|
|
Post by bsutrack on May 20, 2022 22:36:56 GMT -6
11 consecutive days of new record high gasoline prices in the US. Going into the weekend, the national average for a gallon of regular gasoline has increased over the past 5 days by 10 cents per gallon.  |
|
|
|
Post by bsutrack on May 20, 2022 23:03:42 GMT -6
Assuming we had the most Oil friendly administration, what would gas at the pump be right now? How would the shortage bsutrack described above due to some refinery outage be different? If in fact there is a difference due to encouraging EVs and that is a political question worth debate. As is it a legitimate debate about the politics of regulating oil and other fossil fuels. Legitimate questions. It's the government mandates and attempts at central planning (hallmarks of the old Soviet system of government) that take their toll. Look at California for example, their Governor, Gavin Newsome, is attempting to mandate the total phase-out of Internal Combustion Engine (ICE) vehicles by 2035. www.cnbc.com/2022/04/13/california-releases-proposal-to-ban-new-gas-fueled-cars-by-2035-.html#:~:text=Gavin%20Newsom's%20executive%20order%20in,them%20on%20the%20used%20market. If passed, do you think anyone is going to invest in expansions or upgrades of a single California oil refinery with this hanging over their heads? Even if it isn't passed this year, it will have a "chilling effect" on future investments in refining capacity on the West Coast. But that's the desired effect, limit the supply of hydrocarbons either by price or scarcity. It's much better to allow the free market decide. Worse yet, they don't have a clue where the raw materials for all these EV's will come from. Let alone how their electrical grid, which currently is on the brink of collapse, will charge all these EV's. It's a bit of a "Field of Dreams"; mandate it and it will come. |
|
|
|
Post by coastalcard on May 21, 2022 6:05:29 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on May 21, 2022 7:02:16 GMT -6
Assuming we had the most Oil friendly administration, what would gas at the pump be right now? How would the shortage bsutrack described above due to some refinery outage be different? If in fact there is a difference due to encouraging EVs and that is a political question worth debate. As is it a legitimate debate about the politics of regulating oil and other fossil fuels. Legitimate questions. It's the government mandates and attempts at central planning (hallmarks of the old Soviet system of government) that take their toll. Look at California for example, their Governor, Gavin Newsome, is attempting to mandate the total phase-out of Internal Combustion Engine (ICE) vehicles by 2035. At this point that is California Dreaming. I share your skepticism about EVs, but Big Oil has to start factoring environmental harm versus short term profits. Right now the politics entrench the two positions and make any progress impossible. I am tired of all or nothing thinking by both sides in the debate on energy. Environmentalists have no idea how hard it is to feed our demand for energy consumption without costs to consumers. Big Oil is driven by short term profit to shareholders. The only way to factor in externalities of longer term harm to the environment and public health is government action. There is no free lunch, and there is no market mechanism to price long term damage done by pollution and risk of harm occurring years in the future does not get priced into development. |
|
|
|
Post by sweep on May 21, 2022 9:05:40 GMT -6
Legitimate questions. It's the government mandates and attempts at central planning (hallmarks of the old Soviet system of government) that take their toll. Look at California for example, their Governor, Gavin Newsome, is attempting to mandate the total phase-out of Internal Combustion Engine (ICE) vehicles by 2035. Big Oil has to start factoring environmental harm versus short term profits. Give some examples of "Big Oil" short term profit motives that led to unusual environmental harm. Then let's discuss a University wasting $100 million on a green energy boondoggle that was doomed to failure before it was ever constructed. After that we can discuss why you initially supported that project. |
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on May 21, 2022 9:41:24 GMT -6
Big Oil has to start factoring environmental harm versus short term profits. Give an example of short term profit motives that led to unusual environmental harm. Sure.
The textbook examples are in waste disposal in rivers, or by burning waste, or burying waste product. Creating cheap short term cost savings to the producers, but long term costs to others.
Often those costs are in different states or distant from the business which suffers no harm and has no motive to sacrifice short term profit to prevent it, and has no liability for the harm due difficulty of showing proximate cause or due to the passage of time.
Examples:
1. Chemical plants in Ohio found it cheap and efficient waste disposal to simply put waste product into the rivers flowing near their plants.
