willing to believe that the Moon Landings were faked by Cuban Mobsters who funneled the money for NASA into off-shore accounts managed by Bernie Madoff which paid for 100 gunman on the grassy knoll.

ATMO: Drilling in the hurricane prone gulf is nonsensical and the small reserves present are dwarfed in comparison to the huge economic and environmental loss posed by the risk we are watching unfold before our very eyes.

We are much better getting more of us on bikes and out of our SUVs.

[Louis]

My car ('97 Acura Integra, greatest, most versatile and reliable small vehicle ever built) still gets 35 mpg. It now has 197,xxx miles and will have to be replaced eventually. As I look around I can't find too many cars with that kind of gas mileage (and mine is over ten years old - you'd think they would have improved over time) so I think to myself, "OK, maybe I can go down to 30 MPG as my lower limit." Then I consider a car that gets 28 mpg, that's not too much below 30...

When something like this happens (oil spill) it only reinforces my desire to get a high-mileage car. That, plus the fact that I think that over then next ten years in which I hope to own my next car, I'm pretty sure that for at least some of that time gas will top $8 a gallon...

[mister]

gas needs to go way up in price to get break everyone's love affair with wasting it.

as far as cars, i've noticed all the compact cars seem to be getting bigger which does no good for fuel efficiency...

[wildboar]

as far as cars, i've noticed all the compact cars seem to be getting bigger which does no good for fuel efficiency...

Gas mileage around here is negated by the fact that everyone uses the accelerator like an on/off switch and hammers the $@#% out of the car off the line like a bat out of hell.

[mister]

Gas mileage around here is negated by the fact that everyone uses the accelerator like an on/off switch and hammers the $@#% out of the car off the line like a bat out of hell.

lol, yeah i notice that too.
also hate how people text at lights and end up sitting at green lights for 5-10seconds before they realize it's time to go.

also people wear their brakes out so fast and warp rotors coz they step on the brakes as hard as they do their accelerator's...

[Rueda Tropical]

According to the non-profit, non-partisan Air and Waste Management Association, a quart of crude oil will make 150,000 gallons of water toxic to aquatic life. It's estimated 200,000 gallons of crude are being released daily into the gulf right now by the BP well.

It is possible that because of the pressure at which the oil is being spewed that only relieving the pressure by drilling relief wells will allow the break to be capped. It took 9 months and 2 relief wells to get the Ixtoc platform in the Bay of Campeche off of Mexico capped. This could affect aquatic life in a lot more then the Gulf. There was no plan for a blow off of this magnitude at this depth since it "couldn't happen". So everything being tried has never been done before. It's possible and maybe likely things could get much worse before they get better.

[gemship]

According to the non-profit, non-partisan Air and Waste Management Association, a quart of crude oil will make 150,000 gallons of water toxic to aquatic life. It's estimated 200,000 gallons of crude are being released daily into the gulf right now by the BP well.

It is possible that because of the pressure at which the oil is being spewed that only relieving the pressure by drilling relief wells will allow the break to be capped. It took 9 months and 2 relief wells to get the Ixtoc platform in the Bay of Campeche off of Mexico capped. This could affect aquatic life in a lot more then the Gulf. There was no plan for a blow off of this magnitude at this depth since it "couldn't happen". So everything being tried has never been done before. It's possible and maybe likely things could get much worse before they get better.


one reoccurring thought comes to mind for me... I think I'll avoid seafood for now on.

[csm]

According to the non-profit, non-partisan Air and Waste Management Association

just cuz they say they're non-partisan doesn't mean they are.....

hopefully, this mess coupled with the coal mine disasters and enviromental impacts of mining will get some serious conversations going about nuclear power.

[Pete Serotta]

Thanks everyone for keeping this informative, an information exchange, and also a thought process.... :) :beer:


PETE

[1happygirl]

Hey Louis and everyone!

Remember the late 80's Honda CR-X ? I know peeps still running them with hundreds of thousands of miles and they STILL get at least 45 mpg!


They problem is like now when peeps get another car that gets better gas mileage, they just drive more.

[gemship]

Hey Louis and everyone!

Remember the late 80's Honda CR-X ? I know peeps still running them with hundreds of thousands of miles and they STILL get at least 45 mpg!


