Candidates gas plans will raise gas prices

What I want to know is why aren't McCain and Clinton touting this as a Senate proposal/bill they're working on, instead of just throwing out as a proposal in stump speeches.
Answer - Because they know most voters are too stupid to realize that a stump speech promise made for the summer of 2008 can't possibly come true with the following factors: 1) summer driving season is just 4 weeks away, nothing gets done in Congress that quickly, 2) the election isn't until November -- three months after summer ends, and 3) the inauguration isn't until January, another two months after that.

 

I made the same point yesterday and a couple fuckwits acted like I suggested we burn down Yellowstone Park. There's no reason we shouldn't be exploring ANWR or anywhere else in the country where the might be new sources of oil. And there's sure as hell no reason we shouldn't look to build at least one new refinery given that the last one was built during the Carter Error.

 

Everybody wants to act like there's some magical switch that can be flipped that will turn all of these cars, gas stations, etc. from gasoline to hydrogen or the alternative fuel of choice overnight. Realistically, figure we're at least 5-10 years away from a marketable alternative. That's R&D time, working out the bugs, building prototypes, etc. And that may even be a short estimate, based on us going into crisis mode to find something.
Now, figure another 5-10 years for the new fuels to really catch on and get to a point in the manufacturing and distribution process where you can profit off it. Then another 5-10 years for the transition from gasoline to the new fuel. That's 10-20 years, at a minimum, before we're completely away from oil. If the country is going to survive that long, we've got to find new sources, drill, and increase refining capacity.

 

I've been hearing that since I got my drivers' license.

In 1973.

 

Drill ANWR and you simply postpone the inevitable. You get what? Another ten years in which no one in America thinks hard about how to solve the problem of peak oil? Gas at 8.85 a gallon, instead of 8.95? At the cost of a wilderness you can never replace? No thanks.

 

That pesky physics thing keeps getting in the way, I guess.

That is the danger of opening ANWR, sure. But I'm starting to think we're fast approaching a point where there won't be any other choice. I think we can weather $4 a gallon for a while. If it gets to $5 or $6 a gallon, especially for diesel, something is going to snap in this country. When people can't drive to work, truckers can't afford to get goods to market, and store shelves start to look like the USSR circa 1988, people will start to get desperate. That's when order breaks down and bad things start to happen.

Now, to switch gears a bit, this is outstanding news for opponents of urban sprawl. I think, if this continues for a couple years, you're going to start seeing people adjust by settling back into closer-packed cities. They might not be the same ones as in the past -- suburbs might become larger than their parent cities -- but we'll see a shift back toward tighter communities and neighborhoods out of necessity. That might be good on several fronts.

 

Dude, pay attention.

 

I can't believe a plan that has no hope of becoming law is getting this much attention (in the media, not necessarily here). If it makes it out of Congress, which it won't, it ain't getting by President Oilhound. Neither is anything remotely approaching a windfall-profits tax.

If Hillary or John want to say they'd support it when they became president, then maybe. But Hillary appears to think she can push through a gas-tax suspension this summer and pay for it with a windfall-profits tax, because apparently she's spent the last seven years in a cave, on Mars, with her eyes shut and her fingers in her ears.

Or maybe she doesn't actually think she can do that, and she's just pandering to the lowest common denominator. That would make sense, wouldn't it?

 

Sorry, dude, been paying close attention to America since 1957 and have seen no change in the American habit of conspicuous consumption, ignorant bureaucratic procrastination or willful corporate thievery.

Do you honestly think that a country willing to enslave itself to OPEC for the last fifty years; willing to go to war again and again in the Middle East; willing to bankrupt its own grandchildren for no better reason than it wants to drive a four-ton four-barrel 429 4x4 to the fucking Piggly Wiggly and back is going to change the way it thinks about energy if you open ANWR?

Again. It simply postpones the inevitable - while prolonging our apathy, our national inertia, and our unwillingness to do anything but wallow in our own gluttony for fear of being inconvenienced.

 

On another board I participate on I've got a Clinton supporter calling me elitist for saying that the $20-$30 in savings over the course of the entire summer is no big deal to a family barely making ends meet.

To further state the obvious with this plan, read this article:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/30/AR2008043003575.html

A few highlights:

 

It's going to really suck when gas costs $8.95 a gallon in three years. Enjoy the cheap gas now.

 

The oil business has been boom and bust since before the automobile was invented and will continue to be so. The price of gas will fluctuate wildly over the years no matter what US energy policy may be. No amount of drilling can guarantee cheap gas as a permanent feature of our economy. No hike in the gas tax that isn't far beyond the realm of political possibility will do much to affect how much people drive. Of course, if we don't fix our roads and bridges and they start to fall down, people will have to drive less because they can't get there from here.