I guess it takes a PhD to come up with a term like “pornographic profits”.

Sorry to burst your bubble, Doctor, but conservation alone won’t solve our energy deficict. What we need is action to reverse the decline in US energy production that’s been taking place over the last few decades, thanks in large part to those beknighted environmentalists. We need to start building nuclear power plants, clean coal plants, and start drilling for oil in ANWR, and our coastal waters.

I don’t believe we can become energy independent, barring future development of an economically viable alternative fuel, but we could at least add to global supplies and ease the upward pressure on oil prices.

By the way, since you live in St Charles and write about driving on several highways, does this mean you moved West and are now forced to DRIVE greater distances to shop or work? Following your conservation creed, shouldn’t everyone who lives more than a short distance from their employer (or mass transit like MetroLink) move to cut their commute and thus save energy? It’s the patriotic thing to do.

Anyone who believes that the oil companys would lower the cost of gas if they were allowed to drill offshore or in Anwar should just stand on their head and spin. I have three thoughts for you. Conservation, alternative methods and more fuel efficient vehicles. Wake up America. The days of cheap energy are over.

Follow D Walker and Lisa 12’s advice and government will control every thing from cradle to grave,but they will cut down considerably on the time between,and what time you have will be as a robot,so be sure to vote Communist-Democrat
LS

Folks, we’ve been through this before. A generation ago we had gas lines, darkened streets, increased prices, and energy blackmail. The Spendocrats and Republicants postured, accused, and excused until the country adjusted and then went back to business as usual. Ideology trumps reason and party trumps nation on these pages just as it does in D.C. Alone, conservation, increased domestic production, alternative fuels, and renewable sources will not solve the crisis. All together, they are a start. France gets 80 percent of its electricity from nuclear power. Brazil just completed a twenty year program toward energy independence. China and Cuba have signed agreements to begin drilling for oil just over the horizon from Florida. Yet, the best we can do in the USA is play partisan “gotcha” with this critical issue. Just as George Washington warned, partisan politics has ruined our ability to govern ourselves. Too bad.

Fortunately, a few people are doing what Dr. Cusumano describes: driving slower or less. The problem is that it is just a few. There has been a measurable decline in US oil/gas usage in the past couple of months, but this is a very small drop. Higher gas prices have had some effect on demand, as the free-marketers on these blogs would suggest. If these high prices continue for a few years, the effect on our fuel demand will be more significant, as SUV’s become less common & greater thought is given to modes/methods of transportation. This will still only have a limited effect on our overall oil needs. Government action is necessary to build & promote mass transit options and promote development of alternative fuels. Why are the conservatives so rabidly opposed to public investment in alternative fuels, but completely supportive of public support of oil & gas exploration?? The large oil corporations are the most profitable companies in the history of the world, but they can’t continue their business without subsidies?? Why can’t we collect the royalties they owe for taking oil from public lands? They have been given a free ride as they rise to the absolute top of the stock exchanges! They can stand on their own feet for a while while we give a boost to the upstart companies who are trying to find sustainable alternatives to meet our needs.

Dr. Cusumano’s Ph.D. is obviously not in logic or economics. His statement that, “So for each tank of gas, I am gaining 50 miles of free driving. After six 10-gallon fill ups, I have gained 300 miles. Therefore, my 7th tank of gas, at $40, is “free,” is the most illogical statement that I have read on these blogs in some time. The fallacy of Dr. Cusumano’s statement lies in his assertion that his 7th tank of gas is “free”. In fact his 7th tank of gas was not “free,” but $40. What I mean is that the good doctor’s 7th tank of gas did not magically appear in his gas tank. He paid for it.

In the true sense of economics what the doctor did achieve is greater utility for each tank of gas through improved fuel efficiency. But each tank of gas is still $40.

By the way, gas just hit $4 a gallon in the St. Louis yesterday. Has Dr. Cusumano been getting his gas in Illinois for the last month?

Mombo, I agree. Time to end welfare for oil companies!

I’ve been pondering this thought: Maybe our favorite Alaska expert can verify whether this is accurate or not. Bear with me, this may take some space

I was pondering the mineral rights leases that various owners have on Federal (public) land. In other words, I own a piece of that land. It’s my understanding that every Alaskan citizen gets a royalty check annually from the Alaskan state government for their share of the oil leases at Prudhoe Bay and other locations. In other words, in Alaska, they really do understand that the public lands in that state (and there is a LOT of public land in Alaska) belong to the citizens of that state.

By extension, then, shouldn’t there be a change in the law that requires the leaseholders to pay a market value for their mineral leases on public land in the lower 48? And that I (and you) would then be able to truly profit from the exploitation of those mineral leases?

I wonder what something like THAT would do to the federal treasury?

I agree with some of the other comments here: The near complete lack of long term planning and long term thinking is what has gotten us ‘here’ on the subject of gas and energy pricing. I also agree with the sentiment that, for the most part, prices aren’t really high enough to hurt enough to lead us to really change our habits. Does that mean I WANT to see $10 gas? Not at all. It does mean, however, that it might have to actually get there to wake us up enough to actually behave differently.

buddy, don’t be dissin’ our fine professor here. His use of quotation marks around the word “free” regarding his 7th tank of gas shows his proper understanding of both logic & economics. He could have just have easily said that his last 300 miles of driving were “free”. Both statements would mean essentially the same thing, and clearly make his point that changing your driving habits can easily save significant gas & money. This is what is referred to as the “low hanging fruit” of energy conservation. Things such as this can be done immediately & with relatively little or no expense to implement.

hs-
I’m certainly no expert on this, but you’ve touched on one of the big debates Congress has had in the past year. Oil drillers have agreed to, as part of their leases on public lands, pay the government with “in-kind” payments. What this means, as far as I understand, is that they are to give a certain amount of the oil they extract to the government as payment for the access to lands. This oil can be sold at a market rate or used to fill up our National Petroleum Reserve (in Louisiana salt mines). These payments have been forgiven for a number of years for many companies (called “royalty relief”). The Republicans have forcefully argued that we should not ask oil companies to pay for access to public lands. This is part of the “big oil subsidy” that is referred to so often.