In the novel 1984, George Orwell used the word “doublethink” to describe the process of believing two contradictory ideas simultaneously. The concept invites an appropriate but superficial comparison to congressional Democrats’ current approach to gasoline prices.

Idea Number One: High gasoline prices are good. A high price, imposed through federal carbon taxes or carbon caps, is precisely the mechanism by which Democrats hope to curb carbon emissions. We know that this mechanism works because it is already working: As gas prices rise, American consumption is down right now, year over year (a historical rarity). CO2 emissions from gasoline is down from 2007 by a modest 84,000 tons, or roughly 2 percent.

Idea Number Two: High gasoline prices are bad. With constituents irate over gasoline prices that are pushing $5 a gallon, Democrats complain that high prices are a bad thing. They have dreamed up a number of boogie men responsible for high prices and drafted silver-bullet bills to kill them off.

This is more a case of cynicism than irrationality, however. Democrats only pretend to believe in Idea Number Two. Their presidential nominee, Barack Obama, lamented in mid-June that high gasoline prices have hurt Americans, but he later gave a much more accurate representation of the party line: “I think that I would have preferred a more gradual adjustment,” he said in an MSNBC interview. It should be noted that the Kyoto treaty calls for emissions reductions some 15 or 20 times as great as those induced by higher gas prices. Its goals would presumably require much higher gasoline prices — perhaps $7 or $8 a gallon, or even more — over a very long period of time.

<link>=

The two contentions aren't incompatible. There are advantages and disadvantages of high gas prices. Ideally, what we'd want is high gas prices where the majority of the escalation was captured and recycled into something productive for the economy. For example, picture if the recent $2/gallon increase in the cost of gas weren't effectively being exported to the dictatorships of oil-rich nations, but rather were increased gas taxes earmarked for improving mass transit and alternative energies. That would let us capture the positive things about high gas prices, while using hte proceeds to combat the negative things about it. But, unfortunately, the runup in gas prices wasn't a planned thing accomplished by taxation, but rather (in part) an unplanned consequence of Bush's incompetent foreign policy. So, rather than that money being churned back into our economy, it's being sucked out of it.

Arkady:

But, unfortunately, the runup in gas prices wasn't a planned thing accomplished by taxation, but rather (in part) an unplanned consequence of Bush's incompetent foreign policy. So, rather than that money being churned back into our economy, it's being sucked out of it.

OK, Mikey. Explain how Bush did this to the whole world. Incompetent foreign policy on the part of Bush is the reason gasoline is $12 in the United Kingdom and much of Europe.

It's Bush's fault. lol. OK, let's hear your long winded reasoning on that one.

I didn't say it was entirely Bush's fault. Only partially. However, Bush's failure to provide any alternative-energy leadership for the world's biggest energy consuming nation (and the world's best innovator), was an important factor. More immediately important was Bush's role in radically destablizing the Middle East, with his invasion of Iraq and saber-rattling towards Iran. That insecurity made it harder to maintain a growing supply of oil from the region, and helped to fuel the atmosphere of speculation that has taken hold on the oil market. Historically, Bush's utter mismanagement of the aftermath of Katrina did something similar on a smaller scale, by interfering with the Gulf refineries.

TickleBob:

Arkady:

But, unfortunately, the runup in gas prices wasn't a planned thing accomplished by taxation, but rather (in part) an unplanned consequence of Bush's incompetent foreign policy. So, rather than that money being churned back into our economy, it's being sucked out of it.

OK, Mikey. Explain how Bush did this to the whole world. Incompetent foreign policy on the part of Bush is the reason gasoline is $12 in the United Kingdom and much of Europe.

It's Bush's fault. lol. OK, let's hear your long winded reasoning on that one.

The cost of gasoline in GB and much of Europe has been high for many many years by comparison to the United States. If you have five children in a classroom and one of them slurps down not only their equal portion of milk, but some from all the other kids, the other kids PLUS the glutton are paying more to give the other kids their equal share and support the edacious one.

"Let me share a few facts: Each year we import more and more oil. In 1973, the year of the infamous oil embargo, the United States imported about 24% of our oil. In 1990, at the start of the first Gulf War, this had climbed to 42%. Today, we import almost 70% of our oil."

"The U.S. uses nearly a quarter of the world's oil, with just 4% of the population and 3% of the world's reserves. This year, we will spend almost $700 billion on imported oil, which is more than four times the annual cost of our current war in Iraq."

T. Boone Pickens

Didn't you say you'd vote for Hillary Clinton if she gained the Democratic nomination? She's a Democrat isn't she?

Apparently some who are or act like neo-cons seem to believe new drilling is going to change things overnight. We could probably have a fair amount of alternative infrastructure in place in the same amount of time it would take to get new oil wells and pipelines in place and we wouldn't simply be ignoring and postponing the much larger problem of running out of oil after we keep "opening up" new sources and gulping them down the same way we have the previous ones all the while ignoring or not doing much if anything about getting serious about alternatives.

The benefit to high prices is that spoiled children are taught a lesson that they cannot simply have something just because they demand it.

Oil producing companies are looking at their resources and trying to balance their future with oil revenues, they could sell it all now to the highest bidder, but where is their future? Especially those that don't have much else to depend upon for resources.

Arkady:

I didn't say it was entirely Bush's fault. Only partially. However, Bush's failure to provide any alternative-energy leadership for the world's biggest energy consuming nation (and the world's best innovator), was an important factor. More immediately important was Bush's role in radically destablizing the Middle East, with his invasion of Iraq and saber-rattling towards Iran. That insecurity made it harder to maintain a growing supply of oil from the region, and helped to fuel the atmosphere of speculation that has taken hold on the oil market. Historically, Bush's utter mismanagement of the aftermath of Katrina did something similar on a smaller scale, by interfering with the Gulf refineries.

