Monday, May 01, 2006

More Oil on the Fire

I got a nice response to the oil article (here), although it is a bit strange. So what follows is the standard call and response, recorded here for your enjoyment!

So, let me confirm that the following is REALLY the position of the CCCRW (ed -crazy christian conservative right wing):
Uh, what does any of this have to do with religion? You're knee jerkin'....
1. Despite the fact that China, India and others are expected to experience a sharp increase in oil consumption, and the increase in US oil consumption is expected to continue, while at the same time both US and world ability to produce oil has peaked and is expected to decline, the CCCRW has come to the conclusion that: 1. There is no oil crisis. 2. Even if there is a crisis, the combination of technology and the so-called 'free market' will instantly solve it. 3. The environment doesn't matter because Jesus is coming back soon and will fix everything just peachy keen.
First, the peak argument has never been proved. Its a theory, and not fact. The worlds oil producers are no where near the hypothetical peak. I never implied that a solution would be instantaneous, just as the current problem is not 'instantly' a crisis. And on the third point, you're very naively grasping for a straw man to attribute my position, besides, Jesus already came back, no need to wait.
2. There is no such thing as global warming. And even if there is, it certainly has nothing to do with the internal combustion engine. And even if it does, it won't be so bad because it has happened before. And, if it does get bad it doesn't matter because Jesus is coming back soon and will fix everything just peachy keen.
Again, I made no claim about there not being any global warming. There is global warming, and there is global cooling. Currently, there is no scientific evidence linking anthropogenic CO2 output and the global temperature. Anyone who makes such a claim is not being honest with themselves or the data. That is not to say that there couldn't be, it just isn't provable at this juncture. Furthermore, if you do not know what the global temperature was when its was 'good' or 'bad' for human civilization, why would you constantly expect DOOM and GLOOM? To the last, Jesus, again, has already returned.
3. The last thing we want to do is actually cut back on oil use, sometimes called conservation, because that would hurt the profits of the oil companies (and a half-dozen or so countries, most of which support terrorism, but that is another matter)since big business is sacred and the back-bone of 'our economy'. The best solution would be to go to war and take over the oil producing countries. And, if things go wrong (where IS that Iraqi oil?), it doesn't matter, because, you guessed it, Jesus is coming back soon and will fix everything just peachy keen.
Here, you missed the point. It is economically impossible to stop China and India, or whoever else in the world wants to buy oil. What your ilk propose is self vitiating for sentimental insanity. If we really needed to go to war for oil, we would invade Canada, our largest supplier. You socialist nut-jobs need to get a bit of an edumacation. Oh, Jesus already returned I might add.
4. Yes, there is a tax on gasoline. Last time I looked that's how the USER pays for the highway system. It is a USER fee. If you don't drive your car, you don't pay the tax. Commercial interests, of course, pass the tax burden on to the consumer in the cost of the product you buy.

Cost of a gallon of gas as follows: April 2006, State of California--
Marketing Costs and Profits -$0.01
Crude oil cost 1.65
Refinery Cost and Profits 0.84
State and Local Taxes 0.23
State Excise Tax 0.18
Federal Excise Tax 0.18
Total per gallon cost 3.07

That's $.59 per gallon in taxes, or 19.2% of the total cost. All of the Federal tax goes to the FHWA for distribution to the states for highway projects. All or most of the state/local money is handled the same way--it goes for highways. Now, if you want to get rid of those taxes, tell me how you plan to pay for the highway system? Which, by the way, speaking of the Interstate Highway system, is now forty years old to fifty years old and requiring a lot of upkeep. In Oregon, for example, we have hundreds of bridges whose life expectancy has been reached and require replacement. But, if you want, we can get rid of the taxes and simply shut down the highway system......
No, you misunderstood the point, again. I am combating the idiots who write drivel, and trying to persuade the 'sycophants in waiting' that such drivel is dishonest, obnoxious, and just plain wrong. I have no problem paying for highways. The problem is when class envy socialist claim that big oil is screwing the little guy. Hence, if you as a consumer were aware of how much you pay in taxes on gasoline, you will realize how ridiculous the undue profit claim is. But, since we are on the point, why is it called a user fee instead of a tax? More hiding in the bushes. And how come I, as a gasoline consumer, have to subsidize the transportation of goods for the masses of those who do not consume gasoline? The great urban unwashed (those who don't drive) are not carrying their fair share.
Now then, about alternative energy sources to replace oil. Largely, this means a way of either replacing the automobile with some other mode of transportation, or fueling an automobile in some other way. Who is going to pay to develop these alternatives? Not big oil! Who is stupid enough to fund the competition? Must be the Feds are going to do it. And where to the Feds get their money? From taxes. Ah, but you're against taxes, so out with that program! and the other CCCRW's have painted yourselves into a nice corner. No taxes, no alternatives, increased consumption as production declines and irreversible global damage. You'd better hope that Jesus is coming back soon and will fix everything peachy keen!
I am not against taxes, just undue taxation. Within your argument is exactly the point. Why would oil companies, who are competing against each other, spend money researching alternative products that will not be competitive in the market? You don't get the fundamental aspect, if it is not cheaper that petroleum, it will not sell. If you force the U.S. to use more expensive, unproven energy sources, it will slow our economy. This is the equivalent of providing cheap oil to our national competition. Not smart. My point was simple, yet must have been filtered in the socialist brain. When oil actually does become expensive, alternative energy sources will increase. Oh, and I still do not get how you thought this was some religious argument, pretty weird.

No comments: