The Price of Gasoline

Barry
Posts: 10342
Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2004 3:50 pm

Post by Barry » Mon Apr 24, 2006 7:07 pm

Corlyss_D wrote:
Barry Z wrote:I recall reading an American history book by Nevins and someone else (Comminger or Commiger??)
Henry Steele Commager. The pair were indefatigable synthesizers of original sources.

I have a hard time being critical of men who were products of their times in terms of race relations and women's roles. It's no great credit in the 21 Century to be against 18th-19th century slavery, or to disapprove of the limits placed on women before the post WW2 era.
As I said, I don't remember the details well enough to comment on them. I just recall how I felt at the time. But I will say that while context shouldn't be ignored, it's also no great credit today to excuse a lot of what went on back then as a product of the times.

And as I've probably said before, I'm as much a product of my environment as men like Nevins and Commager were.
"If this is coffee, please bring me some tea; but if this is tea, please bring me some coffee." - Abraham Lincoln

"Although prepared for martyrdom, I preferred that it be postponed." - Winston Churchill

"Before I refuse to take your questions, I have an opening statement." - Ronald Reagan

http://www.davidstuff.com/political/wmdquotes.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pbp0hur ... re=related

Corlyss_D
Site Administrator
Posts: 27613
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 2:25 am
Location: The Great State of Utah
Contact:

Post by Corlyss_D » Mon Apr 24, 2006 9:31 pm

Barry Z wrote:As I said, I don't remember the details well enough to comment on them. I just recall how I felt at the time. But I will say that while context shouldn't be ignored, it's also no great credit today to excuse a lot of what went on back then as a product of the times.
Who's excusing it? I'm just not "blaming" them for not being 21 Century people. I accept the situation, which I cannot change, as a product of their times without heaping useless opprobrium on them. The western world of the mid 19th century had only recently abandoned slavery, so there are no "heroic" nations enlightened beyond their times. That the US gave it up, by force of arms, 40 years after Britain, doesn't represent recalcitrant foot-dragging IMO. As you know, the African continent and parts of Asia haven't given it up yet. It's an evolutionary thing.

Later edit to add:

Hochschild's riveting story begins in 1787, when 12 men meet in a London print shop to discuss the evils of the institution of slavery, and against all odds set out to see the end of it. "If you had stood on a London street corner and insisted that slavery was morally wrong and should be stopped, nine out of 10 people would have laughed you off as a crackpot." - Adam Hochschild, Bury the Chains: Prophets and Rebels in the Fight to Free and Empire's Slaves.

And since we know that at that time and for the foreseeable future, only property owners could vote, this was never a question of enfranchising the slaves thus liberated; it was merely to put an end to what is admittedly a degrading institution that wreaks as much havoc on the slave owner as it does on the slave.
Corlyss
Contessa d'EM, a carbon-based life form

Haydnseek
Posts: 1185
Joined: Tue May 20, 2003 7:59 am
Location: Maryland, USA

Post by Haydnseek » Sat Apr 29, 2006 7:43 am

Pains at the Pump
Don't liberals like sky-high fuel prices?

Saturday, April 29, 2006 12:01 a.m.

"If $75 a barrel oil and a $3 average for a gallon of gasoline isn't a wake-up call, then what is?"--Senator Charles Schumer (D., N.Y.), April 23, 2006
Yes, that's a fine question Senator Schumer asks. But a wake-up call for what, exactly? A wake-up call to produce more domestic oil? Heaven forbid.

In fact, Mr. Schumer and most of his Democratic colleagues in the Senate--the very crowd shouting the loudest about "obscene" gas prices--have voted uniformly for nearly 20 years against allowing most domestic oil production. They have vetoed opening even a tiny portion of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska to oil and gas production. If there is as much oil as the U.S. Geological Survey estimates, this would increase America's proven domestic oil reserves by about 50%.

