Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

So if you were the Emperor of Known Space, what would you do?

1. Now
2. to impact three years out
3. to impact fifteen years out

Reboot the nation's economy and governmental system with an unknown UNIX based operating system so that we could ignore the fact that the high gas prices are due to the lowering value of the U.S. dollar and not an increase in gas prices...

Highways are the Windows Vista of transportation.

I think that post sprained my brain.

NOW
GAS TAX HOLIDAY

THEN
->
-> -> -> ->

LATER

->
-> + ()

- Salvage

Translation - needs more cowbell?

If I were supreme ruler of mankind I would most likely start liquidating human population, until it dropped off to a reasonable, natural number.

The question itself presumes that high fossil fuel prices are not to be welcomed as a necessary push to get us out of a fossil fuel economy. Which, to my point of view, is quite the case.

So the answer to your question is I would do nothing to discourage current pricing trends.

Actions that I might take?

-Eliminate the ludicrous tarrifs on Brazilian ethanol tarrifs, stop federal subsiziation of corn ethanol (if you are going to promote oil fuel alternatives, do it right)

-Renew existing tax credits, etc. for solar installations and other renewable resources

-Use the necessity of promoting green power to overcome environmentalist objections to alternative energy installations (This excellent spot for a wind farm happens to be in the way of your ocean view? Too bad) and the infrastructure (transmission lines) necessary to support them

-Spread the California utility model, in which energy companies can receive compensation through authorized rates based on meeting targets for energy conservation, etc.

-Require electircal utilities to offer green purchasing power programs, in which consumers can agree to pay higher rates in exchange for a guarantee that their power was generated through renewable resources

-Push American companies to invest in wind/solar production (I am not terribly familiar with US share of PV manufacturing, but as I recall we only have a small share of the market for wind, and would not have had that if GE had not purchased Enron's division when they went B/K) in order to improve economies of scale in this business

-Continue to tighten CAFE standards (sorry Michigan)

-Promote PHEV vehicles, as they become available for purchase

-Authorize state governments to ban the construction of new fossil-fueled power plants, effectively requiring that all new generating capacity for on-grid use come through renewables

-Authorize ANWR/distance off-shore drilling; it will not do anything to the "big picture," but it will make people feel better and swallow the above a bit easier

Not comprehensive, but it would be a start.

Tax holiday on gas for the summer, with a subsequent increase in the gas tax (alleviated through the tax credits seen below), to encourage people to buy more efficient vehicles and use mass transit.
CAFE standards need tightening.
MASSIVE tax rebate and credit program toward people who use mass transit or buy High MPG/super efficient vehicles
Massive improvement of mass transit, including light rail, as well as improvements to the grid using renewables

Currently, the government invests less money on energy than petfood companies on new product. This is stupid

The thing that makes me ill, locally, is that Middle Tennessee is a major rail hub, with tracks radiating outward in all directions... and we have NO mass transit outside of city buses. It's like a Southeastern California: you can't get anywhere without a car... with predictable effects on the pocketbook and gas consumption.

Alpharius Walks wrote:The question itself presumes that high fossil fuel prices are not to be welcomed as a necessary push to get us out of a fossil fuel economy. Which, to my point of view, is quite the case.

I agree with you to an extent. I'm particularly concerned about the use of arable land in the US to grow corn for ethanol. However, the first sentence I've quoted here is the problem. The county next door to mine has a per capita income of around 17k per year. I don't recall exactly what the average family of four makes, but I do remember it is not much more. Can you really expect these people, who are typically relying on an automobile to get to work, to "welcome" expensive gasoline in exchange for public transportation systems that will never be extended to their area, or worse, so that tax credits are availible so that people can purchase expensive hybrid and alternative fuel vehicles?

It is a little tangential to the price of gasoline, but since we're talking about energy sources I would like to see the US make a greater investment in nuclear energy, much like France has.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/23/campaign.wrap/index.html?section=cnn_latest

Tossing that out there. I like the justification for the prize amount.

- Salvage

Soylent Fuel is people.