They problem is like now when peeps get another car that gets better gas mileage, they just drive more.
This is exactly why the logic of 10/gallon gas makes sense. :)

[fiamme red]

This is exactly why the logic of 10/gallon gas makes sense. :)In New Jersey, the state government and New Jersey Transit are doing a good job getting people off mass transit and into their cars. A 25% increase in fares (as much as 45% for off-peak commuters) just went into effect, while the gas tax hasn't been raised since 1988. :crap:

http://www.northjersey.com/news/transportation/050310_NJ_commuters_dig_into_their_wallets_for_inc reased_fares.html

[Peter B]

<snip> will get some serious conversations going about nuclear power.

The waste issue kills it for me. That and hazards and costs associated with ongoing operations. Out here we had Rancho Seco in the 70's. SMUD utterly mismanaged the operation, and the plant had a lifetime capacity average of only 39%. Voters finally pulled the plug in '89. It is still in the process of being decommissioned 20 years hence; the spent fuel rods sit in dry storage on the site. The promise was "electricity too cheap to meter." Indeed.

I'd like to see a 'Manhattan Project' on more benign alternatives.

http://www.nrc.gov/info-finder/decommissioning/power-reactor/rancho-seco-nuclear-generating-station.html

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

http://www.energy-net.org/01NUKE/RSECOT.HTM

[gemship]

In New Jersey, the state government and New Jersey Transit are doing a good job getting people off mass transit and into their cars. A 25% increase in fares (as much as 45% for off-peak commuters) just went into effect, while the gas tax hasn't been raised since 1988. :crap:

http://www.northjersey.com/news/transportation/050310_NJ_commuters_dig_into_their_wallets_for_inc reased_fares.html


yeah, sigh :o :( :o Once anybody gets past the big purchase of a car and ins. /reg./tax they are hooked. Even here in Ma. if you're lucky enough to live and work near the commuter rail it is still a pretty penny to just to use it for a 40 mile roundtrip commute M-F. It seems the country's road infrastructure is just so heavily subsidized for folks to keep on truck'in. Been that way since the Great Depression and more so since the 50's. There was a great program about all this on PBS not so long ago and it had a pretty good amount of conversation on the building of highways around Denver, Colorado along with bike and streetcar commuting in Portland,Oregon.

[Smiley]

Somebody on this thread mentioned that BP's losses are capped for this calamity, could this be true. Also why has BP not moved a law suit against TransOcean and Halliburton yet? Will those clowns be hurt by any of this? Just wondering why other parties that need to take the blame have not steped up yet. How about the US Govt that monitors the safety of these rigs???

[fiamme red]

Somebody on this thread mentioned that BP's losses are capped for this calamity, could this be true.http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5i-Bq4GrZpMDSMrtPh6TBPh6-bHdAD9FFM2A80

A law passed in response to the 1989 Exxon Valdez spill in Alaska makes BP responsible for cleanup costs. But the law sets a $75 million limit on other kinds of damages.

Economic losses to the Gulf Coast are likely to exceed that. In response, several Democratic senators introduced legislation Monday to raise the liability limit to $10 billion, though it was not clear that it could be made to apply retroactively.

[rugbysecondrow]

yeah, sigh :o :( :o Once anybody gets past the big purchase of a car and ins. /reg./tax they are hooked. Even here in Ma. if you're lucky enough to live and work near the commuter rail it is still a pretty penny to just to use it for a 40 mile roundtrip commute M-F. It seems the country's road infrastructure is just so heavily subsidized for folks to keep on truck'in. Been that way since the Great Depression and more so since the 50's. There was a great program about all this on PBS not so long ago and it had a pretty good amount of conversation on the building of highways around Denver, Colorado along with bike and streetcar commuting in Portland,Oregon.


That was a great PBS show.

[gemship]

That was a great PBS show.


absolutely, I wish I had seen the program from beginning to end. It was very interesting to see the contrasting approaches that residents and city planners of both Denver and Portland were taking in regard to transportation and it's effect on the local wildlife/quality of life for all.

