13 May 2004 | monkeyinabox said...

Seriously I wish I could run my car on Milk. it would be cheaper. I think it's getting closer to beer everyday.

13 May 2004 | Don Schenck said...

The price of oil HAS to plummet ... after all ... the war was about getting cheap oil, right?

13 May 2004 | conspiracy theorist said...

Don, you know the White House has purposely waxed palms to keep oil prices high just so they can throw off the "No Blood For Oil" people off.

13 May 2004 | but that's just me said...

Hehehehe...

13 May 2004 | Don Schenck said...

Sheesh ... WHAT was I thinking?

13 May 2004 | Jonny Roader said...

"The price of oil HAS to plummet ... after all ... the war was about getting cheap oil, right?"

Give it time. The Iraqi oil industry was poorly run before the war, let alone now.

Still, it should be up-and-running pretty soon the amount of cash Bush's mates will make from it all. And I'm sure we can rely on the fact that the US military was extra-careful not to mistakenly bomb oil installations. ;)

13 May 2004 | Jonny Roader said...

Seriously:

Why are oil prices so high?

13 May 2004 | Rob said...

I think its time to buy a Toyota Prius.

13 May 2004 | Bryan said...

The Prius that averaged 35 mpg, much less than Toyota's respective EPA estimates of 47 and 60 mpg?

13 May 2004 | Eamon said...

I imagine Rob means this Prius-- the one that achieved 44 mpg and "the best results ever recorded by Consumer Reports for a 5-passenger vehicle".

Speaking of which, you can compare more apples to apples at Consumer Reports' 2004 fuel-efficiency chart.

13 May 2004 | Geoffrey said...

I think prices should stay this high. Makes people think twice about driving. $40 for a barrel of crude oil? So much cheaper than water.

13 May 2004 | Adam said...

Not to throw this off topic but milk prices are also rising, at least in my area. (Southeastern MA and RI) A while back there was a surplus and prices were extremely cheap. (Much in the same way gas was, before the hikes started which I recall was when Clinton was still in office.) Farmers began selling their cattle for meat because they were too expensive to keep around. Then the prices adjusted and now we don't have enough cattle for the supply. Prices are reaching almost $4.00 depending on the area and the store.

14 May 2004 | David B said...

You Americans have it so easy! In the UK, Petrol prices are three times higher that what you pay in the states. Stop complaining.

14 May 2004 | stone said...

Authorities in Massachusetts are attempting to upgrade the crime of pumping-then-running from theft to larcency. Apparently it's increased 10% since the price hikes.

14 May 2004 | Don Schenck said...

I am TOTALLY against the law changes as in Massachusetts. Why do gas stations get special laws? Isn't retail theft retail theft?

If they're THAT concerned, let the stations pump the gas like the good ol' days. I'm tired of getting my hands dirty and smelly. And I can't even FIND a full service pump in my area. Sheesh.

14 May 2004 | Don Schenck said...

And I'm sure we can rely on the fact that the US military was extra-careful not to mistakenly bomb oil installations. ;)

Typical "American can't win" logic there. We refrain from bombing their infrastructure so they can rebuild and recover faster, and we're somehow after their oil.

We do bomb it, and we're damned for ruining their chances at rebuilding and recovering.

*sheesh*

The Third Way: We never should have gone in in the first place. But then how would we stop the WMD that John Kerry and the U.N. said were there? And how about the Hussein-Al Quaida connection? Who would have stopped that?

14 May 2004 | Darrel said...

I'm all for higher gas and milk prices. It's really hard to bitch about $2/gallon gas when I'm paying $1/16oz for water. ;o)

(insert my new 37sig sig/request...)
Can you get the Firefox, can't-scroll-left-to-see-rest-of-SVN-bug fixed? You need to give your body a min-width = to the width of the container DIV (min-width: 766px).

14 May 2004 | Darrel said...

"how about the Hussein-Al Quaida connection"

I missed that one. Have we decided there was a connection?

14 May 2004 | Jonny Roader said...

Just messin' with ya, Don. All the same, I bet they *were* extra careful with the old daisy-cutters around the oil pumps.

For the record, who gives a shit if Kerry thought that WMD existed? Turns out that we probably should've been listening to Hans Blix if anyone. The point is: we were conned. You said the same yourself a while back.

