New XM3k: $7500.00

and that bubble is still only half way deflated.

Oh don't say that, please don't say it's going to get worse. :(

I'm way more frightened of a centrally planned economy.

Right, I agree. However, just to be clear (and I know you didn't say this) - but a centrally planned economy isn't the central tenet of communism or socialism. I'm certainly on a decentralization kick right now - not just for "power to the people" but to break the capitalistic stranglehold as well (let's not have our energy supplied by a few mega corporations, let's make our own - oh boy wouldn't that screw things up big time!)

John, I thought you were a programmer, what are you doing in accounting? I personally like the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, it has a lot of needed provisions to increase transparency. I was expecting a much more knee jerk reaction from congress doing more harm than good. I know section 404 is much hated, hopefully they'll remove it.

Central to socialism is the planned economy. At least the way I understand it. Pricing power is taken away from the markets and is managed by the government. I don't know how you can call that decentralization, except for decentralizing the government.

I was in Venezuela months ago. They were having shortages on key staple items as usual. Their dictator tried his hand at a planned economy. He wanted to increase milk production, so he shut down the boarders so all milk consumed must be from Venezuelan farms. The result is the price increased and didn't fall. So the dictator said, ok, I'm setting the price of milk for x bolivars per liter. The result was farmers incomes got slashed. They were forced to decrease expenses, lay off workers, sell off some land, hold off on equipment purchases, domestic production actually fell. Shortages ensued. So the Chavez nationalized the farms, subsidized them, they are paying the same price for milk, maybe even more because of the inefficiencies of government and loss of competitive drive to reduce prices. Instead of the prices being determined between the suppliers and consumers, more people had to be brought in from the government to figure it out. More government salaries had to be paid. The floating price mechanism is one simple way suppliers can gauge demand. The effect was more pronounced because the government had also taken control of almost all private farms. Figuring out how to allocate aggregate farming resources according to preferences of the society became impossible. Von Mises called it the economic calculation problem.

Central to socialism is the planned economy. At least the way I understand it. Pricing power is taken away from the markets and is managed by the government.

I don't think that's a necessity for socialism - perhaps for a "socialist state"

I don't know how you can call that decentralization, except for decentralizing the government.

I wasn't clear. I wasn't talking about communism or socialism or capitalism - but just that de-centralizing seems like a good idea right now to solve a LOT of different problems.

One of the central ideas for socialism (or is it communism?) is that it should follow capitalism - i.e. after the country develops from feudalism to capitalism good things happen and the standards of living increases for the majority. The next step AFTER the benefits of capitalism are exhausted is to develop communism. Most communist states (all?) fail because they work from the mistaken idea that you can put the cart (communism) before the horse (capitalism).

Anyway, I think that's what my father-in-law used to tell me when I'd argue this stuff with him. He was a lapsed member of the communist party (he became disillusioned with their politics not with the socialist ideals) and is now deceased. If there's an after life I bet he's getting one hell of a kick out of me typing this on an EV forum!!!!!

(Apologies to all folks who study this in any sort of detail - I likely have some of this wrong!)

(Apologies to all folks who study this in any sort of detail - I likely have some of this wrong!)

You mean, it's just restin' ....???

Mr. Mik

That's what Marx believed was inevitable. I agree rewards play a critical part as an incentive for innovation and investment I didn't mention that in my last post. It's just that "there is nothing wrong with making money" doesn't always hold true. You can say, what's wrong with being a crack dealer or oil magnate? You provide a service, people choose to pay you for it. You have to go beyond the transaction, and examine the impacts on society to judge if there is something just or not with how you make your money and what all the consequences are.

John,

Pretty much any advertising of a product is focusing on selling it no matter if it's true or not. Take beer, watch the commercials on TV and you would think if you drank so and so's beer you would have lots of pretty ladies partying with you. When you buy a TV it's size is measured diagonally, now why would they want to do that? When they sell this or that, it's only dollars a day not the thousands that it will really cost you.

On your second though, I think you need to expand that the oil companies have gotten richer because of soldiers. The whole world benefits if there is a more stable oil supply policed by our soldiers. Just think if we would have let Saddam keep Kuwait and then take Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Oman... We even patrol the Strait of Hormuz to make sure that the millions of barrels of crude makes it through there every day. As long as everyone in this country depends on oil, I think it is wise to make a effort to keep it flowing.