[Climb01742]

it does seem like pricing gas/carbon at much higher levels -- with some sort of fair ramp up period to give people/companies time to adjust -- is the first and perhaps most important step to get all the other changes going, but where is the political will and willingness to sacrifice to get it done?

we also need an honest dialogue about, and appraisal of, how we use "dirty" technologies like oil and coal and nuclear to bridge us to the day green(er) technologies are viable. but in america today, is there a bigger oxymoron than "honest dialogue"?

[fiamme red]

absolutely, I wish I had seen the program from beginning to end. It was very interesting to see the contrasting approaches that residents and city planners of both Denver and Portland were taking in regard to transportation and it's effect on the local wildlife/quality of life for all.This one?

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/blueprintamerica/reports/road-to-the-future/video-full-documentary/648/

If so, you can watch it in its entirety online.

[gemship]

This one?

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/blueprintamerica/reports/road-to-the-future/video-full-documentary/648/

If so, you can watch it in its entirety online.

Awesome, thankyou for sharing the link.


Ironically I own a ATV(fourwheeler) and it's a two stroke which means you have to mix gas and oil. So anyways I get this phone call from a old friend who I see randomly over the years and he happens to hang with this other friend from years ago. They all want to go riding at this place about 80 miles north of where we live. I was excited initially but I said no because I'm currently unemployed and really couldn't afford the gas and tolls on top of the fuel mix for my ATV. Anyways I get another call that this other fellow backed out and I could hitch a ride and there was room on their trailer for another ATV. So I figured cool I should just do this as I may never ride up at this place again. Picture this four of us with four ATV's on a trailer driving up in a relatively new black Ford Excursion Limited that looked like something from Pimp My Ride. This Suburban like monster of a truck can seat seven adults legally and comfortably, gets like 10/mpg and will drag houses down as well as towing yachts. It was a fun experience but I felt so shameful. I just bought this ATV a couple months ago on a whim to break up the boredom of winter living in a rural area. Now I'm rediscovering friends from my youthful dirtbiking days and they haven't changed. Big boys with big toys, these guys have it all. It was fun but I felt out of place and sure enough I blew riding my bicycle that day :rolleyes:

[93legendti]

I'm amazed that people think that raising taxes on oil/gas usage will lead to reduced usage.

[mister]

isn't that economics?

as price increases demand decreases?

it would probably make people think more about how they use oil and gas.

[fiamme red]

I'm amazed that people think that raising taxes on oil/gas usage will lead to reduced usage.Amazed?

http://economics.about.com/od/priceelasticityofdemand/a/gasoline_elast.htm

[johnnymossville]

I'm amazed that people think that raising taxes on oil/gas usage will lead to reduced usage.

the rural lower income and fixed income people are already punished far more than urban people because of gas taxes and zero subsidized public transit.

I'd probably drive about the same as I do now with $10/gallon prices, but I'd eat out less and make due with cheaper or less bicycle parts.

[gemship]

I'm amazed that people think that raising taxes on oil/gas usage will lead to reduced usage.


Well... It wouldn't change the fact that we need trucks to transport food and goods from the docks to our stores. It would certainly make things cost more all the way around. It would eliminate a certain amount of congestion. Only the truly wealthy would be cruising around all day on their yachts and 20ft. center console fishing boats or their Harleys, Mustangs whatever. I think more people would ride bicycles,scooters and mopeds. Certainly there would be less congestion. With rising grocery prices folks may be forced to count calories and sensible enough to try and stick with a proper diet some may even grow more of their own food. Yeah you're right 10/gallon gas may not change much at all, there are a lot of folks that don't see any other way and would simply spend all their money just to have a set of wheels. Another thought services like landscaping/construction need work trucks. That septic system that was already overpriced at 50k will now cost a lot more :eek:

[coylifut]

it's called demand destruction and will reduce per capita consumption, but doesn't address emerging economies growing thirst.

[93legendti]

I was being ironical.

People seem to think raising taxes will curb purchasing only when it applies to items they do not approve of.

[rugbysecondrow]

I'm amazed that people think that raising taxes on oil/gas usage will lead to reduced usage.

Sure it would. It would impact decisions regarding where to live, where to recreate, where to work...life decisions would change drastically. It would also change the way we drive, the cars we drive. Yes, the cars we have are more fuel efficient than previous generations in theory, but then they are also created to go 0-60 faster than previous generations so that is negated.

