Addicted to Foreign Oil

woodruffhunter · Sep 4, 2006

First off, I support the majority of Bush's policies.

However, I would like to know what you think about this:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14668738/

Yes, I believe we are "addicted" to foreign oil. However, I do believe that our government could require all vehicles to get
better MPG. I don't see much of a change in MPG between now and
20 years ago.

I am NOT trying to make this a Democrat -VS- Republican thread. I am just wondering if you think we are capable of drastically improving MPG in all vehicles.

I for one believe the technology exists. Maybe I am wrong.

huntindude · Sep 4, 2006

Since oil is a commodity even if we produced all our domestic needs I don't see how it would effect the price much, it would still sell at world prices. I think MPG could be improved but I'm not going to drive a little econo box so it's probably like going on a diet, sounds like a good idea but hard to do. good thread though this issue is important, bio fuels might be part of the answer also.

Dmanmastertracker · Sep 4, 2006

I'm trying to figure out how just since last month when gas was a dollar higher in a lot of areas and it was blamed on a failing pipeline, how they managed to fix that pipeline in a week or two AND increase production that much? Especially when a minority of our oil comes from Alaska these days, less than 25 percent on average. Sorry, but that is not exactly a genious statement by GW, what do you do with addicts? Take away the addictive problem, in this case oil. Problem is, it was only being phrased that way because of the heat being put on the petroleum industry on pricing. It was meant to shift blame back to us for demand. I would rather hear something like; We (GOV) will strive to implement the latest technology in transportation fuels/ energy, with government subsidized loans, in order to eliminate our dependency on oil. We (GOV) will also offer NEW incentives to energy producers to development and implement this new technology.... -I wish I could say I believe this would happen soon...

woodruffhunter · Sep 4, 2006

Again, I am not intending to make this a "W" bashing thread. However, I believe the Government could mandate a required MPG on Suv's, Cars, Trucks. They do/did it for safety products (Airbags).

Some will say they are two total different situations. I agree they are but again, I absolutely believe the auto industry has the technology. Make them do it!

huntindude · Sep 4, 2006

I sure don't have the inside track on the auto industry but I can't see why they would hold it back, if Ford came out with a car that had 50% better economy they would have 99% of new car sales. the internal combustion engine has changed very little in the last 75 years, just an improved versions of the same old thing because I think they don't have anything else. hydrogen will be the next thing I'll bet but still the same old engine just a different fuel. who knows though I'm sure we don't hear it all.

257Tony · Sep 4, 2006

Cars nowadays do get better mileage. They also make LOTS more power using the same amount of fuel. SUre, you had cars in the late 60's putting out 400 hp, but they got single digit mileage. The new Mustangs/Corevettes/Firebirds, etc. make more power than that and can get 15+ mpg. So it has improved, but the base technology of move the car by exploding gas is the same......

ghost hunter · Sep 4, 2006

I think it would be nice that our Government took the time and effort to mandate better fuel economy, but WHY should they have to? The consumers should be demanding it and/or the car manufacturers should be suppling it without having to be made to. Makes you wonder why they have to be mandated all the time..?

But in reality, as long as the consumers keep using as much gas as we do, keep paying what we do, and all we do is grip and grumble, we are going to keep getting just what we have now.

TFinalshot · Sep 5, 2006

LAST EDITED ON Sep-05-06 AT 11:56AM (MST)[p]Yes, MPG could improve! However, most Americans are not willing to change their ways, therefore, at least in the near term, I would not hold out much hope, especially because in light of the annouciment of "new" oil found in the Gulf, said to be enough to double our reserves.

Back to auto standards. The standards are set on "fleets" and not individual vehicles. Each car producing company has to produce a number of vehicles that combined and averaged meet the standard. If they produce more SUV's that get 10 MPG, they produce fewer cars because two cars equals one SUV and they would prefer to build SUV because they are worth more money. It's an average based on the entire fleet.

However, they can produce more of a lower MPG vehicle (SUV's) by paying penalties. So long as the the fuel standards are based on fleets, we wont make much progress, people will just pay more and more for their vehicles.

In the near term, I believe the auto industry should produce more of the newer more efficient and clearer burning diesels. Most of Europe has done it. Changing fuel is difficult no matter what fuel we choose. In order to use a new fuel, and have an available means of useing it, would require retooling or changing processes and the refiners are reluctant to make any commitments towards new fuel or significant changes.

It's a chicken and egg thing. The car companies and engine builders don't want to ramp up production on new engines that require new or modified fuel and the refiners wont build new plants and the fuel retailers wont put in new pumps until there's enough demand for the fuel. . . I spent 1999 through 2001 in working in Washington DC for the Administrator responsible for implementation and oversight of fuel standards. This was an almost daily discussion then, and I don't think it has changed much since. . .

