Dealing with present reality means two things: decrease demand and increase supply. Rising prices should help decrease demand (but so far it hasn't). The other solution - increasing suppy - means increasing exploration and drilling. Bush has favored further drilling in Alaska but Congress (Democrates and Republicans) won't let him because they are terrified of being "politically incorrect." In addition, neither California nor Florida will allow off-shore drill for the same reasons. There is a totally paranoid fear of oil leaks or spills, despite the fact that the only serious spills have come during transportation. Drilling on the Alaskan North Slope has not damaged the environment in the slightest, and off shore drilling in the Gulf of Mexico has not resulted in any leaks or spills, thanks largely to modern technology. So I would not hold out any hopes for solutions to the short term problem of gas prices.
It is the short-term problems that aren't being addressed properly. I never suggested that we don't do hydrogen research, quit making stuff up. I do research for a living, I'm all for it. What I suggested is that we are NOT on the verge of a hydrogen breakthrough and that it is foolish to just let the staus quo continue because Bush imagines that hydrogen is going to come along in a few years and be a magical cure to oil depletion. It just ain't very likely. I repeat: 1. Continue the search for alternatives with all due haste. 2. Meanwhile the consequences of the costs of oil and it's bearing on international economies has to be dealt with right now. I'll give you an example. Bush said we must quit our dependence on foreign oil now. This makes little sense because oil is a global commodity. Domestic oil companies will charge the going rate no matter where the oil comes from. Foreign producers will just sell the oil somewhere else and we gain no benefit. In an age of increasing global depeletion of remaining reserves of oil, some thought should be given to conserving our reserves and buying foreign oil that is still relatively cheap compared to what it is going to be in 50 to 100 years when it will be extremely scarce. Better to deplete the Middle East oil now. When oil starts going for 300-400 dollars a barrel, we will not have depleted our last reserves and will not have to buy at those extreme prices down the road.
Incentives can be subsidies or tax credits. They both have they same impact on the bottom line, but are administered differently. Subsidies are often given on the front end in the form of grants, they require some agency/dept to handle the program which creates more red tape and paperwork, and is more difficult to control. Tax credits are just another line in the tax code and handled by the IRS. While the IRS is an inept government agency, most people fear them more than any other government agency and may be less incline to take advantage of tax credits versus subsidies. Not many feared FEMA handing out those subsidies. I prefer tax credits. Of course not. Certain groups of people/industries are more important to our economy than others. It has nothing to do with fairness, it's about what is best for our economy. Do you not believe that some people/businesses are more important than others? Because company b would be more important to our economy if they can develop alternative fuels and lessen our dependency on foreign oil. Tax credits are not much different than tax cuts. Do tax cuts work? Did everyone get the same tax cut a few years ago? Tax credits would be well worth the cost if it helps up develop alternative fuels, just like the tax cuts were well worth the cost. I'm not a big fan of subsidies or tax credits for the reasons you state here. Most simple don't achieve the desired results and end up benefiting the wrong people. But I also believe not doing anything is a bad idea. The private sector won't get involved unless they can make some money. It'll take years of research and development before they come up with alternative fuels that are cost effective. I doubt they will spend the money right now without any incentives. I know you favor the do nothing approach, but I don't. Our foreign oil dependency will keep us involved in Middle Eastern politics more than we should be. I'd rather us treat the OPEC countries like we do the African countries ... not get involved.
whats best for our economy is freedom from intervention in the form of the government deciding what is important. yes, and the market agrees. people will put resources to what they realize is important. i buy food before i buy jewelry. i dont need the government to susidize food because it is more important than jewelry. i can make that decision myself. i will buy the food myself. same thing with energy. given total freedom, the company that sells the most important products is gonna go out of business last, without the government favoring anyone. when oil is too expensive, we will all start buying something differenct voluntarily. when the governemtis involced, we are still buying something new, just without being able to choose efficiantly how to allocate our recources. without the freedom to quickly adjust and be flexible what what is successful and what isnt.
i didnt say you opposed hydrogen research. i know bush doesnt favor stopping hydrogen research either, so i guess you agree with bush. i have am not understanding how you and bush are not in total agreement. let me try to figure it out: ok, this is exactly what bush wants also. although you know better than he does about the viability of hydrogen, with your knowledge of science, maybe you should be the chairman of the board deciding where our tax money goes. and also you can continue to complain about how bush spends way too much money, while favoring more goverment spending.. ok, i dont see where the disagreement with bush is here either. i believe he said something along the lines of a 50% reduction by 2025? i cant remember the exact percentage he said. you are an expert researcher so you can find out. he definitely didnt say "now". straw man, bush didnt say what you are claiming he did. so your plan is to continue to buy foreign oil. revolutionary.
The question is how many years we will have to suffer before we have something different to choose from? What will be the damage to our economy from prolonged high energy costs? I think energy costs will have to go much higher than it is now before companies voluntarily get involved in alternative fuels R&D. And it won't be developed overnight. High energy costs are already taking its toll on our economy, but it's nothing compared to what it may do to us 25 years from now when we are still dependent on oil. Sure we can wait, but it may end up costing us much more...
we will "suffer" until the suffering is greater than the suffering brought about by the cost of changing. call me crazy but i have an enourmous amount of trust in science and capitalism. solutions develop when solutions are needed. when people are paying what they determine to be too much money for oil, they will start paying for alternatives. yunno the economy can progress even without the government intervening and saving people from themselves by taking thier money from them. when we want to spend money on something new, we will.