There hasn't been a sufficient disincentive created to make changes. I am in favor of a gas floor regarding price, that money should go directly to transportation projects, redevelopment to bring people in closer to where work is. It is unreasonable to think that we can and should promote through policy development that encourages 2 hour long commutes.

[1happygirl]

Relatives of friends enjoy cigarettes and are complaining regularly about the increasing cost (~$60 a pack?). They scrimp in other areas to afford their pleasure, even if they don't use their resources for Maslow's basic needs.

People will always find money for what they want, not what they need.

[rugbysecondrow]

Relatives of friends enjoy cigarettes and are complaining regularly about the increasing cost (~$60 a pack?). They scrimp in other areas to afford their pleasure, even if they don't use their resources for Maslow's basic needs.

People will always find money for what they want, not what they need.

Smoking is different. As a former smoker, non smokers have no idea the hold each draw has on a smoker.

Regarding learned behavior though, it can be changed. It is hard though because muncipalites, states and feds have to work in congruance on these issues. In Baltimore, the property taxes are more than twice that in the city than in the suburbs. The schools are also *****. I may have a principled view, but are my kids going to be the guinea pigs? The path of least resistance is often moving outside of the city, that has to change.

[Climb01742]

a carbon tax would have three goals (in ascending importance):

1. cut near-term consumption
2. price carbon closer to its true total environmental cost
3. given entreprenuers price-certainty for market driven green technology innovations

[1happygirl]

a carbon tax would have three goals (in ascending importance):

1. cut near-term consumption
2. price carbon closer to its true total environmental cost
3. given entreprenuers price-certainty for market driven green technology innovations


I think about #2 (bad choice of words I guess) when I drink my 3L of water a day. I see all the countries needing water (even the country of CA!)

Honest question:
Would putting a tax on my water (like my 20oz wal-mart that I drink), work the same way?

Water, according to many sources, is not priced appropriately (priced, not taxed)

[Climb01742]

I think about #2 (bad choice of words I guess) when I drink my 3L of water a day. I see all the countries needing water (even the country of CA!)

Honest question:
Would putting a tax on my water (like my 20oz wal-mart that I drink), work the same way?

Water, according to many sources, is not priced appropriately (priced, not taxed)

that's a very fair, and good, question. and i'm guilty, too, of buying way too many bottles of water. i wonder what size of per-bottle-deposit would reflect the full environmental cost of all that plastic and shipping? we all get a free-ride on something, don't we? :crap:

[Charles M]

Free ride, or charge it?

[rugbysecondrow]

I think about #2 (bad choice of words I guess) when I drink my 3L of water a day. I see all the countries needing water (even the country of CA!)

Honest question:
Would putting a tax on my water (like my 20oz wal-mart that I drink), work the same way?

Water, according to many sources, is not priced appropriately (priced, not taxed)

When a 20oz bottle of water costs $1.49, then it seems some real costs are being realized by the consumer.

[mister]

When a 20oz bottle of water costs $1.49, then it seems some real costs are being realized by the consumer.

yeah that's almost $10 a gallon...

[1centaur]

Environmental costs are not fairly calculable ex ante. They would be calculated politically by whichever powers were in charge. That would create unintended distortions by the thousands, I suspect, and a shadow taxing system that is better in the daylight. I'm okay with understanding that environmental costs are not explicit, continuous, knowable or chargeable except for specific damages/costs, such as the BP spill (hey, why not tax each one of us for our personal environmental impact, ex ante?). It may be that no oil company can shoulder costs of that magnitude alone (even with insurance) and there needs to be a risk pool funded by the oil industry to cover high cost accidents (post deductibles/affordables). That would help align incentives so the right/appropriate technology is included on all rigs and appropriate response protocols are in place lest all the industry suffers insurance pool depletion. Regulatory fiat should be part of this, but with the right incentives that push should get less resistance.

I look forward to the day that green power can drive desalination plants and we can have unlimited cheap water.