On your last point, in it's purest form capitalism would keep people from getting overly rich. It's happening all around us, someone puts a store in and is making gobs of money. Pretty soon someone else puts a competing store in on the other side of the street and under cuts the other guys prices. Problem is, politicians get bought off, collusion and all kinds of other dirty deals happen. Well that's the point your making. What needs to be done is the laws need to be enforced and we need to elect politicians that are doing what is right, not just screwing everyone else just so they can bring home the pork to there constituents.

I'm going to go have a yummy cookie and a glass of milk now :)

Deron.

I'm really loving this thread, all of you have interesting things to say. Although I wince every time I re-read my posts filled with the most atrocious grammar.

You're right Deron, purely competitive markets should keep people from becoming overly rich. You call it purest form of capitalism, economists call it perfectly competitive markets. Here are the conditions for that to be met (tries to do it from memory):

Instantaneous entry and exit- Firms can open up shop or close down shop instantly.
Perfect information- Consumers know all the details about the products and companies. Companies know the consumers.
No barriers to entry- Startup costs, laws, that sort of thing preventing companies from entering
Homogeneous product - Many companies are all selling the same product
Many firms competing- It really must be bunches, or they behave like oligopolies.

(Cheated and got the last one from Wikipedia)

As anyone can imagine we pretty much never get all those conditions being met. It's fun to try and think of which products come the closest. So far the best one I have ever come across is bagged ice. Companies always have to fight the perfect competition conditions because the profit margins are so slim.

Oh dear the flames on my fav thread are dying. *takes out poker*

John,

You stated:

Let's not have our energy supplied by a few mega corporations, let's make our own - oh boy wouldn't that screw things up big time!

There are two competing ideologies here.

Conservatives (not in the American sense) say the people can't provide for themselves, they depend on government. Think feudalism, peasants, strong leader, limited freedom.

The liberal movement began, out of pressure from businesses for more economic freedom, the intellectuals were in support of it to. Their ideology was the less government the better, people can provide for themselves if left to their own devices.

When it comes down to energy issues, we could all make it ourselves. We could all go out and buy a bunch of solar panels or wind turbines, and gain our freedom from the will of government or mega corporations. The only problem is doing this on an individual basis will cost much more than if we had one big power plant built.

We could all go out and buy water filters and get government out of that picture but doing so could be radically less efficient, and more costly.

I remember in the news a couple years ago one small town was making wifi free around the city (paid for by taxes). They discovered providing it on their own is radically cheaper then paying for it on the individual basis from the big internet providing company. The big internet company sued and won, I believe because the city wasn't subject to taxes and they were.

Ok discuss. =)

I don't know where the cross over point lies - somewhere between Inefficient-Self-Sufficiency and Maximum-Economy-of-Scale rampant greed kicks in. But at what point?

My pie in the sky wish is for the US government to set up a public works program to put Nano-Solar (brand name) panels on EVERY house (with a few exceptions such as historic buildings etc.). My understanding is that these are the best panels on the market. The government pays for it all - because it's in the national interest. It would cost billions, but we spend billions in Iraq. It wouldn't give us energy independence but it would give us a good leg up. It would also pump billions directly into our economy - especially if local contractors were used.

Wouldn't it be cool if we got free solar panels from Uncle Sam?

Nooooooo, you almost never want the government providing you with something. The government is only really good at rationing things. Here are a couple of examples I'm experiencing now.

1) The city of San Diego provides certain services, one of them is they will trim the trees in the parkway along the street. I have been working on getting them to trim the trees along our street for three years now. After dozens of phone calls, several letters, it may even happen sometime this year. I mean if they can not do something as simple as that, how can we expect them to take care of more complicated things.

2) Ever hear of rolling black outs? They happen here in California during peak hot spells. In California everything is about rationing power, not providing more. You would not believe how much money and energy they put into rationing power here, it's systemic throughout every part of the society. The building codes require residential home builders to spend thousands to save a few dollars a month in electricity.

3) I hear on the radio commercials put out by the city that we need to save water. It's voluntary right now, but they also have been upping the rates radically (like 40%) over the past year or two. Now they are thinking of bringing in the water police! The thing is, they want the people already living here to save water just so they can build more houses, which generates more money for the city through a larger tax base. Even with people cutting back, the amount of water that gets used goes up.

4) I have been working on getting on the solar initiative program California is starting up. Been working at that for a year, not sure how much longer it will take, but I really do not expect to see any solar panels for a long time, if ever.