They have also voted against producing oil from the Outer Continental Shelf, where there are more supplies by some estimates than in Saudi Arabia. Environmental objections seem baseless given that even the high winds and waves of Hurricane Katrina didn't cause oil spills in the Gulf of Mexico. In the 1970s the environmentalists and their followers in Congress even protested building the Alaska pipeline, which today supplies nearly one million barrels of oil a day. If they've discovered some new law of economics in which a fall in output with rising demand can cause a reduction in price, we'd love to hear it.

The dirty little secret about oil politics is that today's high gas price is precisely the policy result that Mr. Schumer and other liberals have long desired. High prices have been the prod that the left has favored to persuade Americans to abandon their SUVs and minivans, use mass transit, turn the thermostat down, produce less consumer goods and services, and stop emitting those satanic greenhouse gases. "Why isn't the left dancing in the streets over $3 a gallon gas?" asks Sam Kazman, an analyst at the Competitive Enterprise Institute who's followed the gasoline wars for years.

Scan the Web sites of the major environmental groups and you will find long tracts on the evils of fossil fuels and how wonderful it would be if only selfish Americans were more like the enlightened and eco-friendly Europeans. You will find plenty of articles with titles such as: "More Taxes Please: Why the Price of Gas Is too Low." Just last weekend Tia Nelson, the daughter of the founder of Earth Day, declared that even at $3 a gallon she wants gas prices to go higher.

At least Ms. Nelson is honest about wanting European-level gas taxes. We doubt that many American voters would be as enthusiastic. If you think $3 a gallon is pinching your pocketbook, fill up in Paris or Amsterdam, where motorists have the high privilege of paying nearly $6 a gallon thanks to these nations' "progressive" energy policies. (See nearby chart.)

Tax on Mobility
Average price of a gallon of gas, including tax, on April 10

Belgium Price: $6.10 Tax: $3.77
Britain Price: $6.13 Tax: $4.03
France Price: $5.80 Tax: $3.65
Germany Price: $5.96 Tax: $3.82
Italy Price: $5.91 Tax: $3.57
Netherlands Price: $6.73 Tax: $4.12
U.S.* Price: $2.98 Tax: $0.38

* Average for 50 states
Source: Energy Information Administration

However, you can be sure you won't hear that from Democrats or Northeastern Republicans on Capitol Hill--at least not in public. Far from it. They're suddenly all for cutting gasoline prices, just as long as that doesn't require producing a single additional barrel of oil. We haven't seen this much insincerity since the last Major League Baseball meeting on steroid abuse.

So how do the sages on Capitol Hill propose to reduce gas prices? They want to slap a profits tax on Big Oil because of alleged price gouging. Here we have another head-scratcher that seems to defy even junior-high-school economics. Usually when you tax something, like tobacco, you get less of it. But somehow a tax on oil will magically lead to more oil.

As a Harvard study has shown, when the U.S. imposed a windfall profits tax in 1980, prices rose to an inflation-adjusted range even higher than today, and domestic production fell. As for claims of "gouging," the price of gasoline at the pump in the U.S. has risen 25% less than the rise in the global price of crude oil since 2003, according to Wall Street economist Michael Darda.

We've also heard proposals to force the oil companies to cut the pay of their CEOs to $500,000. That's about what Kobe Bryant makes for a handful of basketball games, but even if the salaries were chopped to this level--and all of the savings passed on to consumers--the gas price would fall by at most one-tenth of a penny. In any case, CEO pay is an issue to be resolved by shareholders, not Congress.

Which brings us to the Bush Administration, which is bludgeoned daily by the likes of Mr. Schumer, whose real concern is exploiting an issue that might elect a Democratic Senate in November. Meanwhile, the White House refuses to attack the left's anti-consumer energy policies and has even capitulated on requiring a rise in auto fuel-efficiency standards. Mr. Bush could instead be talking about the national and economic security need for a pro-domestic-production energy policy--starting with drilling in Alaska. It's worth reminding the American public that in 1995 the Republican Congress passed an ANWR production bill, which Bill Clinton vetoed because he said it could be five to 10 years before the oil would be produced. We would have that oil today if Mr. Clinton had signed that bill.