I like a planned phased-in gasoline tax for the investment planning certainty it gives government and industry around renewable power (though I get LTi's point that all taxes curtail something, they're not free money to society). However, I want to repeat what I've said before: the US is not a closed economy; if India and China happily suck up the oil the US does not buy and they do so at a cheaper price they will gain economic and political strength at our expense because they will be powered by cheaper, more energy efficient power over the intermediate term. The oceans would still have oil spills, and the Middle East would still be well funded, but we'd be poorer, suffer various forms of artificial inflation, possibly gut suburban house prices, kill people in smaller cars, and suffer many more consequences. No easy answers there, but that does not mean it should not be pursued.

As for encouraging suburban living, people don't need encouragement, they like what the suburbs offer (places to play, cleaner air, fewer people, greater local control of schools, etc.). If government wants to make it much more expensive to live in the suburbs, they might have trouble staying in power.

[93legendti]

I would think encouraging behavior via tax credits/deuctions-both for the consumer and the manufacturer, would be a better system for changing the status quo (if that's what society decides), rather than punishing people for making personal, legal choices.

We do that with IRA's, charitable giving, household energy efficiency and for all sorts of behavior we seek to encourage. Besides rather than killing the economy, credits/decuctions actually stimulate the economy. (Imagine if instead of an IRA deduction, there was a tax if you did NOT save for retirement.)

Carbon tax, water tax, VAT, income tax, sugar tax, tanning tax, sales tax, State income tax, estate tax, property tax, social security, Obamacare tax, medicare tax...at some point there's nothing left to tax.

There's always an air tax, tree and grass tax, immigration tax, UN tax, beach tax, bicycle tax, sun tax....

[Climb01742]

Environmental costs are not fairly calculable ex ante. They would be calculated politically by whichever powers were in charge. That would create unintended distortions by the thousands, I suspect, and a shadow taxing system that is better in the daylight. I'm okay with understanding that environmental costs are not explicit, continuous, knowable or chargeable except for specific damages/costs, such as the BP spill (hey, why not tax each one of us for our personal environmental impact, ex ante?). It may be that no oil company can shoulder costs of that magnitude alone (even with insurance) and there needs to be a risk pool funded by the oil industry to cover high cost accidents (post deductibles/affordables). That would help align incentives so the right/appropriate technology is included on all rigs and appropriate response protocols are in place lest all the industry suffers insurance pool depletion. Regulatory fiat should be part of this, but with the right incentives that push should get less resistance.

I look forward to the day that green power can drive desalination plants and we can have unlimited cheap water.

I like a planned phased-in gasoline tax for the investment planning certainty it gives government and industry around renewable power (though I get LTi's point that all taxes curtail something, they're not free money to society). However, I want to repeat what I've said before: the US is not a closed economy; if India and China happily suck up the oil the US does not buy and they do so at a cheaper price they will gain economic and political strength at our expense because they will be powered by cheaper, more energy efficient power over the intermediate term. The oceans would still have oil spills, and the Middle East would still be well funded, but we'd be poorer, suffer various forms of artificial inflation, possibly gut suburban house prices, kill people in smaller cars, and suffer many more consequences. No easy answers there, but that does not mean it should not be pursued.

As for encouraging suburban living, people don't need encouragement, they like what the suburbs offer (places to play, cleaner air, fewer people, greater local control of schools, etc.). If government wants to make it much more expensive to live in the suburbs, they might have trouble staying in power.

here's an imaginary chess game:

a carbon tax gives american entreprenuers the predictability to attract billions in investments and research flourishes.

china and india stay with cheap oil needles in their arms.

as with silicon valley, america builds a green energy technology industry that drives global innovation.

china and india pollute themselves into a ecological nightmare (as some parts of china are now.)

china and india are willing to pay whatever it takes for a clean alternative or face a restive population.

america sells it to them.

i'd take that. most scientists believe the world is polluting itself into a pretty dark corner. for idealistic and capitalistic reasons, i'd like america to be the nation that creates the technologies (and owns the patents) that find the answers. a carbon tax is one step toward that. perhaps not the only step, but as viable of a step as we have.

one could argue that defense budgets gave birth to silicon valley, budgets paid for by tax dollars. sometimes tax dollars have beneficial results.

