Why is gas so expensive in Europe? How much of European foreign policy has been about keeping cheap oil flowing? How much effort are European and other advanced industrial nations devoting to moving away from oil dependence?

You point that high European gas prices spurring development of alternatives, however, ignores that a lot of that much higher price comes from taxes. Also known as government interference. So are you advocating a 60% or more tax at the pump?

One additional point, we had a crisis in the 70’s. Various efforts were started and they all slowed when oil became cheaper. Now we are in trouble again, new efforts are spurred. If oil becomes cheaper are we going to repeat the cycle forever?

Ok, J’s almost there. Why is gas (over) $7 a gallon in Europe?

You don’t have to tell me twice. I’m all for putting an end to all subsidies.

It’s not like reducing our dependence on oil would pay any dividends like stabilizing our energy supply and making us more resistant to the vagaries of the oil market.

Reducing our dependence on oil is not going to be driven by anything other than the market and we’re starting to see that now. Try and think like the average person for a moment instead of a partisan Democrat. What incentive is there for a person to want to go a different way when oil prices were cheap? Hell, there was no effect on our consumption of gas even when it started hitting $3.00 a gallon. Now that it is $4.00 a gallon and more, people are paying attention.

Look at the market Jay. How are those US auto makers doing now that they are playing catch up to foreign car makers that have been making more fuel efficient cars for years?

Yeah. Precisely. THE MARKET. It’s a wonderful thing. US automakers were more than happy to focus on the SUV and truck market for the last 10 years while continuing to put out crappy passenger cars and lagging behind in the hybrid market (focusing STILL on trucks instead of cars) and now they’re paying the price. I bought my first Honda a year ago and I can say that as it stands now, I won’t own another domestic car ever again.

It’s the same thing that will be happening 10 years from now when our chief economic (Europe) rivals have energy markets less vulnerable to shifts in the world oil price because they are developing alternative energy sources now.

Their market forced them into doing that. Europeans were paying $7.00 a gallon for gas when we were at $2.50 a gallon.

As for the oil companies, it’s they’re easy targets. But the fact of the matter is, their profit margins are only slightly higher than the average of the S&P 500. In addition, much of that money they get is pumped right back into the economy with dividends, employment and capital investment. End the subsidies, yes. But give the “windfall profits tax” nonsense a rest.

But that’s OK. It’s not like reducing our dependence on oil would pay any dividends like stabilizing our energy supply and making us more resistant to the vagaries of the oil market.

Look at the market Jay. How are those US auto makers doing now that they are playing catch up to foreign car makers that have been making more fuel efficient cars for years?

It’s the same thing that will be happening 10 years from now when our chief economic (Europe) rivals have energy markets less vulnerable to shifts in the world oil price because they are developing alternative energy sources now.

We do? I thought we were big-government tax-and-spend liberals. We caterwaul in favor of giveaways and subsidies. Rush told me so.

Well after reading your comment, I’m not hoping. I’m convinced.

It’s the same old nonsense. “Oh the big mean Republicans don’t want to ‘invest’ in alternatives.” Give me a huge break. You people go on and on caterwauling endlessly about government “giveaways” and “subsidies.” Who do you think is going to be the beneficiary of these “investments?” Some pimply faced teenage whiz kid who discovered how to make a scooter run using day old cooking oil?

As for those “investments”, those ethanol subsidies worked out perfectly didn’t they? Lets pay ‘farmers’ like Archers Daniel Midland not to grow corn. Perfect!

Here’s an idea and I know that it might sound foreign to you, but why not let the market work? Demand, though declining slowly, will continue to drop. People are already looking for ways to cut down on driving. MSNBC has a story that shows gas prices are influencing where people buy their homes. More and more people are getting rid of their huge SUV’s and getting vehicles that are more fuel efficient. Auto makers are responding by moving more quickly to develop vehicles that will run on something other than conventional gasoline. These things take time, but they do work. We don’t need the government to “invest” (ie spend and waste money) in these technologies.

Opening of ANWR to oil and gas development includes the following impacts:
Reducing the U.S. dependence on imported foreign oil;
Improving the U.S. balance of trade;
Extending the life of TAPS for oil;
Increasing U.S. jobs; and
Reducing world oil prices.

The remainder of this section focuses primarily on the first three impacts, because the employment impacts are difficult to determine and are not within the realm of EIA’s expertise and because the impact on world oil prices is not expected to be significant. With respect to the world oil price impact, ANWR coastal plain oil production in 2025 projected to constitute between 0.5 to 1.3 percent of total world oil consumption. (Emphasis added–QIB)

In the first point, “reducing” is used in a somewhat controversial sense. The percentage of oil the U.S. imports from overseas will increase between now and 2025 whether we drill ANWR or not; the rate of increase will be slightly diminished by the availability of ANWR oil. However, as we know, in the Republican lexicon, it’s unfair to call this a “cut” in oil imports.

Of course you’re right. But my answer to your question is that I find it always more effective to expose people on their terms than one’s own. I was hoping for the best argument that the pro-drill lobby would make, because if it’s true that there’s already a ton of unexplored and available sites (I have yet to check out Duros’ link) then I can’t even fathom a coherent argument in favor of opening ANWR. I’m no economist but that part of the argument seems at least somewhat debatable, relative certainly to the willful ignoring of the other sites.

The US Energy Information Administration said the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge — which is currently off-limits to drilling — would likely produce 2.6 bn barrels of oil between 2018 and 2030 if it were allowed to be produced.
The start date of 2018 was set on the assumption that a law would be passed this year opening up the refuge. The report said production would start to decline after 2030. The refuge would produce 780,000 bpd in 2027, declining to 710,000 bpd in 2030, according to the agency’s mean projection.

Opening the area would cut the price of oil by 75 cents a barrel, according to the mean estimate.

emphasis mine.

http://www.gasandoil.com/goc/frame_ntn_news.htm

US military launches alternate-fuel push

by Yochi J. Dreazen

22-05-08 With fuel prices soaring, the US military, the country’s largest single consumer of oil, is turning into an alternative-fuels pioneer. In March, Air Force Capt. Rick Fournier flew a B-1 stealth bomber code-named Dark 33 across this sprawling proving ground, to confirm for the first time that a plane could break the sound barrier using synthetic jet fuel. A similar formula — a blend of half-synthetic and half-conventional petroleum — has been used in some South African commercial airliners for years, but never in a jet going so fast.

http://www.gasandoil.com/goc/news/ntn44964.htm

If we drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge/Gwich’in Holy Lands and get all that delicious oil to the marketplace, how will OPEC respond? Will they inclined to produce more oil, or less oil?

Why not? Profit is a powerful motivator. If ANWR is open to drilling, it will be profitable.

Now, you’re getting it.

Will increasing the supply of oil by drilling ANWR increase the market supply of oil faster than demand will rise?

What about all the other drill sites already permitted that aren’t being exploited? 25 Billion barrels offshore…

Why isn’t reducing demand a much better solution?

If all of this is so, why would they fight so hard over one more? And not the ‘they’re greedy fat cats’ answer; what possible argument could they offer? That doesn’t seem to make much sense.