"Roadless areas, in general, represent some of the best fish and wildlife habitat on public lands. The bad news is that there is nothing positive about a road where fish and wildlife habitat are concerned -- absolutely nothing." (B&C Professor, Jack Ward Thomas, Fair Chase, Fall 2005, p.10).

202typical · Sep 5, 2006

I am all for more miles per gallon as long as I can get the same horsepower. Until then I will gladly pay for expensive fuels and do my part to ruin the planet.

sremim · Sep 5, 2006

LAST EDITED ON Sep-05-06 AT 02:36PM (MST)[p]I agree with ghost hunter, why should the government always have to do something? Why can't we (the people) demand it. If thats what we want, lets do something about it. It's amazing how everybody has to have someone hold there hand to get things done. Whoever develops a fuel that can produce the same performance of gas will be rich beyond there wildest dreams. So why does it have to be the government that does it? They wont get anything out of it. If people demanded automakers produce better MPG, or a different fuel, it will get done. Until then, people will keep paying, and keep b!tching on places like MM.

eelgrass · Sep 5, 2006

One of the best ways to decrease our dependancy on foreign oil would be to conserve as much as possible!

Oops, gotta run. The wife wants to jump into our 4X4 pick-up and run into town for an ice-cream cone. Later......!

Steve

Dmanmastertracker · Sep 5, 2006

THANKS EELGRASS!!

Where's my ice cream?
I just wanted to comment, the government essentially controlls the flow/ cost/ and distribution of petroleum either directly or indirectly and has helped the petroleum giants Exxon, Mobil, etc.. do this effectively in the Countries' interest. If you can't see that it would take government's involvement to make a major change like that your kidding yourself. There is NO PRIVATE ENTITY that could make it happen, no matter how much b!tch!ng happens on MM, or anywhere else. Now that we have this large, new potential Gulf reserve that will buy us more time, will we use it wisely?
I guess we'll see..

woodruffhunter · Sep 6, 2006

Sremin,

Calm down, I thought this would be an interesting subject. And yes, I CHOOSE to drive a diesel and drive more than most. YES I acknowledge the fact that I could do BETTER.

To say that it shouldn't be the Governments responsibility is correct to a certain degree IMO. However, they are elected to make CHANGES (at least that I what I hope for).

Yes, it is ultimately up to the consumers to make change and part of making changes is electing people who will do it.

For me, I hope that I will always make the right choice.

ELKMASTER101 · Sep 6, 2006

gas prices here have hit 2:18 and we are calling that cheep.
filling up all my units today for tonights trip.
figure it is still high out west.
bet it hits 1:90 here in 3 weeks.

Dmanmastertracker · Sep 7, 2006

Since we're on oil right now, here's latest polls on the "war on oil" I mean terror. Oops.

http://www.netscape.com/viewstory/2...06/ap_on_go_ot/terrorism_opinion_1&frame=true

202typical · Sep 7, 2006

I swear D you crack me up. CNN poll give me a break. The only thing not biased towards the left on that network is Glen Beck. Geez.

Look if the earth first, anti capitolist, anti establishment, tree hugger lobbyest nut jobs would let us we could tap our vast supply here at home, build more refineries and build the hell out of nuke plants. Our problem is we have let these nuts bully us into bad legislation.

Dmanmastertracker · Sep 7, 2006

True, I agree it would be the lesser of two evils to maximize production at home, but why just settle for the next best thing when we could be putting our resources into developing clean fuels that require a fraction of the raw petroleum? It can be done, look at Japan and Brazil.

huntindude · Sep 7, 2006

If the polls are not right why is Bush on an all out sales pitch for the war as of late? they know if they can't sell the voters soon they'll end up like Tony Blair, should be interesting the next few months.

202typical · Sep 7, 2006

Yep Dude only it looks to me like the conservatives are gaining ground as of late. The tide is turning in favor of Conservatives. Maybe it just due to the comming aniversary of 911 and folks know deep down the Libs are soft on terrorism and the war. You watch a conservative Dem like Lieberman running as an Independant is going to wipe the floor with his opponent come election time. We are doomed to defeat if Murtha, Pelosi, Wrangle get power. All cut and runners. Every single one of them.

huntindude · Sep 7, 2006

Did you look at the poll? cut and run or cut your loss, that's the question. more control is being given back to the Iraqi's as we speak, if they take the ball and run with it the president will have a stronger hand. if they drop the ball and it looks like just more of the same, things will get ugly.