[93legendti]

here's an imaginary chess game:

a carbon tax gives american entreprenuers the predictability to attract billions in investments and research flourishes.

china and india stay with cheap oil needles in their arms.

as with silicon valley, america builds a green energy technology industry that drives global innovation.

china and india pollute themselves into a ecological nightmare (as some parts of china are now.)

china and india are willing to pay whatever it takes for a clean alternative or face a restive population.

america sells it to them.

i'd take that. most scientists believe the world is polluting itself into a pretty dark corner. for idealistic and capitalistic reasons, i'd like america to be the nation that creates the technologies (and owns the patents) that find the answers. a carbon tax is one step toward that. perhaps not the only step, but as viable of a step as we have.

one could argue that defense budgets gave birth to silicon valley, budgets paid for by tax dollars. sometimes tax dollars have beneficial results.
The tax also takes away the $ necessary to make the "attraction" anything more than a flirtation. A credit/deuction makes it cheaper to amke and buy the product. Isn't that a better scenario than a punishment tax?

China and India will have more money to "build a green energy technology industry that drives global innovation". They will sell it to us-wait, we won't be able to afford it, because of our taxes. I don't see China or India having the same suicidal economic tendencies we now have.

Taxes do not build technology or drive innovation. They kill them. There is NOTHING "viable" about a punishment tax-unless you have a financial stake in the carbon exchange.

[Rueda Tropical]

I don't see China or India having the same suicidal economic tendencies we now have.

1/3rd of China's stimulus package went to green technology industries. The government has set a target that 20 per cent of the country’s energy requirements should be generated from alternative sources by 2020 and the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) has announced subsidies and feed-in tariffs for the solar and wind power industries. China already has the most advanced electric car battery in the world.

You are right, there is no chance any of those policies would have a prayer in our political environment. Drill baby drill.

[rugbysecondrow]

As for encouraging suburban living, people don't need encouragement, they like what the suburbs offer (places to play, cleaner air, fewer people, greater local control of schools, etc.). If government wants to make it much more expensive to live in the suburbs, they might have trouble staying in power.

Sure they are encouraged, the government builds 4 lane roads and highways to these places giving the impression of cheap mobility to the amenities they used to have at an either cheaper or more desirable location. As has been proven over and over again, these roads that are built are like adjustable rate mortages. Sure, the introductory terms seem great (nice road, easy commute, less traffic) but then more people think the same thing, people then move further out from there...a sub-urb of the sub-urb, pretty soon people are clamoring to widen or add another road. The further people move, the further they continue to move. The more roads that are built, people move further out. All for what and at what cost? You can say that people (drivers) pay the cost, but they really don't.

Understand, I am not against people moving to where they want, what I am against though is them doing so and then compaining about increased money to subsidize their lifestyle (example road improvement to ease commuting).

I would think encouraging behavior via tax credits/deuctions-both for the consumer and the manufacturer, would be a better system for changing the status quo (if that's what society decides), rather than punishing people for making personal, legal choices.

We do that with IRA's, charitable giving, household energy efficiency and for all sorts of behavior we seek to encourage. Besides rather than killing the economy, credits/decuctions actually stimulate the economy. (Imagine if instead of an IRA deduction, there was a tax if you did NOT save for retirement.)

Carbon tax, water tax, VAT, income tax, sugar tax, tanning tax, sales tax, State income tax, estate tax, property tax, social security, Obamacare tax, medicare tax...at some point there's nothing left to tax.

There's always an air tax, tree and grass tax, immigration tax, UN tax, beach tax, bicycle tax, sun tax....

As for taxes vs. incentives...this is a false option you are creating. You are leaving out the most important part, IMO, the tax dollars offer being used to subsidize policy (farming) or bad policy that has a negative impact on resource allocation and use (sprawl).

This is not a one person or one type of person problem, it is society as a whole and how we think of things. Oddly enough, this seems like it should be a conservative issue since really what we are talking about is maximizing resources, maximizing governmental dollars spent and maximizing delivery of service.

Lastly, just because something is legal doesn't mean it is right. We have had two wars in the last 20 years that one could argue only existed for the purpose of securing oil resources. If that resource is so important that we would go to such a great exent to protect it, is it right for somebody to legally be so flip about its waste? I don't think so.