Anyways, if the government provided solar for everyone, it would cost you way more then if you just went out had someone install a system for you.

"Is that all I get, just one two hundred watt panel"? "Mr Jones, fill out these forms here and we will see about getting you on the panel upgrade waiting list".

Deron.

Yeah, you've got a point. Oh well...

From what I hear NanoSolar is going gangbusters manufacturing these new cheaper panels. If these panels are what they say they are, I would expect to see factories producing these panels popping up all over the place in the next few years.

We may yet see a new energy age in the next five to ten years.

"Would you like the asphalt roofing, the concrete roof tiles or the photovoltaic Shingles"? :)

Deron.

1) Not all government sucks as much as it does here, there is no reason why government can't be good at doing more things. I think it has a lot to do with the citizens, if they don't hold people accountable, government gets a lot of slack. If guys followed politics as closely as they do football, I wonder how different things would look. Last I heard the Danish politicians weren't building bridges to nowhere like Senator Stevens or opening secret prisons around the world.

2) The rolling blackouts had a lot to do with private power companies working together to limit supplies of electricity. You know a little, we're shutting down some reactors for maintenance, oh whats this, have to too?

3)Israel's water policy is the envy of the world. Once again, politicians get away with so much $hit because too many people are uninterested or passive. I've been toying with the idea that maybe it is cyclical. Government isn't changing what you do on a Friday night, you've got a job, your investments are growing, you don't follow politics so closely. We get attacked by terrorists, the government starts two wars, both endless, and finances it with deficit spending, the economy is tanking, and inflation is doing something crazy, medical care gets more outrageously expensive year by year, education is failing, people start to take notice. They wake up to find the group of politicians they put into office is utterly incompetent! They fix the situation, things get better and the populous once again spends more time watching football than C-Span. Speaking of which, why don't we have something like the UK's PMQ here. I would love to see our leaders get asked tough questions in front of congress and the TV cameras.

4) Government or some cooperative would be the cheapest way to get solar power. The trick is to get profits and inefficiencies out of the cost equation. Each person buying their own batteries, their own inverter and having to go to a retailer instead of buying bulk from the factory is a waste. The federal government could offer no interest macroloans for these sort of infrastructure projects that make our country function.

I saw this today http://www.celsias.com/article/utahs-solar-fired-furnace-power-california-less-co/ California seems to be ahead of the rest of the country.

A thought experiment if I am suggest.
Lets assumn that Exxon were nationalized and some how avoided becoming another Government red tape generator. ( if that happened gas would be $10 a gallon avaialble in months that end in ry expept in leap years)
Now assume that it were run as not for profit, and that, since it is a Govt. corporation, no taxes were on the fuel.
What would that give us.
Accordint to a bunch of sources ( google it) Exxons profit margin is around 10% or about 40 to 50 c ents a gallon. The stations profit is about 10 cents a gallon and depending on where you are, taxes add another 25 to 40 cents a gallon. Us price runs between abou5 $3.60 to $4.60 depending on the state and state taxes. . Take a mid point of $4.10 current. In out though experiment, price would be around $3.10 a gallon. (edited to correct price)
OK now what? or who?

smace, it's not about the price of gasoline. To the extent that the peak oil scenario will happen, there will come a time when you won't be able to get gasoline (well, fossil oil derived gasoline) at any price. Getting the price for fossil oil derived gasoline to be lower now is a modern form of playing your fiddle away while Rome is burning down all around you.

That's all your suggestion would do -- is, if your assumptions work out as you think -- you might have a lower cost for fossil oil derived gasoline. It doesn't resolve the real issue (that there will come a time when you won't be able to get fossil oil derived gasoline at any price).

In my opinion the price of fossil oil derived gasoline should go sky-high because that seems to be the only way to get the attention of Americans to make any change.

No, sorry if I seemed to go off on another track. My point was: it is not the profit of the oil company that is driving the price, it is the avaialbity of the raw magerial that drives the price. No what was a question to those ranting at (mostly ) Exxon. You pull them out of the picture and the price is still high and will get higher. Who to point to now.
The answer is the old Pogo cartoon, we have met the enemy and he is us.
I agree with you in gross concept, although we can disagree on when. The information changes a little too fast.

Smace,

The oil companies, to some extent do control price. OPEC was formed for that very reason. US refining capacity is another area where oil companies influence the price. Once in a while you'll see in the news an US oil company will quietly shut down a refinery, when asked they'll say it was unprofitable or something like this. They have no interest in running their pumps and refineries at full speed, and never have.

Most oil contracts are dollar denominated. Countries who find themselves having stronger currencies in relation to the dollar can raise the selling price. Before 1 euro bought 1 dollar of oil, now that same 1 euro buys 1.56 dollars of oil. So dollar based assets become more expensive.

Then there is the futures market. A futures contract is an agreement between the buyer and seller of what the price will be upon delivery. Seventy percent of those in this market never expect to take delivery. The stock market is anemic, everyone is selling and looking for more profitable investments. One thing people notice is just about everything dug up from the ground is more expensive with the rise of the new middle classes all around the world. Gobs of that stock market money has gone into speculating on oil futures. Once the contract ends, one has to take delivery. If the spot price, or current price, of oil is lower than your contract price of oil you take a loss unless you're able to take that delivery and store it. You can short oil futures too, if you expect the price of oil will drop. Rumor has it is land based oil storage facilities are totally stocked and they are even transforming oil tankers into holding tanks that just sit offshore waiting for another price spike in futures prices. This action actually should stabilize the price of oil, but it also raises it. Anyone still awake?

What got my attention is McCain's denunciation of the speculation:

There is the further problem of speculation on the oil futures market, which in many cases has nothing to do with the actual sale, purchase, or delivery of oil. When crude oil became a futures-traded commodity in the 1980's, the idea was to afford a measure of protection against the historic volatility of oil pricing. It takes several weeks to ship oil from the Arabian Peninsula to the offshore port of Louisiana. And for the buyers, it helps to know that the price will not suddenly fall while the oil is in transit. A futures contract assures importers that they can sell the oil at a profit.

That's the theory, anyway. But we all know that some people on Wall Street are not above gaming the system. When you have enough speculators betting on the rising price of oil, that itself can cause oil prices to keep on rising. And while a few reckless speculators are counting their paper profits, most Americans are coming up on the short end -- using more and more of their hard-earned paychecks to buy gas for the truck, tractor, or family car.

Investigation is underway to root out this kind of reckless wagering, unrelated to any kind of productive commerce, because it can distort the market, drive prices beyond rational limits, and put the investments and pensions of millions of Americans at risk. Where we find such abuses, they need to be swiftly punished. And to make sure it never happens again, we must reform the laws and regulations governing the oil futures market, so that they are just as clear and effective as the rules applied to stocks, bonds, and other financial instruments. In all of these markets, reform must assure transparency, prevent abuse, and protect the public interest.

Source: http://www.iht.com/bin/printfriendly.php?id=13787626

Don't even Republicans believe in efficient market theory anymore? Maybe there is a conflict brewing inside the party. On one hand they think this stuff should just be endless (along the lines of government deficits can't hurt economic growth thus don't matter). On the other hand they believe market competition is beneficial to society. Capitalist nations have always lead world in technological innovation. Could it be the futures traders are right; this stuff is actually getting harder to find? That was country richly endowed with this treasure, we've done a lot to deplete it? Blaming the futures traders would be something I'd expect from the Democrats, but it's just strange the Republicans are the loudest voices.

If you look at the data, there are short term risk premium spikes, but there are also speculative dips, and the two balance each other out. What might dampen the (to me) fluctuations is if the only the owners of oil or their products could bid on the futures contracts as opposed to deficit-based futures contracts bought on margin.

Source: http://www.frbsf.org/publications/economics/letter/2005/el2005-38.html

Having government step in and fix the price of gasoline was tried in the 70's. It lead only to embarrassingly long lines at the pump, shortages and other unexpected distortions.

Is the American dream turning into a nightmare? Is it possible that we as a society have not given sustainability the priority it deserves? When our parents were smokers, their excuse was back then no one knew the health consequences. Now we do know the consequences of our unhealthy habits that pull apart the very fabric of America, what's our excuse? Today Bush is campaigning for offshore drilling as if it will make things better. When our kids us, why did we leave so little for them, what will we say? Society drank the Cool-Aid of our political overloards delivered to us by their pet dog, the modern journalist? I guess that's the answer. It's better than the alternative which is of course we're the generation who just didn't give a damn.

With the spike in gasoline prices, it's interesting to see all the spin offs.

1) Coal to liquids, CTL. It's been around for a long time and the US has incredible amounts of coal.

2) Natural gas vehicles, saw the Honda one at the Earth Fair. The US has 118 years of supply at current production levels.

3) Crops to make alcohol, unlimited supply.

4) Bio diesel, funny that they used to pay people to haul off old french fry grease.

5) The race to make a practical battery powered car. Looks like Tesla might have something that will change the sports car market.

6) Hybrid cars/trucks. The Prius is selling like crazy, I see these things everywhere. Could the majority of cars coming out in the next few years all get over forty miles to the gallon?

7) Bicycle riding is cool again. I grew up riding bikes, that is just the way kids got around back then.

If all this innovation keeps up, I can see oil/gasoline use flatten out and maybe even start to decline. We will be here to see what happens!

Deron.

1) Coal to liquids, CTL. It's been around for a long time and the US has incredible amounts of coal.

Also known as Synfuels. The trouble is it's an inefficient process and puts twice as much CO2 into the atmosphere. Mind you, there are some nifty CO2 sequestration ideas (pump all the CO2 into the ground and leave it there)

2) Natural gas vehicles, saw the Honda one at the Earth Fair. The US has 118 years of supply at current production levels.

At current usage levels as well. We're using more energy every year. Not so good.

3) Crops to make alcohol, unlimited supply.

Screws with food supply prices.

4) Bio diesel, funny that they used to pay people to haul off old french fry grease.

Yea! One I like ;-) Especially if we also look at algae oil.

5) The race to make a practical battery powered car. Looks like Tesla might have something that will change the sports car market.

Yep, things are hotting up here. Aptera, Zenn and Phoenix Motors are all worth watching.

6) Hybrid cars/trucks. The Prius is selling like crazy, I see these things everywhere. Could the majority of cars coming out in the next few years all get over forty miles to the gallon?

Yep, they probably could - but not if you let the car industry lobby for the status quo.

7) Bicycle riding is cool again. I grew up riding bikes, that is just the way kids got around back then.

Ahh, the good old days!

If all this innovation keeps up, I can see oil/gasoline use flatten out and maybe even start to decline. We will be here to see what happens!

I agree. But as usage declines price will fall and consumption will go back up again. UNLESS we implement a floor price for a barrel of oil... (keep the price high, and with the funds gained pay out stimulus checks to the population once a year).

As for producing alcohol, I was listening to a program that had a guy on that has been promoting alcohol for like forty years. He had really good ideas. One of them was you do not use crops, you use what grows naturally in the area you will use the fuel. Apparently there is tons of stuff that will work, and if it's local, there are no transportation costs or problems.

One thing to keep in mind about how much oil will be used and it's cost is, different fuels/technologies to power cars are becoming more competitive. Up until gas got pricey oil was pretty much it, now alcohol, natural gas, bio fuels, electricity (derived from other then oil) are starting to take hold, even human power (walking, bicycling) is being used.

Yeah, I'm going to have to check out Aptera, Zenn and Phoenix Motors. I love to see technology fix problems, not, trying to force people to change.

Deron.

What good would a price floor do? Other countries are sure to pick up the slack. We could all put in curly light bulbs, and comply with the Kyoto Protocol, but with all the coal fired power plants coming online in India and China alone carbon emissions will be five times higher than the amount saved. Most recent numbers I saw for China, say they are building two coal fired power plants every week.

Source:http://www.theoildrum.com/node/4162

Oh for you guys who still don't believe Bush's push this week for offshore drilling wasn't more than another favor to his friends. This government website says the offshore drilling will peak in 20 years, and at it's peak it will add a 0.2% to the world production. I guess by Bush math, that's bound to put a big dent in the price of gasoline!

Man, I'm just so great at making conversation stopping posts. :-(

Source: http://www.ualvocalminority.com/

Here is a pic of the angry UAL employees. Our CEO and board of directors really did a number on the airline. Our shareholders should have kept them in check, but like politics no one follows it and generally votes what the board recommends. I wish some corporate raiders would come and gut the upper management.

I do not know if you guys noticed, but when Bush came out and removed the Presidential restrictions on oil drilling offshore the barrel price dropped big time. If congress would have gotten off their butts and removed the restrictions as well, oil prices could have fallen even farther.