Cheap and short term profit maximizing for them. Long term it created polluted rivers (the Cuyahoga literally caught fire in Cleveland) and Lake Erie. Cost of waste disposal was born NOT by the companies, not by consumers of rubber and chemical products sold all over the world, but by innocent bystanders so to speak.
2. In Indiana we burned high sulfur coal because it was cheaper than other coal sources. Decades of this practice led to acid rain in New England with consequences for health and for destruction of forest environment there. Indiana had no motive to regulate, since low sulfur coal was plentiful in Indiana, mining produced Indiana jobs and tax base. New England states had no jurisdiction to regulate or seek remedy.
3. The textbook case near Buffalo was Love Canal where the former canal became used as a cheap way to dispose of waste and decades later after chemical plants were long gone (often no longer in business) and after the canal was not maintained and dried up and was covered by landfill, the harm was done to the community built on the property where the canal had collected chemical waste and it came back to the surface.
Perhaps you will not call any of that "unusual" enough to merit consideration. However it is commonplace for there to be harm to ground water supply by buried waste, commonly air pollution created by burning waste, and runoff of chemical byproducts of agriculture are serious problems in agricultural states. In all cases it is a drag on short term profit to prevent harm, and neither the polluters or their customers suffer harm. On the contrary it is great for customers to get "cheaper" products short run if producers have lower cost because they don't spend money cleaning up waste, and the producer gets greater profit. Others do suffer harm...
|
|
|
|
Post by sweep on May 21, 2022 10:08:56 GMT -6
Give an example of short term profit motives that led to unusual environmental harm.
The textbook examples are in waste disposal in rivers, or by burning waste, or burying waste product. Creating cheap short term cost savings to the producers, but long term costs to others.
"Big Oil" does that ? Oh and by the way, YOU burn waste product every time you start your car or turn on your home heat. |
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on May 21, 2022 10:21:55 GMT -6
Big Oil has to start factoring environmental harm versus short term profits. Give some examples of "Big Oil" short term profit motives that led to unusual environmental harm. Then let's discuss a University wasting $100 million on a green energy boondoggle that was doomed to failure before it was ever constructed. After that we can discuss why you initially supported that project. I notice you edited your post to add a rant about the the geothermal project. There is legitimate debate about it, I agree, Still, I don't think we can accept your assessment that it is a complete boondoggle, or doomed, or a failure.
While it is debatable whether that project will long term be good for BSU, it did clearly cut pollution from our obsolete coal burning plant. Making an investment in replacing that plant had pluses and minuses. Evaluation of replacing the coal plant would not have been a financial picnic either.
The fact it was a subsidized project and that the University could get long term financing for it like so many other brick and mortar projects means we probably can't decide much about any long term University expenditure. Virtually every dollar spent by the University is balanced long term by both revenue or other direct gain produced and "positive" externality of the value of education to Indiana.
Big Oil has had some spectacular cases of environmental harm transporting oil or drilling for it. Shale oil production certainly has harmed ground water. This is not usually law breaking by the companies, in most cases the company is pursuing unregulated and legal production or transport methods which are risky and almost inevitably going to cause some harm.
What is debatable is where you draw the line on what is acceptable risk. I see no choice but take some risk, the two sides engage in debate which is all or nothing and is ridiculous.
|
|
|
|
Post by sweep on May 21, 2022 10:28:28 GMT -6
Give some examples of "Big Oil" short term profit motives that led to unusual environmental harm. Then let's discuss a University wasting $100 million on a green energy boondoggle that was doomed to failure before it was ever constructed. After that we can discuss why you initially supported that project. I notice you edited your post to add a rant about the the geothermal project.
Yeah because I knew you would wander from your original "Big Oil" meme if I didn't. Congratulations on doing just that. |
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on May 21, 2022 10:29:00 GMT -6
The textbook examples are in waste disposal in rivers, or by burning waste, or burying waste product. Creating cheap short term cost savings to the producers, but long term costs to others.
"Big Oil" does that ? Oh and by the way, YOU burn waste product every time you start your car or turn on your home heat. That's true. But you asked about industry regulation.