(Energy only, not recycling/environment in general)

1. Drill off the West and East Coast. The Cubans are permitting the Chinese to drill there. I doubt they will give a flip about the environment. California needs to suffer like everyone else.

1a. Change the law. All oil drilled in the US remains in the US.

2. Yes take the caps off importing bio from South America. But also get rid of the subsidies. Let it stand or fall on its own.

3. Mandate to clear the red tape (and NIMBY screaming) for wind/hydro. If it harms the speckled nose darter, find out if the nose darter is good when sautéed so everyone wins.

4. Mandate to clear the red tape (and NIMBY screaming) for nuclear plants that are more than 50 miles from a major city. Fund it via interest free loans from the US government.

3-4a. Mandate that all US power needs will be met by non-oil, non-natural gas by 2019, else members of Congress and the relevant power industry will be randomly tarred and feathered. Change that. Lets randomly tar and feather some anyway, I’ll bring the popcorn.

5. Double declining amortization and tax credits for R&D and capital investment IN THE US for hydrogen based technology for engines (or really good batteries). Power of the Presidency to push for economic automobiles with a range of 300 miles on one charge/load/magic spell, again by 2019.

6. Commodity hedging only permitted for producers and users of oil/gas (types quietly as this is heresy in my industry). Offshore trading declared illegal, countries supporting platforms for such trading invaded by attorneys who begin randomly suing citizens of said country for pretty much anything.

7. Invade Venezuela just to get Chavex to STFU. What a blowhard…

jfrazell wrote:(Energy only, not recycling/environment in general)

1. Drill off the West and East Coast. The Cubans are permitting the Chinese to drill there. I doubt they will give a flip about the environment. California needs to suffer like everyone else.

> The Chinese have a contract to to develop onshore resources west of Havana, but are not drilling offshore. Cheney's even backed off this assertion, one of the few times the press has called him on one of his exaggerations.

> A good conservative would leave the issue of offshore drilling to the states, which is more or less my stance provided consistent environmental safeguards are in place.

> FWIW, contrary to some talking points, hurricane Katrina did cause oil spills in the region and they did have environmental impact. Fortunately, offshore oil wells seem to have escaped without oil spills. Let's not forget that refineries and storage facilities also need to be considered which will up the cost for consumers. Refineries were affected, but I don't know if the capacity pre-Katrina has been restored.

> Another little know fact is

1a. Change the law. All oil drilled in the US remains in the US.

> How does taking oil out of the market help lower prices? What would you do if Mexico (#3 exporter of oil to the US) or Venezuela (#5 exporter of oil to the US) decided to take that stance? Of course, Mexico's oil exports are going to decrease as their reserves diminish. Let's hope domestic issues there don't impact exports to the point that the government decides to withdraw from the international oil market like you advocate for the US.

2. Yes take the caps off importing bio from South America. But also get rid of the subsidies. Let it stand or fall on its own.

> I would eliminate all subsidies on all energy sources. That includes solar, wind, oil, coal, and natural gas. I would reconsider subsidies after a short term (3-5 years) of time has elapsed to allow an energy market equilibrium develop. I'd also revoke drilling permits that go unused.

3. Mandate to clear the red tape (and NIMBY screaming) for wind/hydro. If it harms the speckled nose darter, find out if the nose darter is good when sautéed so everyone wins.

> NIMBY isn't as big an impediment to wind/hydro development than having the generation sources far away from the demand. Furthermore, there is the issue of inconsistent generation and relying on a secondary electrical source. At best, wind and hydro are going to be supplemental energy sources and until electric cars are the norm, none of this is going to lower the price of oil which is used primarily (~66%) as a vehicle energy source, and not industrial/residential/business sector usage (unlike most of the world where oil is often used for heating).

4. Mandate to clear the red tape (and NIMBY screaming) for nuclear plants that are more than 50 miles from a major city. Fund it via interest free loans from the US government.

> So you're for subsidizing the nuke industry? I guess that isn't a change from past governmental policies. While the nuclear industry gets less subsidies than renewable energy sources like wind and hydro, subsidies didn't have an impact on the amount of electrical production.

3-4a. Mandate that all US power needs will be met by non-oil, non-natural gas by 2019, else members of Congress and the relevant power industry will be randomly tarred and feathered. Change that. Lets randomly tar and feather some anyway, I’ll bring the popcorn.

> With the power of the Emperor of Known Space I can sacrifice many dollars, and presumably people, but I cannot change the laws of physics. I can't wave a magic wand and change the laws of economics either, especially if I am inheriting a debt the size of the US.

5. Double declining amortization and tax credits for R&D and capital investment IN THE US for hydrogen based technology for engines (or really good batteries). Power of the Presidency to push for economic automobiles with a range of 300 miles on one charge/load/magic spell, again by 2019.

> If you were Emperor you wouldn't need the Power of the Presidency (which IIRC has no constitutional authority for making laws, only enforcing them). He can speak all he wants, but has little power other than to be on TV.

6. Commodity hedging only permitted for producers and users of oil/gas (types quietly as this is heresy in my industry). Offshore trading declared illegal, countries supporting platforms for such trading nuked, or even worse, invaded by attorneys who begin randomly suing citizens of said country for pretty much anything.

> I can't comment on this. If I was Emperor all the bankers would be strung from light posts with the guts of lawyers and insurance men would be digging the graves for them.

7. Invade Venezuela just to get Chavex to STFU. What a blowhard…

> That'd show him he can't do his own thing and really drive the price of oil down. *rolls eyes*

> I can't be arsed to point out anything else. There is no one answer. I'm not terribly unhappy with the price of gas. Get the dollar out of the toilet, get off spending so much money on defense, help ease the deficit and focus on developing a resilient economy and infrastructure would be the best way to address America's challenges for today and tomorrow. We can't drill our way out of this problem, especially if one believes in a link between climate change and fossil fuel consumption.

> If demand falls, then the price will fall. Removing the gas tax for the summer is like saying you're going to take a vacation for the summer and continue to spend money as if you still have a job. Investigate market players like refiners and producers if warranted, but nothing there will change until I am the Emperor.

Respectfully,
DD

@Grignard-Which county in particular are we discussing? The Census' handy county map (http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/maps/tennessee_map.html) has most of the counties adjacent to Knox County coming in the 30k-40k range for '04 median income. Even when you start to get into the more rural areas, the median does not seem to dip much below the 25k range. TN does appear to have two of the lowest income counties by median income in the US (Hancock, Lake, @ ~20k and ~23.4k respectively by '04 median household,) although the total population for both counties, going by the Census '06 estimate, is something like 14,000 residents.

Now there is still the issue that a certain portion of the populace is going to be especially hard hit by rising gasoline prices, particularly in the short term.

And unfortunately there is really nothing much that can be done about this. There are no effective short-term measures the United States government can take that will materially influence the cost of refined gasoline. As may be noted, many refineries are getting squeezed on their margins by high crude costs, not to mention actual gasoline retailers. Any reduction in crude prices will likely result in stable prices, with some increased profitability for the non-crude extraction components of the supply chain. Even if one assumed that there would be no such counter-effect, totally eliminating all state and federal excise taxes would drop retail gasoline all the way down to ~$4-which changes nothing.

And any such near-sighted policies are only going to hurt long-term objectives of other stripes without achieving any meaningful relief. As you indicated in your post, such efforts (in this case, the rapid expansion of corn ethanol production) have had negative consequences on the populace they are intended to help (in this instance, tremendous price increases for food, which seems to be just as large a component of an individuals' disposable income at the income levels you discussed.)

To me, the fundamental issue is that many of the necessities of dispursed urban design/living (cheap housing, commuting to job centers, etc.) is dependent upon the automobile and cheap energy. Well, we have the former, but the latter is not coming back in the world of fossil fuels. Until we get over that hump, you cannot change the pain that will be felt by those living a lifestyle that can no longer be sustained on a modest income. We are all going to be in for changes (a reversal in the decades-long increase in home sizes, increased importance of urban living over suburban models) in the coming decades. Many of them are going to be painful.

I would offer, though, that high fuel prices are, on an anecodotal basis as reported by the LA Times, WSJ, etc., leading to the first in-sourcing of American manufacturing in years, giving at least one positive development for those dependent on such jobs.

@jfrazell-I am a tad curious about 1a. Exactly how much oil is the US exporting? Going by the Feds, it is a whopping 6% or so of US consumption. Also, blanket prohibitions on imports seems a tad silly for any industry . . . (http://www.eia.doe.gov/basics/quickoil.html)

I think I agree with the next few points. I do not think 3-4a is even necessary if you prohibit the construction of new plants using these fuel sources-plants will eventually exhaust their natural life cycle and be replaced, the key is to keep new capacity narrowly focused along other generation methods.

I am also a bit skeptical on our ability to deliver nuclear power, in the US, on a cost-effective basis. The daunting permitting/construction lead times also give it a much less immediate return on investment. Another key consideration here is that investments in wind/solar/etc. are going to produce economies of scale as production ramps up. I am not sure how going from 0 nuclear plants/decade to 3 or some such will generate nearly the same level of effective cost savings. Also, until we site a storage facility for spent fuel . . . it seems to have some issues. But if you are willing to offer up Houston as the appropriate storage facility (hey, you gave California some off-shore drilling, might as well keep it even,) I think I can live with it.

I suppose that #6 could work, but I also feel some skepticism towards its likely impacts. Both in the sense that most speculative commodity bubbles seem to blow up in the manipulators' face after a fashion (silver, anyone?,) the question of how much speculative capital is invested in these markets compared to their total market size (world consumption being ~83+ million bbl/day?) and also in the sense that I am unsure of the total impact of current market manipulation-it is possible to perpetually speculate by rolling over futures contracts, but at some point one would expect to see rising inventories as deliveries are not taken.

The cynical part of me also notes that many of the largest commodity speculators today are pension funds (CALPERS,) and we the tax payers will just have to backfill any missing profitability with additional contributions to these same systems. One gets hosed either way . . .

In a similar vein, the very manner in which "curbing speculators" suggests itself as a popular and potentially easy solution to a crisis suggests to me that it cannot function as promised. I would also suggest that anyone terribly concerned about this pick up a copy of Philip Carret's The Art of Speculation and read the introduction, if nothing else, in which he discussed the positive outcomes of speculative market investment activity. Although some of his examples are obviously dated given the book's age, the principles discussed hold true.

@jfrazell-I am a tad curious about 1a. Exactly how much oil is the US exporting? Going by the Feds, it is a whopping 6% or so of US consumption. Also, blanket prohibitions on imports seems a tad silly for any industry . . . (http://www.eia.doe.gov/basics/quickoil.html)
***Not much currently-that’s agreed. However, if we are opening up the coasts then the social compact to that is that the oil remains here. Will it drop the price? Oil is fungible, we would just import less. More importantly this has the effect of an interim protection whilst we ween off of oil. I’m tired of giving money to dictators.

I think I agree with the next few points. I do not think 3-4a is even necessary if you prohibit the construction of new plants using these fuel sources-plants will eventually exhaust their natural life cycle and be replaced, the key is to keep new capacity narrowly focused along other generation methods.
****Power plants generally have a 20-30 year lifecycle+. We can’t wait that long.

I am also a bit skeptical on our ability to deliver nuclear power, in the US, on a cost-effective basis. The daunting permitting/construction lead times also give it a much less immediate return on investment. Another key consideration here is that investments in wind/solar/etc. are going to produce economies of scale as production ramps up. I am not sure how going from 0 nuclear plants/decade to 3 or some such will generate nearly the same level of effective cost savings.
*** You missed the first part-the lead times are so long to deal with permitting and the inevitable environmental cries from NUMBY’s/treehuggers about, well anything (as exampled by the protests against windframs…WINDFARMS???)

Also, until we site a storage facility for spent fuel . . . it seems to have some issues. But if you are willing to offer up Houston as the appropriate storage facility (hey, you gave California some off-shore drilling, might as well keep it even,) I think I can live with it.
*****Why not, like we’d notice, we have half the refining and petrochemical capacity of the US here, with attendant fires (the joke here is, terrorists would never attack here-no one would notice). Its you boys that are prissy about it. Bury it near McAllen, who cares?