As for the Iraq-Al-Qaeda link...I trust you have evidence?

14 May 2004 | Darrel said...

"For the record, who gives a shit if Kerry thought that WMD existed?"

Ironically, who gives a shit about Kerry?

No one. This election really has nothing to do with Kerry. It's pretty much "bush" vs. "no bush". The Dem's could have run a monkey and will do just as well. ;o)

(Going way off track...I really wish the Dem's had nominated McCain ;o)

14 May 2004 | Don Schenck said...

Quoting a recent article by Ann Coulter:

Last year papers were found in Iraqi intelligence headquarters documenting Saddam's feverish efforts to establish a working relationship with al-Qaida. In response to Iraq's generous invitation to pay all travel and hotel expenses, a top aide to Osama bin Laden visited Iraq in 1998, bearing a message from bin Laden. The meeting went so well that bin Laden's aide stayed for a week. Iraq intelligence officers sent a message back to bin Laden, the documents note, concerning "the future of our relationship."

14 May 2004 | Darrel said...

"by Ann Coulter"

Don, be serious. If we're taking Coulter's word as evidence enough to bomb Iraq, then we really should be bombing ourselves considerting Moore's evidence of the ties between the Bush family and the Bin Ladens.

14 May 2004 | Don Schenck said...

Darrel, you're funny. You toss out a fact just because Ann Coulter reports it?

Okay, how about the Houston Chronicle? Or is that a Conservative newspaper. I know, let's just toss out anything we don't agree with, fair enough?

Sheesh.

Bush family has links to Bin Laden -- big frickin' deal! If you remember, Osama's own family disowned him (or the other way around?). You get high enough in an industry (oil, in this case) and you get "ties" to everyone else. Heck, I have "ties" to a family whose son is in jail because of a shooting ... does that make me somehow culpable?

Fact is, there are those who are *always* against *any* military action. Just admit that much and quit trying to paint yourself as anything different (if that is the case in your case).

14 May 2004 | Darrel said...

"You toss out a fact just because Ann Coulter reports it?"

No. I do question a lot more seroiusly than if it weren't her, but that's not the point I was trying to make. Saddam had ties to Osama as much as the Bush clan did.

"Bush family has links to Bin Laden -- big frickin' deal!"

Saddam has links to Bin Laden -- big frickin' deal!

14 May 2004 | Jonny Roader said...

"Last year papers were found in Iraqi intelligence headquarters documenting Saddam's feverish efforts to establish a working relationship with al-Qaida."

Colin Powell displayed satellite imagery of trucks loaded with WMD to the UN. Turned out to be bollocks. And you present Coulter's 'papers found in Iraqi HQ' as evidence of 'feverish' Al-Qaeda activity? Sheesh. Haven't we been down this half-assed 'believe us, we're really honest' road before? Don't you think that the world is learning *not* to trust what you say?

14 May 2004 | Eamon said...

Wow. I've never actually seen someone quote Ann Coulter with a straight face.

Anyway, Ms. Coulter's bit there is actually a rehash of Hayes' argument made in The Weekly Standard last September. The general consensus is that the case is less than rock-solid. A response to this alleged connection can be found in a November Newsweek piece:

But, as Vince Cannistraro, a former CIA counterterrorism official, says, the Feith-Carney memo omits the rest of the story: that bin Laden actually rejected the Hijazi overture, concluding he did not want to be exploited by a regime that he has consistently viewed as secular and fundamentally antithetical to his vision of a strict Islamic state.

There is, moreover, compelling reason to believe bin Laden clung to this view as late as this year when Bush administration officials were making no secret of their plans to invade Iraq and topple Saddam. In a Feb. 11, 2003, audiotape released by Al-Jazeera, a voice believed to be bin Laden called on Arabs to rise up and strike at the U.S. invadersa declaration that contributed to a Bush administration decision to ratchet up the countrys threat level at the time. But, less well publicized, bin Laden emphasized in the same tape his interest was in defending the Iraqi people, not an infidel like Saddam.

14 May 2004 | Jonny Roader said...

"...less than rock-solid"

And certainly not enough to justify a war.

Can someone point me to Coulter's article, please? I'm hoping that it isn't going to turn out to be what I suspect it might: the latest retrospective attempt to find a causus belli.

14 May 2004 | Eamon said...

Anyway, I drive a Prius and will be installing rooftop solar panels later this summer. So I say put up or shut up, lefty bastards.

14 May 2004 | Jonny Roader said...

"Anyway, I drive a Prius and will be installing rooftop solar panels later this summer. So I say put up or shut up, lefty bastards."

And I don't drive at all, so I couldn't give a fig about the price of petrol. :)

14 May 2004 | but that's just me said...

A place where you don't have to drive is foreign to those of us in Texas, at least here in Houston. We're pretty much SOL when it comes to gas because everything is at least 20 miles away from everything else. Even if you are fortunate enough to live close enough to a destination to walk or ride a bike, you end up suffering from heat stroke due to our lovely tropical climate. On top of that, it floods so often here that you either buy a truck or SUV to get through flood waters or expect your little car to suffer flood damage pretty much every time it rains. And public transportation? Practically non-existent. To top it all off, I have two kids under five in toe. Spending $40 a week on gas sucks, but some of us don't have much of a choice.

14 May 2004 | Darrel said...

"Spending $40 a week on gas sucks, but some of us don't have much of a choice."

Don't live in Texas? ;o)

14 May 2004 | ML said...

Tangent: So ya get a tax break for buying a Prius. Nice. But I don't drive a car at all...how come I don't get a tax break?

14 May 2004 | but that's just me said...

I actually wish I had that choice, too, Darrel. I'm originally from Chicago where my family is and would love to move back up. Unfortunately, I'm divorced and I don't want to take my kids away from their dad. Ah well...you reap what you sow.

ML...good point. There probably should be a tax break for that. But how do you prove it to the IRS?

14 May 2004 | Don Schenck said...

ML -- I know the feeling. I worked for a company where they came up with the idea to give people something like $5 per pound for losing weight within a time period -- 16 weeks?

I complained that I was being discriminated against, since I'm not a lazy fat ass to begin with. They got mad at me.

Bastards.

14 May 2004 | dsiv said...

Tangent: So ya get a tax break for buying a Prius. Nice. But I don't drive a car at all...how come I don't get a tax break?

I suppose you could look at car registration fees as a tax that non-drivers do not have to pay. On the other hand, the registration fees, at least in WA State, are pretty tiny relative to the cost of a car.

It kind of makes me think about the inherent unfairness of any tax code. In a perfect world we'd all pay according to our income and our usage of utilities/services. Unfortunately, since those things cannot be accurately measured we end up being taxed by a system that uses metrics that might not truly reflect reality.

A hypothetical example: would it be fair for a prius driver who commutes 50 miles a day to recieve a green tax break while a owner of a Ford F150 who rides his bike to work every day is paying a gas guzzler tax?

That being said I still think that tax breaks for hybrids are a good idea...

15 May 2004 | I wonder said...

Think the gas prices will go down around election time?

17 May 2004 | Dan said...

Gas prices will stay high, and get higher, in fact, because the golden age of hydrocarbons is ending. The phenomenom is called "Hubbert's Peak" and it refers to the way that oil deposits dry up. To say that we have a 60-year supply of oil (just for argument) doesn't mean that you can keep sucking increasing amounts out of the ground for that period. Oil wells peak, plateau, then decline in production as the deposits fill with water and the oil becomes harder to extract. The people who really know this stuff are saying that the peak is either here, now, or it's due before 2010. It's also well known (or at least it's becoming so) that the "reserves" quoted by the House of Saud and the big oil companies are hugely optimistic.

IMO, the Bush II administration has telegraphed its belief in Hubbert's Peak by 1. invading a country that has fully 10% of the world's known reserves; 2. lobbying hard for drilling in ANWR, the benefits of which won't come for another decade, just in time to be very valuable; 3. refusing to dip into the Strategic Reserve, which is earmarked for military and (I assume) agricultural use.

It sucks, but the good times couldn't last forever.

Dan

17 May 2004 | Dan said...

Sorry, bit of a slip. My *personal* belief is that the Strategic Reserve is earmarked for military use; officially it is to provide a buffer against import interruptions, protecting prices for all uses, including retail. But it's only for 60 days, which is, like, useless.

Dan

17 May 2004 | Don Schenck said...

We're about out of oil? That's just crazy.

Canada has 15 percent MORE oil reserves than Saudi Arabia, and is just starting to tap into their reserves.

There is *plenty* of oil left on this planet (which I feel is probably bad in the long run).

17 May 2004 | Brad Hurley said...

But I don't drive a car at all...how come I don't get a tax break?

You don't have to pay auto insurance, gasoline, or repairs; that's enough of a break for anyone.

On the Prius: there are several cars that get very good mileage that are much more affordable than the Prius, such as the Echo (which last time I checked got something like 45 mpg). Check out www.fueleconomy.gov to find the most economical models. I do find it heartening that there is so much demand for the hybrids, though...I just read this morning that Ford already has more than 30,000 advance orders for the Escape hybrid, when they had only planned to produce 20,000 of them a year. And demand for the Prius has far outstripped Toyota's expectations. With demand like that, other automakers are starting to see hybrids as a potentially profitable venture and we'll doubtless start seeing a lot more choice of hybrid models in a few years.

On oil reserves: there are lots of conflicting estimates out there; you have to be sure you're distinguishing just plain reserves from reserves that can be profitably tapped. There's some oil in the ground that's just not worth getting, although as prices go up the economics start to change.

On benefits for people who drive less and/or who buy a more efficient car: some insurance companies are experimenting with variations on the concept of pay-as-you-drive insurance, which reduces your premium based on the number of miles you drive each year. GMAC Insurance recently partnered with OnStar to offer something like that. Also, some states have experimented with the concept of feebates, in which people who buy a fuel-efficient car get a rebate on their registration fee, while those who buy a guzzler have to pay a surcharge. The revenue collected from the surcharges is used to fund the rebates; it's effectively a revenue-neutral tax. Cool concept; automakers have long opposed it, but with the growing demand for hybrids they might start changing their tune.

17 May 2004 | Brad Hurley said...

oh, and one more thought: if you have enough money to buy a Prius, it might be worth asking yourself which would benefit the environment more in the long run: buying a Prius or buying an Echo and donating the difference in price (which is probably close to $10K) to efforts to change the political leadership in the United States?

17 May 2004 | Darrel said...

"Canada has 15 percent MORE oil reserves than Saudi Arabia, and is just starting to tap into their reserves."

A lot of the oil in Canada is very hard to get at. Well, hard isn't the right word...expensive. So, it will get tapped, but, obviously, it will only get tapped when the price is high enough to justify the expense of getting it.

And there is simply no excuse for digging in the ANWR, but that's another debate.

(insert my new 37sig sig/request...)
Can you get the Firefox, can't-scroll-left-to-see-rest-of-SVN-bug fixed? You need to give your body a min-width = to the width of the container DIV (min-width: 766px).

17 May 2004 | Dan said...

A lot of the oil in Canada is very hard to get at. Well, hard isn't the right word...expensive.

That's right. Oil shales and sands. We may never "run out" of petroleum but it will eventually become uneconomic for wide use.

Hydrogen faces the same problem, incidentally. H is the most common element in the universe, sure, but H2 is not, and it's not free to create. You can crack it out of a hydrocarbon like methane or petroleum (or coal!) or you can get it by electrolysis from water -- which, of course, takes electricity, which is generated by burning gas, petroleum, or coal.

There's no free lunch.

Dan

17 May 2004 | Darrel said...

We may never "run out" of petroleum but it will eventually become uneconomic for wide use.

Which, to get egocentric, is a bummer, as I have relatives with fields full of crops and patches of dead, oil-leached soil in Manitoba. ;o)

and it's not free to create

Though there are two 'almost-free' methods:

- Iceland's geothermal energy
- Solar (namely WIND power)

An interesting stat I heard recently was that Texas has more Wind tourbines than any other state...but it's still less wind tourbines that the state had at the turn of the century. (Ironically, we had wind power figured out a century ago...we just got sidetracked with this oil thing ;o)

17 May 2004 | ek said...

Hey Eamon, great to see you on here again!

Just wondering, what kind of mileage have you been getting with your Prius? And you have the previous body-style, is that correct?

Finally, can you provide any more detail on those roof-top solar panels you mentioned? They sound very interesting.