If energy production and manufacturing reduce the harm caused by pollution they can only do so by cost increases, and that would mean reduction in profit and price increases. Increased prices on products that produce pollution would price the harm done, give consumers incentives to use other products, for example, other means of transportation and other products which better conserve energy in the home.
Now you are making a good case for regulating gas mileage of autos and efficient furnaces and other energy use in the home.
|
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on May 21, 2022 10:32:10 GMT -6
I notice you edited your post to add a rant about the the geothermal project.
Yeah because I knew you would wander from your original "Big Oil" meme if I didn't. Congratulation on doing just that. Big Oil and every other producer of goods and services are governed by the same economics. Externalities are real. Examples of other producers having incentive to pollute show the need for some regulation. Big Oil is no different from any other producer. |
|
|
|
Post by sweep on May 21, 2022 10:33:27 GMT -6
Give some examples of "Big Oil" short term profit motives that led to unusual environmental harm. Then let's discuss a University wasting $100 million on a green energy boondoggle that was doomed to failure before it was ever constructed. After that we can discuss why you initially supported that project.
While it is debatable whether that project will long term be good for BSU, it did clearly cut pollution from our obsolete coal burning plant. No it's not debatable at all, it cost $90 million more than the NATURAL GAS boiler option they were contemplating and doesn't produce any cost savings. In fact if you factor in maintenance, it's costs more to operate the the original proposed alternative. |
|
|
|
Post by sweep on May 21, 2022 10:36:31 GMT -6
Give some examples of "Big Oil" short term profit motives that led to unusual environmental harm. Then let's discuss a University wasting $100 million on a green energy boondoggle that was doomed to failure before it was ever constructed. After that we can discuss why you initially supported that project. I notice you edited your post to add a rant about the the geothermal project. There is legitimate debate about it, I agree, Still, I don't think we can accept your assessment that it is a complete boondoggle, or doomed, or a failure.
While it is debatable whether that project will long term be good for BSU, it did clearly cut pollution from our obsolete coal burning plant. Making an investment in replacing that plant had pluses and minuses. Evaluation of replacing the coal plant would not have been a financial picnic either.
The fact it was a subsidized project and that the University could get long term financing for it like so many other brick and mortar projects means we probably can't decide much about any long term University expenditure. Virtually every dollar spent by the University is balanced long term by both revenue or other direct gain produced and "positive" externality of the value of education to Indiana.
Big Oil has had some spectacular cases of environmental harm transporting oil or drilling for it. Shale oil production certainly has harmed ground water. This is not usually law breaking by the companies, in most cases the company is pursuing unregulated and legal production or transport methods which are risky and almost inevitably going to cause some harm.
What is debatable is where you draw the line on what is acceptable risk. I see no choice but take some risk, the two sides engage in debate which is all or nothing and is ridiculous.
As usual you have veered way off course. I guess I won't get any real world examples. Oh and cleaning up oil spills is a massive hit on short term profit. |
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on May 21, 2022 11:11:50 GMT -6
Big Oil has had some spectacular cases of environmental harm transporting oil or drilling for it. Shale oil production certainly has harmed ground water. This is not usually law breaking by the companies, in most cases the company is pursuing unregulated and legal production or transport methods which are risky and almost inevitably going to cause some harm.
What is debatable is where you draw the line on what is acceptable risk. I see no choice but take some risk, the two sides engage in debate which is all or nothing and is ridiculous.
As usual you have veered way off course. I guess I won't get any real world examples. Oh and cleaning up oil spills is a massive hit on short term profit. Which does not cover the harm done... |
|
|
|
Post by bsutrack on May 23, 2022 20:51:46 GMT -6
During a press conference in Japan today, Biden actually said what his true thoughts are about high gasoline prices. "President Biden celebrated record-high gas prices Monday, gushing that the pump pain was part of “an incredible transition” of the US economy away from fossil fuels."
“[When] it comes to the gas prices, we’re going through an incredible transition that is taking place that, God willing, when it’s over, we’ll be stronger and the world will be stronger and less reliant on fossil fuels when this is over.”
nypost.com/2022/05/23/biden-praises-gas-prices-as-part-of-incredible-transition/Wow, think about that every time you fill-up your gas tank this summer! It's all part of the Democrats' master plan and they are actually proud of it. |
|