Instead we have rising gas prices and record dependence on foreign oil. Is that enough to spur Congress to act on ANWR and deep-sea production? If not at $75 a barrel and $3 a gallon, Mr. Schumer, then when?


Copyright © 2006 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/weekend/h ... =110008309
"The law isn't justice. It's a very imperfect mechanism. If you press exactly the right buttons and are also lucky, justice may show up in the answer. A mechanism is all the law was ever intended to be." - Raymond Chandler

lmpower
Posts: 877
Joined: Wed May 21, 2003 2:18 pm
Location: Twentynine Palms, California

Post by lmpower » Sat Apr 29, 2006 9:35 am

Gasoline prices are only slightly above the 1980 record, adjusted for inflation. I see the highway choked with traffic mostly travelling ten miles per hour over the speed limit. I see great clouds of dust stirred up by juveniles on all terrain vehicles. Are the Americans really suffering as much as the Darfur refugees or have we degenerated into a nation of spoiled whiners? Please give us an enlightened energy policy so we don't have to depend on Mahmoud and Hugo.

jbuck919
Military Band Specialist
Posts: 26856
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2004 10:15 pm
Location: Stony Creek, New York

Post by jbuck919 » Sat Apr 29, 2006 11:58 am

Europeans use the tax on gas for social and environmental policy reasons, of course, but the money goes straight into their excellent public transportation systems which enable me to reach all but the smallest hamlet in Germany by train from my own train station which is a walk away in my suburb of 9000. Try to get to New York City by train from, say, Newburgh (population 25,000) or anywhere else on the west bank of the Hudson, even though the tracks are in place and there was once passenger service.

There's nothing remarkable about it. All one has to do is hit the right keys at the right time and the instrument plays itself.
-- Johann Sebastian Bach

Corlyss_D
Site Administrator
Posts: 27613
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 2:25 am
Location: The Great State of Utah
Contact:

Post by Corlyss_D » Sat Apr 29, 2006 12:24 pm

lmpower wrote:Are the Americans really suffering as much as the Darfur refugees or have we degenerated into a nation of spoiled whiners?
You have admirably answered your own question. If this "Whatever . . . " generation had to fight WW2, the world would be in a hell of a mess with no one to stand for western civilization and democracy.
Please give us an enlightened energy policy so we don't have to depend on Mahmoud and Hugo.
We have a very sensible energy policy: we are using and using up the cheapest fuel available. All the other forms are exorbitantly expensive compared to oil, even at $100/barrel. As Krauthammer has said, "Americans do not have a constitutional right to cheap gas." Even with all the whining, they pay, they have not lost their jobs over gas, and the economy is largely indifferent to the price of oil for the foreseeable future.
Corlyss
Contessa d'EM, a carbon-based life form

Haydnseek
Posts: 1185
Joined: Tue May 20, 2003 7:59 am
Location: Maryland, USA

Post by Haydnseek » Sat Apr 29, 2006 12:33 pm

Corlyss_D wrote:Even with all the whining, they pay, they have not lost their jobs over gas, and the economy is largely indifferent to the price of oil for the foreseeable future.
April 24, 2006, 7:46 a.m.
Crude Realities
High oil prices don’t necessarily slow growth.

by Michael T. Darda

With crude oil rising above $75 a barrel last week and the Federal Reserve having lifted the federal funds rate 3.75 percentage points during the last two years, many economists and analysts believe that the fate of the U.S. economic expansion has been sealed. The limp-economy/weak-consumer crowd argues that an impending growth slowdown after the first quarter — the result of fifteen Fed rate hikes and ever-increasing energy prices — will act as a break on spending.

In other words, theoretically, high energy prices reduce the amount of spending on the part of consumers, which restrains demand and places a lid on inflationary pressures. This is what economists mean when they say “high oil prices are tightening for the Fed.” This theory sounds logical, but it’s as wrong as rain.

According to data from the Energy Intelligence Group, crude supplies have been expanding at an average annual pace above 3 percent since 2003, double the average growth rate going back to 1991. However, excess global central bank liquidity, a rapidly expanding global economy (industrial demand), and elevated levels of geopolitical risk (crisis demand) have absorbed all of the new supply and then some.

The end result is that the sum of industrial and crisis demands have outstripped increases in new supply, pushing prices higher. But a shift in demand at every price is consistent with more output, not less. This also is why crude oil prices actually have borne a positive relationship with economic growth during the last five years. The situation is quite different from the stagflationary 1970s and early 1980s when supply shocks reduced the amount of crude available, a contraction of output at every price.

Another myth advanced by the high-oil-is-synonymous-with-less-consumption crowd is that elevated energy prices have “crowded out” other spending. This would be true if the Fed were running a tight liquidity policy. But the Fed is not, which means households have spent more on energy products without cutting back on other goods and services. We know this because retail sales less autos and gasoline are up by a blistering 8.7 percent annual pace during the last 12 months, well above historical growth rates of 5.5 percent. In other words, with excess liquidity in the system, aggregate demand exceeds aggregate supply and prices rise. That’s inflation.

That crude oil prices reached a new nominal high last week along with the Dow Jones Transportation index holding close to all-time highs simply buttresses the point that high oil is a liquidity (demand side) phenomenon, not a slow-growth supply-shock situation. And although $70-plus crude oil sounds expensive, consider the fact that adjusted for 2006 nominal personal income, crude oil prices would have to rise to $186 a barrel to match the 1980 peak. By this measure, today’s prices remain inside one standard of the mean going back to 1959.

So when will crude oil prices fall? One of three things needs to occur before we see substantially lower energy prices. First, the global economy would need to slow, but it’s been accelerating. Second, geopolitical risks would need to soften, but they’ve been hardening. Third, the global central banks of the world — the Fed, the Bank of Japan, and the European Central Bank — would have to tighten liquidity substantially, but all three remain in an excess-liquidity posture.

So we may be stuck with high prices for a while. But it would be a mistake to expect a demand-driven rise in energy prices to slow growth or lower inflation. With commodity prices reaching record levels, credit spreads narrowing to all-time lows, and growth-and-liquidity sensitive segments of the equity market such as transports and small-caps reaching all-time highs recently, strong growth and elevated inflation readings are more likely than the converse.

— Michael T. Darda is the chief economist and director of research for MKM Partners, an equity execution and research boutique located in Greenwich, Conn.

http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_dard ... 240746.asp
"The law isn't justice. It's a very imperfect mechanism. If you press exactly the right buttons and are also lucky, justice may show up in the answer. A mechanism is all the law was ever intended to be." - Raymond Chandler

lmpower
Posts: 877
Joined: Wed May 21, 2003 2:18 pm
Location: Twentynine Palms, California

Wall St. Journal article

Post by lmpower » Mon May 01, 2006 1:12 pm

By JEFFREY BALL
May 1, 2006; Page A1

With gasoline prices in the U.S. approaching an average $3 a gallon, Americans are moaning about the rising cost, but so far they are resisting big changes in their gas-guzzling ways.

A 25% jump in prices at the pump since December has set off a firestorm in Washington. Politicians are threatening auto makers with tougher federal fuel-economy standards and oil companies with higher taxes on record profits, while warning against price gouging. Auto and oil executives are predicting that a long-term shift toward greater fuel efficiency is under way. But none of these influences is likely to have much effect on gasoline prices or oil consumption in the near term.