In a similar vein, the very manner in which "curbing speculators" suggests itself as a popular and potentially easy solution to a crisis suggests to me that it cannot function as promised.
**** Current estimates are that speculation makes up anywhere from $20 to $60 of the price of oil, leaning towards $60. The law is already in place now, its just being circumvented by offshore trading.

Requiring oil to be consumed on a domestic basis is not going to overcome the opposition of those opposed to off-shore drilling. The total program either of us envisioned will do more than enough to solve the problem of shipping bushels of cash into the wrong hands anyway.

Power plants actually have a much longer life-cycle-as one LA-local personality in this debate likes to point out, plants that he worked on as a young TVA engineer (this gentleman is now in his 80's, as a reference to when young was) are stilll operating. But cutting them off from new production is doable, economically feasible as commodities prices hold steady/increase and economies of scale in production are realized, etc.

And of course there will still be a role for retaining some fossil fuel capacity-I certainly want my local hospital to have access to a gas-fired peaker plant or similar for when the "Big One" hits us here in SoCal.

Also, retroactively closing permitted facilities would seem to be a bit harder, legally. I suppose we are discussing extralegal powers, but sticking to things that are perfectly feasible, banning new construction seems much easier.

As far as nuclear plants go, I would think that even skipping environmental clearences, design/construction would still be a rather drawn out process. What would a resonable lead time be from the day the foundation is poured-5 years? 10 years? Maybe not, but the dearth of modern American examples makes it a bit challenging to judge either way.

It would be nice if 44% of oil crude prices were "speculative." I suppose we shall have to wait and see on that one.

Also, prohibiting off-shore trading will not actually end speculative activity, as current US regulations have sufficient loopholes to allow virtually unlimited activity of this nature through appropriate intermediaries. Now Congress is trying to change some of this, and we shall see where it ends up.

“Power plants actually have a much longer life-cycle-as one LA-local personality in this debate likes to point out, plants that he worked on as a young TVA engineer (this gentleman is now in his 80's, as a reference to when young was) are stilll operating. But cutting them off from new production is doable, economically feasible as commodities prices hold steady/increase and economies of scale in production are realized, etc.”
****I’m sure you’re right on this one Alphie. It deals with scarcity (below). We need to preserve our nat gas resources as well.

“And of course there will still be a role for retaining some fossil fuel capacity-I certainly want my local hospital to have access to a gas-fired peaker plant or similar for when the "Big One" hits us here in SoCal.”
****This is the point of the US only oil production. At a recent conference our friends at CERA were heavily discussing whether we really have hit a worldwide inflection point. If so, retaining oil while we convert has primacy.

“Also, retroactively closing permitted facilities would seem to be a bit harder, legally. I suppose we are discussing extralegal powers, but sticking to things that are perfectly feasible, banning new construction seems much easier.”
****Make a regulation. Congress does it all the time. Expensive-you betcha, but they do it all the time (as evidenced by the Low Sulfur enviro regs that came online).

“As far as nuclear plants go, I would think that even skipping environmental clearences, design/construction would still be a rather drawn out process. What would a resonable lead time be from the day the foundation is poured-5 years? 10 years? Maybe not, but the dearth of modern American examples makes it a bit challenging to judge either way.”
****I’d posit five years. Hence start now. Rome wasn’t built in a day. If it took twenty five years, but we started when the first oil shock hit we’d be sitting pretty. I can say it takes less time than building your average hydro-electric dam.
EDIT: I should note my preference would be to building the dam. I love the concept of hydro and wind (and wave which might be the new Black) but I'm also a pessimist who believes in plan B, C, and D (invade Canada and move there, heck there's only 20 people up there would they notice if we al just showed up )

“It would be nice if 44% of oil crude prices were "speculative." I suppose we shall have to wait and see on that one. “
***It shouldn’t be long now. Once Congress gets done bailing out the deadbeat lenders/mortgage brokers/loser mortgagees with their $300Bn bailout plan (as early as today), then they need a new fish to fry.

Alpharius Walks wrote:@Grignard-Which county in particular are we discussing? The Census' handy county map (http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/maps/tennessee_map.html) has most of the counties adjacent to Knox County coming in the 30k-40k range for '04 median income. Even when you start to get into the more rural areas, the median does not seem to dip much below the 25k range. TN does appear to have two of the lowest income counties by median income in the US (Hancock, Lake, @ ~20k and ~23.4k respectively by '04 median household,) although the total population for both counties, going by the Census '06 estimate, is something like 14,000 residents.

You're misquoting me Alpharius...I did not mention anything about median income. I was talking about the per capita figure.

Grignard wrote:You're misquoting me Alpharius...I did not mention anything about median income. I was talking about the per capita figure.

"The county next door to mine has a per capita income of around 17k per year. I don't recall exactly what the average family of four makes, but I do remember it is not much more. "

I was responding in the context of your oringinal post, and the statement that the average family of four makes a sum of money not much greater than this. In that context, I do not think it is unfair to utilize the median household income dollars.

If one is considering only families with children (something that I assume would include an average family of four,) the income data is actually better.

To use Knox County, TN as an example, 2006 American Community Survey: (http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ADPTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=05000US47093&-qr_name=ACS_2006_EST_G00_DP3&-ds_name=ACS_2006_EST_G00_&-_lang=en&-_sse=on)

For all households:

Median Household Income, 2006 Inflation Adjusted $'s: $44,184
Mean Household Income, 2006 IA$: $59,999

For families:*

Median Household Income, 2006 IA$: $59,467
Mean: $74,141

*Census definition: two or more persons living together and related by birth/marriage/adoption

For non-family households:*

Median: $25,562
Mean: $34,730

*Using the Social components of the survey, about 83% of these individuals are the head-of-household living alone

So within this context, I am not seeing data supporting an average family of 4 in Knoxville or the surrounding counties not making much more than $17k (using the relationship between Knox Co.'s median household data cited above as a baseline for comparison.)

jfrazell-In regards to your comments, I am curious as to how you would judge the timeline for energy conversion. Are we really looking at a a scenario where the availability of natural gas within 20 years will have significantly declined? Even the more pessimistic peak oil folks I have heard lately are not quite that down on our available reserves, with a few additional decades provided for by their figures. If we look at a 40 year timeline for conversion to a renewable economy, to take a random figure, then supply issues should be managable in the interim. But really, I think that is a fairly minor quibble, either way.

I note that CERA is also calling '07 the absolute peak in US oil consumption. Yay US Americans.

And yes, I too anticipate a wave of anti-speculative regulation. Although, interestingly enough, if they cannot get it wrapped up by the end of July (or mid-July if the President is inclined to a veto,) we may not see it until January '09.

Alpharius Walks wrote:

Grignard wrote:You're misquoting me Alpharius...I did not mention anything about median income. I was talking about the per capita figure.

"The county next door to mine has a per capita income of around 17k per year. I don't recall exactly what the average family of four makes, but I do remember it is not much more. "

I was responding in the context of your oringinal post, and the statement that the average family of four makes a sum of money not much greater than this. In that context, I do not think it is unfair to utilize the median household income dollars.

If one is considering only families with children (something that I assume would include an average family of four,) the income data is actually better.

To use Knox County, TN as an example, 2006 American Community Survey: (http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ADPTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=05000US47093&-qr_name=ACS_2006_EST_G00_DP3&-ds_name=ACS_2006_EST_G00_&-_lang=en&-_sse=on)

For all households:

Median Household Income, 2006 Inflation Adjusted $'s: $44,184
Mean Household Income, 2006 IA$: $59,999

For families:*

Median Household Income, 2006 IA$: $59,467
Mean: $74,141

*Census definition: two or more persons living together and related by birth/marriage/adoption

For non-family households:*

Median: $25,562
Mean: $34,730

*Using the Social components of the survey, about 83% of these individuals are the head-of-household living alone

So within this context, I am not seeing data supporting an average family of 4 in Knoxville or the surrounding counties not making much more than $17k (using the relationship between Knox Co.'s median household data cited above as a baseline for comparison.)

jfrazell-In regards to your comments, I am curious as to how you would judge the timeline for energy conversion. Are we really looking at a a scenario where the availability of natural gas within 20 years will have significantly declined? Even the more pessimistic peak oil folks I have heard lately are not quite that down on our available reserves, with a few additional decades provided for by their figures. If we look at a 40 year timeline for conversion to a renewable economy, to take a random figure, then supply issues should be managable in the interim. But really, I think that is a fairly minor quibble, either way.

I note that CERA is also calling '07 the absolute peak in US oil consumption. Yay US Americans.

And yes, I too anticipate a wave of anti-speculative regulation. Although, interestingly enough, if they cannot get it wrapped up by the end of July (or mid-July if the President is inclined to a veto,) we may not see it until January '09.

Alph, are you being deliberately obtuse? You're bringing up median, and even worse, mean. I said per capita, which also includes non wage earners I realize, but it does reflect the difficulty of households with multiple children. These days, large numbers of children in a household is associated with poverty. The link you gave me has the per cap on it, so I don't understand what the problem is. The mean is particularly worthless as a reflection of individual wealth by the way.

Also what you need to know is that not everything about wealth is reflected in census data. Many family farming operations are wealthy on paper, but the wealth is locked up, not liquid. Farms also consume large amounts of fuel, which in fairness is subsidized.

Have televisions attached to exercise bikes... stop pedaling = no power = no Tv = either fitter, and thinner USAans or people spending less time in front of the TV.
Also heating cost will be down as you work up a sweat trying to get your 50 inch plasma going...

“jfrazell-In regards to your comments, I am curious as to how you would judge the timeline for energy conversion. Are we really looking at a a scenario where the availability of natural gas within 20 years will have significantly declined? Even the more pessimistic peak oil folks I have heard lately are not quite that down on our available reserves, with a few additional decades provided for by their figures. If we look at a 40 year timeline for conversion to a renewable economy, to take a random figure, then supply issues should be managable in the interim. But really, I think that is a fairly minor quibble, either way. “
**** Natural gas production has been in decline since 1995 in the US, and is now in decline in Canada. Unlike the recent price of oil the price of natural gas has been steadily rising for some time (I remember writing we thought LNG’s would knock gas pricing back to the $4 range in 2006 –hah! Glad no one remembers that (looks around warily)
But to directly answer the question, we need to be independent within 15 years (with leeway to 20 years. Else it will never be done. Our economy will suffer and we will continue to suffer the whims of pety dictators (Venezuela), the average village guerilla leader (Nigeria) and religious nutjobs (ME). That’s why we’re in this position now, we keep putting it off. Its like the Saudis are paying off Congress or something…

And yes, I too anticipate a wave of anti-speculative regulation. Although, interestingly enough, if they cannot get it wrapped up by the end of July (or mid-July if the President is inclined to a veto,) we may not see it until January '09.
***Agreed on that.

To Waagh-forget heating-we need cooling baby. bring on the global cooling forecast in 2012!

Maybe the gut tap will save America!

Hey if Whale oil worked for our forefathers, belly bulge can work for us. We and Samoa are the Saudi Arabia and Kuwaits of belly bulge oil. USA! USA!

Grignard wrote:
Alph, are you being deliberately obtuse? You're bringing up median, and even worse, mean. I said per capita, which also includes non wage earners I realize, but it does reflect the difficulty of households with multiple children. These days, large numbers of children in a household is associated with poverty. The link you gave me has the per cap on it, so I don't understand what the problem is. The mean is particularly worthless as a reflection of individual wealth by the way.

Also what you need to know is that not everything about wealth is reflected in census data. Many family farming operations are wealthy on paper, but the wealth is locked up, not liquid. Farms also consume large amounts of fuel, which in fairness is subsidized.

Per capita income tells us almost nothing about the state of a familial household. Using per cap, the income of an average family of four in a area with 17k median would be . . . $68,000 a year.

Given this, an examination of median household incomes seems better at demonstrating family incomes within a given area.

But, let me know what county you had in mind originally, and we can have a look at their data.

Lets do Waller County, Texas. That should be interesting.

Alpharius Walks wrote:

Grignard wrote:
Alph, are you being deliberately obtuse? You're bringing up median, and even worse, mean. I said per capita, which also includes non wage earners I realize, but it does reflect the difficulty of households with multiple children. These days, large numbers of children in a household is associated with poverty. The link you gave me has the per cap on it, so I don't understand what the problem is. The mean is particularly worthless as a reflection of individual wealth by the way.

Also what you need to know is that not everything about wealth is reflected in census data. Many family farming operations are wealthy on paper, but the wealth is locked up, not liquid. Farms also consume large amounts of fuel, which in fairness is subsidized.

Per capita income tells us almost nothing about the state of a familial household. Using per cap, the income of an average family of four in a area with 17k median would be . . . $68,000 a year.

Given this, an examination of median household incomes seems better at demonstrating family incomes within a given area.

But, let me know what county you had in mind originally, and we can have a look at their data.

Fine, you win your goddamned argument. Honestly I didnt look up a number, I had talked to people working charity. Forgive me that my first idea was to talk to actual human beings instead of digging through census data. The fact is you're going to look at the numbers and find out whatever it takes to feel good about an argument like that. While I know goddamned well what per capita income means, which you were kind enough to explain, that doesn't change how I feel, namely that sacrificing families on the altar of "lets get over fossil fuels" is a cruel and gakky argument.

But you're not going to change your opinion, and I'm sure as hell not reevaluating the way I feel about it, so lets just quit jerking each other off. I'm done.

jfrazell wrote:Lets do Waller County, Texas. That should be interesting.

Unfortunately, Waller County was not quite large enough to make it into the '06 ACS I used above, but the base 2000 Census data gives it some perspective.

Waller County is either home to a few large institutional employers like medical centers, or exports a good chunk of its workforce to major employers in the areas more central to Houston, as its population includes a surprisingly high 16.9% carpool rate. The long-distance commute is suggested by a mean commute time in excess of 30 minutes.

In 1999 Waller has a noticably higher concentration of stay-at-home parents compared to the US-about 51% of households with children under 6 years of age have both of their parents employed in the workforce, as opposed to a national number of 58.6% at the same time.

As of 1999, major industries for employment included education/health/social services (almost 3,000 employees,) retail and manufacturing (about 1,700 each,) and construction (just over 1,500.) Government employment in Waller (17.9%) was a few points higher than the US numbers (14.6%.)

Median household income in Waller ('99$, not inflation adjusted) was $38,136 vs. $41,994 for the nation. Families in Waller had a median household income of $45,868 against a national number of $50,046.

Within families, the single largest Census category of earners were those with an inome in the $50-$74.999k range, making up 22.4% of the population of families. The concentration of families in the under $25k range was, at 25.5% of the population, slightly higher than the concentration of families making $75k plus (23.6% of family households.) The remaining 28.6% of the population had incomes between $25 and $50k/yr.

Poverty was higher in Waller than in the country. However, looking at the numbers, poverty was interestingly enough higher overall for families and individuals, but female-lead households with children experienced lower poverty rates in Waller. This would suggest a higher concentration of poverty in households with both parents present than would be the norm.

And there is Waller for you.

Waller Data
http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/QTTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=05000US48473&-qr_name=DEC_2000_SF3_U_DP3&-ds_name=DEC_2000_SF3_U&-_lang=en&-_sse=on
US Data
http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/QTTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=01000US&-qr_name=DEC_2000_SF3_U_DP3&-ds_name=DEC_2000_SF3_U&-_lang=en&-redoLog=false&-_sse=on

Wow, the stats missed the major industry in Waller - farming/ranching. At 50 miles to downtown Houston carpooling is, well, non-existent.

Griggie does have a point. The people in Waller or any county outside heavily urbanized areas are presented with an undue hardship. No politician who supports "just get over it" will get their vote.