As far as not drilling for the 90 billion barrels of oil off our coast, that's suicidal. Are we supposed to just keep selling off the USA bit by bit, till there is nothing left? These other oil producing countries are going to own us, lock stock and barrel, if we keep buying our oil from them. We are already fighting wars to get our oil, are we going to continue starting wars just because we are too stupid to go after the stuff right under our noses? I say "No to War", "Drill our Own"!

Anyways when this offshore stuff runs out, there is 2,500 gigabarrels of oil from oil shale, that should be enough to last us a additional 300 years. Maybe by then we will have Nuclear Fusion :)

Deron.

Deron, those things you refer to are grandstanding nonsense.

The U.S.A. passed it's oil peak in 1970. There isn't enough oil left in the U.S.A. to last for very long even by drilling for more.

The world oil peak is "soon" and yes, it appears that the world is deciding that it's best to fight for the remaining scraps of oil rather than focus on developing the alternatives. That's stupid, in my opinion. The obvious thing is to focus on developing the alternatives so that they become the mainstream. There is enough wind power and solar power and other renewable resources available to provide the power that's needed. And for sources which are intermittent there is an obvious need to develop energy storage mechanisms.

You mention the oil shales ... sheesh. In terms of return on energy investment the oil shales are very poor. Where drilling for the "light sweet crude" of yesteryear returned 100:1 (?or more?) on energy investment, the oil shales are so intensive to recover the "oil" that it's more like a 3:1 return on energy investment. It's a really bad idea to turn rocks into oil. Well, a really expensive idea anyway.

And regardless of whether fossil oil is available or not -- it's a really bad idea to burn this stuff in the first place. The poisons from burning fossil oil are known to cause various diseases, are thought to be worsening the global climate change / warming conditions, and more.

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/news_columnists/article/0,1299,DRMN_86_4051709,00.html

A quick Google search says it is economically viable, especially considering oil goes for $130 a barrel. There is no reason gasoline prices fell on news that Bush lifted offshore oil excavation. Just goes to show how much power oil speculators have. The price of oil was falling before that announcement anyways. It is forecast to drop to around $102-$103/barrel around November and December baring any turmoil.

Deron makes a good point, we are sending massive quantities of dollars to foreigners with oil. In news this month our famous landmark the Chrysler building was sold to an investment company in Abu Dhabi. Donald Trump's home sold to a Russian fertilizer magnate for $95m. I don't think it is as worrisome as some make it out to be. When outside investors see that Americans respect property rights, we can bring in more investment. For the most part we do except for that embarrassing situation with the UAE firm politically barred from operating 6 US ports, and something I didn't pay close attention to about a Chinese energy company and California?

I might be dating myself here, but does anyone remember when we were so scared Japan was going to buy everything in America?

If the foreigners want to bring more investment into our country good for them. If I am starting a company, who cares if my investment funds come from Germany or Georgia? Just look what China has been able to do with so much outside investment. If we are attracting investment by exporting our natural resources it is another story. We can take finished goods, and raw materials from one place or another and in return give them some paper dollars. I think we came out ahead in that trade.

What good would a price floor do?

The purpose of a price floor is to keep the price artificially high in the US so that us US consumers keep conserving. History shows us that about the ONLY thing that makes us conserve is our pocket book. Keep the price of oil at $150 a barrel and gas at over $4 a gallon and we'll simply use less of the stuff. We don't care if the others are still using - they'll have to cure their own addictions (they can implement a price floor too). If we use less then we're in less of a hole when the stuff runs out.

Also, a price floor helps encourage BIG MONEY investment in alternative fuels. Apparently one of the big wigs in OPEC said price could fall to $70 a barrel. Not much fun investing in a $80 per barrel equivalent when that happens.

BTW, we'd pay back the surplus to tax payers once a year - that way we get a built in stimulus package (and we don't have to call the floor a "tax" which pretty much guarantees it would never fly).

History tells us that the best way out of a gas price surge is conservation - and it tells us that we can easily conserve enough (we did so in the 70's so why not now?)

I might be dating myself here

Yes, but the real question is - when you date yourself do you put out on the first date? ;-)

You're right John, I support a price floor phased in. When I asked what good will it do, I was speaking from a CO2 point of view. Higher fuel costs will also export our pollution to other countries, where they can get things built for less.

Somewhat related- in the airline biz, we fill up with extra fuel if it's cheaper somewhere. The cost of transporting it is often less than the cost of buying it elsewhere.

In Venezuela it is cheaper then bottled water.