Unlike the energy crises of the 1970s, which resulted from reduced supplies of Mideast oil, today's crunch is due largely to a swift rise in global oil demand. The surest way out of the problem, most experts agree, would be to curb consumption of vehicle fuel, particularly in the U.S. For years, economists have argued that the most effective way to moderate U.S. demand would be to hit Americans with significantly higher gasoline taxes. Today's high prices amount to a market test of that theory.

The early results: High prices do have some effect, but prices would have to be higher than they are today -- and would have to stay high for a long time -- to meaningfully curb gasoline consumption by the nation's massive fleet of cars and trucks, which accounts for about 10% of global oil use.

At the margins, there are some signs that high gasoline prices may be starting to alter consumer behavior. Traditionally, gasoline use in the U.S. rises about 1.5% each year. But in three of the six months from September -- immediately following the Gulf Coast hurricanes -- through February, gasoline consumption fell compared with a year earlier, according to data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration. In the three months in which it grew, it never rose by more than 0.4%. Yet in March, as gasoline prices soared, demand appeared to return to more-robust levels, growing by 1%, according to preliminary data.

"There's definitely a noticeable decrease in the growth of demand," says Tancred Lidderdale, senior economist at the Energy Information Administration. "The problem is demand is still growing."

Though the recent run-up in gasoline prices has been steep, it hasn't been debilitating for most Americans. The price of a gallon of regular gas averaged $2.74 in April, according to the Energy Information Administration. Adjusted for inflation, that was still 14% below the peak in March 1981, when, in today's dollars, gasoline averaged $3.18.

Moreover, Americans are better-positioned to handle a run-up in fuel prices than they were a quarter-century ago. Gasoline now accounts for only 3% of total personal-consumption spending, down from 5% in 1981, according to the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. That gives many consumers less reason to contemplate cutbacks when prices rise.

In Plano, Texas, a suburb north of Dallas, Alfred Goh, a 42-year-old commercial-real-estate broker, yesterday paid $63.86, or $3.06 a gallon, to fill up his sport-utility vehicle, a white 2004 Lexus GX 470. The vehicle averages 16 miles per gallon, according to federal figures, and Mr. Goh, who drives extensively for work, reckons he fills it up two or three times a week.

Mr. Goh says he has no plans to change his driving habits or his vehicle. "I won't limit driving because of gas prices, because it's a necessity," he says. As for his vehicle, "I think this is a safe car," he says, and "it's safety first." His only concession to rising gasoline prices is that he now uses midgrade gasoline instead of premium, a move that saves him about 10 cents a gallon.

Even Americans who want to slash their gasoline use will find it hard to do so in a society built on cheap energy, where far-flung suburbs and powerful cars are the rule. "If you've got to drive to work every day, you've got to drive to work every day," says John Felmy, chief economist of the American Petroleum Institute, the oil industry's Washington-based trade group.

The limits of mass transit add to the difficulty of cutting fuel consumption. Though nationwide figures aren't yet available, many systems around the country are reporting significant increases in passengers, says William Millar, president of the American Public Transportation Association. In Washington, where his group is based, the Metrorail transit system reports that three of the 14 busiest days in its history occurred the third week in April. The problem: Public transit isn't available in much of the U.S. and doesn't match the commutes of many Americans in places where it exists.

Research suggests it takes years for higher gas prices to meaningfully damp consumption. Opinions differ, but many experts say that, in the short term, the "price elasticity" of U.S. gasoline use is as low as 0.1. That means gas prices have to rise 10% to produce an initial 1% drop in demand.

Charles Komanoff, a New York energy analyst, believes the short-term elasticity is stronger than that, though it's still modest. "There is an impact" of higher prices on demand, he says.


What influences gasoline use more quickly than gasoline prices, experts say, is a change in personal income. Among the first things Americans do as their paychecks get bigger is to buy zippier cars and drive their existing cars more. Incomes have been rising in the U.S., as they have throughout most of the industrialized world. The result: "It takes a very big price increase to have a big impact today," says Philip Verleger, a Colorado-based oil economist.