[93legendti]

Sure they are encouraged, the government builds 4 lane roads and highways to these places giving the impression of cheap mobility to the amenities they used to have at an either cheaper or more desirable location. As has been proven over and over again, these roads that are built are like adjustable rate mortages. Sure, the introductory terms seem great (nice road, easy commute, less traffic) but then more people think the same thing, people then move further out from there...a sub-urb of the sub-urb, pretty soon people are clamoring to widen or add another road. The further people move, the further they continue to move. The more roads that are built, people move further out. All for what and at what cost? You can say that people (drivers) pay the cost, but they really don't.

Understand, I am not against people moving to where they want, what I am against though is them doing so and then compaining about increased money to subsidize their lifestyle (example road improvement to ease commuting).



As for taxes vs. incentives...this is a false option you are creating. You are leaving out the most important part, IMO, the tax dollars offer being used to subsidize policy (farming) or bad policy that has a negative impact on resource allocation and use (sprawl).

This is not a one person or one type of person problem, it is society as a whole and how we think of things. Oddly enough, this seems like it should be a conservative issue since really what we are talking about is maximizing resources, maximizing governmental dollars spent and maximizing delivery of service.
It's only a "false option" because one is effective (incentives to buyers and manufacturers of new technologies) and one isn't (punishment taxes to curb legal, personal choices).

I put 95% eff furnaces in my house because the $1500 tax credit made them cheaper than 90% eff furnaces. How many people fund their IRA's on April 15/when they file their return? I did.

We will see how many people will pay the punishment tax rather than buy/offer health care...

There is no conservative issue that is solved/served by raising taxes and "maximizing gov't dollars spent/delivery of service"-that's the progressive response.

[Rueda Tropical]

As for encouraging suburban living, people don't need encouragement, they like what the suburbs offer (places to play, cleaner air, fewer people, greater local control of schools, etc.). If government wants to make it much more expensive to live in the suburbs, they might have trouble staying in power.

Americans also like to consume vast quantities of fast foods and sugar which makes a disturbingly large percent of the population morbidly obese. Just because people choose to live like that does not make it a good thing.

And suburban living and obesity were not always the American way and were not some inevitable result of progress. It took a lot of money, marketing and policy decisions to change habits and lifestyles to get where we are today. I'd say it would be worth a lot of money, marketing and policy decisions to get us on a better course.

[rugbysecondrow]

It's only a "false option" because one is effective (incentives to buyers and manufacturers of new technologies) and one isn't (punishment taxes to curb legal, personal choices).

I put 95% eff furnaces in my house because the $1500 tax credit made them cheaper than 90% eff furnaces. How many people fund their IRA's on April 15/when they file their return? I did.

We will see how many people will pay the punishment tax rather than buy/offer health care...

There is no conservative issue that is solved/served by raising taxes and "maximizing gov't dollars spent/delivery of service"-that's the progressive response.

It is false because you cherry picked your options...these two do not exist in a vacuum so yes, it is a false option.

I have no problem with incentivizing decisions, but I beleive in the carrot and the stick approach. I am good with not charging a "Tax" but let the consumer realize the real costs of fuel. What you ignore is the substantial subsidizing of this problem...

This is conservative because it impacts debt, deficit, national security, resource allocation...it literally touches every facet of what a strong nation needs to be successful.

Our dependency on oil from countries that are either politically unstable or at odds with the U.S. subjects the American economy to occasional supply disruptions, price hikes, and loss of wealth, which, according to a study commissioned by the U.S. Department of Energy, have cost us more than $7 trillion present value dollars over the last 30 years. That is more than the cumulative cost of all of the wars fought by the U.S. since the Revolutionary War. The transfer of wealth to oil-producing countries - $1.16 trillion over the past thirty years - significantly increased our trade deficit. The Department of Energy estimates that each $1 billion of trade deficit costs America 27,000 jobs. Oil imports account for almost one-third of the total U.S. deficit and, hence, are a major contributor to unemployment. http://www.iags.org/costofoil.html

[93legendti]

We get ~80% of our oil from Canada, Mexico and,iirc, Brazil. We have more than enough for our own needs. We are the ONLY Country too stupid to use our own.
Talk about false choices.

[BumbleBeeDave]

. . . we're done with this one. No cycling content and discussion beginning to repeat. When the BF type comes out it's time to move on. The usual folks heading down the same slippery slope.

Big oil spill = big headache. 'Nuff said . . . :crap:

BBD