Well of course that' wrong. The supply from Iraq was being covertly corrupted and corrupting the UN further along with Saddam and many illegal dealers, that's been a proven fact. So now Iraq's production is opening up to bids and the country will reap benefits of good prices, the supply will be put on the world market vs. the black market and that's a win-win situation. Saudi Arabia and Iran have not cut back on production, indeed the opposite is true with all OPEC supplying more, there is no supply shortage, so your comments hold no water. You need to explain how Bush, Kartina and Refineries come together and what part of it you consider Bush's personal failure, please.

KnotaFrayed:

TickleBob:

Arkady:

But, unfortunately, the runup in gas prices wasn't a planned thing accomplished by taxation, but rather (in part) an unplanned consequence of Bush's incompetent foreign policy. So, rather than that money being churned back into our economy, it's being sucked out of it.

OK, Mikey. Explain how Bush did this to the whole world. Incompetent foreign policy on the part of Bush is the reason gasoline is $12 in the United Kingdom and much of Europe.

It's Bush's fault. lol. OK, let's hear your long winded reasoning on that one.

The cost of gasoline in GB and much of Europe has been high for many many years by comparison to the United States. If you have five children in a classroom and one of them slurps down not only their equal portion of milk, but some from all the other kids, the other kids PLUS the glutton are paying more to give the other kids their equal share and support the edacious one.

"Let me share a few facts: Each year we import more and more oil. In 1973, the year of the infamous oil embargo, the United States imported about 24% of our oil. In 1990, at the start of the first Gulf War, this had climbed to 42%. Today, we import almost 70% of our oil."

"The U.S. uses nearly a quarter of the world's oil, with just 4% of the population and 3% of the world's reserves. This year, we will spend almost $700 billion on imported oil, which is more than four times the annual cost of our current war in Iraq."

T. Boone Pickens

Didn't you say you'd vote for Hillary Clinton if she gained the Democratic nomination? She's a Democrat isn't she?

Apparently some who are or act like neo-cons seem to believe new drilling is going to change things overnight. We could probably have a fair amount of alternative infrastructure in place in the same amount of time it would take to get new oil wells and pipelines in place and we wouldn't simply be ignoring and postponing the much larger problem of running out of oil after we keep "opening up" new sources and gulping them down the same way we have the previous ones all the while ignoring or not doing much if anything about getting serious about alternatives.

The benefit to high prices is that spoiled children are taught a lesson that they cannot simply have something just because they demand it.

Oil producing companies are looking at their resources and trying to balance their future with oil revenues, they could sell it all now to the highest bidder, but where is their future? Especially those that don't have much else to depend upon for resources.

You are blaming gluttonous use and ignoring new demand, i.e., China and India. The demand for oil in the world has grown significantly and there are more bidders and many are flush with dollars. Go figure and then of course, BlameBush.

China and India, which together have about 8 times our population, consume a fraction of the oil we consume.

You also neglected to account for the fall in the dollar. Maybe the Greenback hasn't dropped against the Peso, but it has against the Euro. In fact, when Clinton was in office a Euro was worth as little as 82 cents. Today it's almost double that. Oil at $65/barrel wouldn't be so bad, would it?

With 1.3 billion people, the People's Republic of China is the world's most populous country and the second largest oil consumer, behind the U.S. In recent years, China has been undergoing a process of industrialization and is one of the fastest growing economies in the world. With real gross domestic product growing at a rate of 8-10% a year, China's need for energy is projected to increase by 150 percent by 2020. to sustain its growth China requires increasing amounts of oil. Its oil consumption grows by 7.5% per year, seven times faster than the U.S.'
Growth in Chinese oil consumption has accelerated mainly because of a large-scale transition away from bicycles and mass transit toward private automobiles, more affordable since China's admission to the World Trade Organization. Consequently, by year 2010 China is expected to have 90 times more cars than in 1990. With automobile numbers growing at 19% a year, projections show that China could surpass the total number of cars in the U.S. by 2030. Another contributor to the sharp increase in automobile sales is the very low price of gasoline in China. Chinese gasoline prices now rank among the lowest in the world for oil-importing countries, and are a third of retail prices in Europe and Japan, where steep taxes are imposed to discourage gasoline use.

Where will China get its oil?
China’s ability to provide for its own needs is limited by the fact that its proven oil reserves are small in relation to its consumption. At current production rates they are likely to last for less than two decades. Though during the 1970s and 1980s China was a net oil exporter, it became a net oil importer in 1993 and is growingly dependent on foreign oil. China currently imports 32% of its oil and is expected to double its need for imported oil between now and 2010. A report by the International Energy Agency predicted that by 2030, Chinese oil imports will equal imports by the U.S. today.

China's expectation of growing future dependence on oil imports has brought it to acquire interests in exploration and production in places like Kazakhstan, Russia, Venezuela, Sudan, West Africa, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Canada. But despite its efforts to diversify its sources, China has become increasingly dependent on Middle East oil. Today, 58% of China's oil imports come from the region. By 2015, the share of Middle East oil will stand on 70%. Though historically China has had no long-standing strategic interests in the Middle East, its relationship with the region from where most of its oil comes is becoming increasingly important.

Implications for U.S.-China relations (continued...)

http://www.iags.org/china.htm