Mr. Verleger estimates that real, or inflation-adjusted, gasoline prices have to rise at roughly five times the rate of real income just to keep the nation's gasoline demand flat. Given that real income is rising at about 3% a year, real gasoline prices would have to surge 15% to prevent consumption from growing, according to his analysis.

Broadly, the latest federal statistics appear to bear him out. In the first quarter, the real price of gasoline averaged about 17% more than a year earlier, and U.S. gasoline consumption was up just 0.3% -- fairly close to flat. Still, Mr. Verleger and federal energy officials caution that it's too early to discern any long-term trends from the data.

If gasoline prices stayed high for several years, researchers say, they would tend to meaningfully curb consumption. Over time, people would factor the higher prices into decisions that have big effects on their gasoline use. They might choose more-efficient models when it comes time to replace cars, as happened in the early 1980s. They might decide to switch jobs or move to shorten their commutes.

Some major industries say they believe that a long-term change in U.S. gas consumption is in the works. At the top of the list is the auto industry.

Sales of traditional sport-utility vehicles -- the ones built on the guts of pickup trucks, which tend to consume the most gasoline -- are falling fast. The decline began in 2003, when gasoline was cheap, but it has accelerated markedly since prices began rising in early 2005. Sales of truck-based SUVs, which fell 4% in 2003 and 3% in 2004, tumbled 13% in 2005 and 7% in the first quarter of this year.

The traditional-SUV market is "collapsing," says George Pipas, Ford Motor Co.'s U.S. sales-analysis manager.

When gas prices first began creeping higher, auto makers offered bigger sales incentives on SUVs, effectively giving buyers "a gas card in the glove box," Mr. Pipas says. But the continued rise in gasoline prices has largely inured buyers to such inducements.

"If you think that by putting an extra $1,000 on an Expedition you can sell enough to make it worth your while, you're wrong," Mr. Pipas says, referring to one of Ford's large SUVs. "You're pushing on a string. At some point you say, 'Pull back. The market is what it is.' "

Yet plenty of Americans still are buying fuel-thirsty rides. Despite the weakness of the SUV segment overall, U.S. sales of the recently redesigned Chevrolet Tahoe SUV soared 37% in the first quarter. And luxury cars not known for their fuel economy also remain hot sellers. In the first quarter in the U.S., BMW sales rose 11%, Mercedes sales increased 17%, and Porsche sales surged 26%.

The oil industry also is betting that a change is under way. Exxon Mobil Corp. says it believes that, by 2030, hybrid gasoline-and-electric cars and light trucks will account for nearly 30% of new-vehicle sales in the U.S. and Canada. That surge is part of a broader shift toward fuel efficiency that Exxon thinks will cause fuel consumption by North American cars and light trucks to peak around 2020 -- and then start to fall.

"For that reason, we wouldn't build a grassroots refinery" in the U.S., Rex Tillerson, Exxon's chairman and chief executive, said in a recent interview. Exxon has continued to expand the capacity of its existing refineries. But building a new refinery from scratch, Exxon believes, would be bad for long-term business.

Write to Jeffrey Ball at jeffrey.ball@wsj.com

lmpower
Posts: 877
Joined: Wed May 21, 2003 2:18 pm
Location: Twentynine Palms, California

Hubbert's peak

Post by lmpower » Fri May 05, 2006 10:59 am

We should have listened to Hubbert
By Arthur J. Magida, ARTHUR J. MAGIDA's new book, "Opening the Doors of Wonder," will be released in the fall.
May 5, 2006


IT WAS THE BEST of times: I'd bought a brand-new 1974 Fiat 124 sport coupe the year before for $3,500; gas was only 58 cents a gallon, and I was still so spry that I could drive all night from a weekend trip and somehow report to work Monday morning fresh and alert and more or less useful to my employers.

It was the worst of times: As an environmental reporter in Washington, I interviewed a maverick geologist, M. King Hubbert, who told me that oil production from the Lower 48 had already peaked and that our days of carefree joyriding were doomed.

ADVERTISEMENT
I was deflated, but not as deflated as now. In today's money, gas then cost "only" $1.69 a gallon and the sticker price for my Fiat was about $11,000. But one thing that has not changed is Hubbert's prediction that oil production was on the down slope.

Sitting in his comfortable home in the Washington suburbs, the kind of house that said "college professor" and "smart geologist" (Hubbert was both), he told me: "A child born in the middle 1930s will have seen the consumption of 80% of all American oil and gas in his lifetime. A child born about 1970 will see most of the world's reserves consumed." Bummer.

Hubbert first arrived at his unpopular conclusions in 1949, a time when the Earth's wealth seemed limitless and predictions of doom churlish. Seven years later, he devised a mathematical proof — a curve known as Hubbert's Pimple — to plot the consumption rate of any exhaustible resource.

The Pimple shocked the oil companies, which were blinded by their faulty vision of infinite petroleum. So was the rest of America, which loved tooling down interstates and curving around cloverleafs, sometimes on the way to Grandma's, sometimes on the way to nowhere.

Hubbert persisted. Stamina and certainty are what we expect from prophets. "Growth, growth, growth," Hubbert warned in the mid-1970s. "World automobile production is doubling every 10 years; human population growth is like nothing that has happened in all of geologic history. The world will only tolerate so many doublings of anything, whether it's power plants or grasshoppers."

Or automobiles. According to the Federal Highway Administration, the U.S. was home to 237 million vehicles in 2004. That's expected to jump 38% by 2030. The situation worldwide is no better. In 14 years, maybe sooner, the number of cars and light trucks around the planet will climb by 6.5% to 1 billion — one for every 6 1/2 humans, according to the World Business Council for Sustainable Development.



WE HAVE YET to grasp what Hubbert was telling us. Maybe we never will. We're such suckers for our cars, for zipping about hither and yon, that we can't see beyond the windshield into our future, a future with ever-shrinking oil supplies and ever-sillier assumptions about what we can reasonably expect from our autos. We deem ourselves eco-diligent when new cars sold in the U.S. in 2030 will get 38 miles per gallon — better than the current 21 mpg but scandalous compared with Europe, where new cars have been getting 35 mpg since 2003.

The irony about Hubbert was that he was no wild-eyed tree-hugger. During his 20 years with Shell and 12 years with the U.S. Geological Survey, he probably never wore Birkenstocks, although it's possible he had a bowl or two of granola. He was not a doomsayer. He was a truthsayer. The truths he spoke could have given us a 50-year head start on solving our energy woes.

Instead of using that half a century to our advantage, we displayed that most basic of human qualities: an inability to shake off a comfortable present for the uncertainties of an unknowable future. Homo sapiens is a most peculiar species. Even when change may be in our interests, we tend to cling to the old ways because they are the known ways.

Hubbert, as usual, was prescient. In a 1949 article in Science magazine, he warned: "It is upon our ability to … evolve a culture more nearly in conformity with the limitations imposed upon us by the basic properties of matter and energy that the future of our civilization largely depends."

More than five decades since Hubbert issued that call, we have yet to achieve a culture that is "in conformity with the limitations imposed … [by] matter and energy." Rather, we are still behaving like mad alchemists, determined to bend reality to our will, still pursuing the fool's gold of inexhaustible energy, still ignoring Hubbert's Pimple, which has burst in our faces.

BWV 1080
Posts: 4449
Joined: Sun Apr 24, 2005 10:05 pm

Post by BWV 1080 » Fri May 05, 2006 2:23 pm

Everyone in the energy industry knows Hubbert and agrees in theory with him about the decline curve, however the source of contention is when the midway point will be met. Hubbert predicted the 1970's, some are saying it is now, others are saying with more oil in Alberta's oil sands than is in Saudi Arabia, the tipping point is years away.

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests