What media bias?
So, Barack Down To Electric Avenue Obama made a pretty stupid statement about how properly inflated tires will lead to world peace, the cure for cancer, and an end to poverty and starvation. Oh, what’s that? I overstated his case? I see, so when the buffoons in the media understate his case so as not to make him sound like he actually has a grasp on reality, you’ll be there too, right?
August 8th, 2008 at 8:12 pm
How come there haven’t been any debates yet?
They were debating left and right.
I wanna see these people answer some questions and shit.
August 8th, 2008 at 11:15 pm
Hmmmm
“Electric Avenue”
Thanks for reminding me of this song. I’ve been wanting to listen to it again but couldn’t remember the name.
August 9th, 2008 at 11:35 am
This is your best middle name in a really long time.
As to Obama’s remark, it’s a lot closer to true than false. And while the media may not be calling him on the minor exaggeration, they’re also not calling McCain on pretending that this is the sum total of Obama’s energy policy.
Obama has at times just said inflating your tires, and at other times inflating your tires and keeping your vehicles properly tuned. The savings from the latter two combined would roughly match and probably exceed the amount what can be expected to be gained by drilling in the currently-unleased OCS areas. Oil shale can’t be used for gasoline, so that doesn’t count. And even if we were to open all these areas to drilling, there would simply be no significant effect on world oil prices, even ten years hence when they actually start producing oil.
August 10th, 2008 at 10:01 pm
TGirsch, discounting the shale is too clever by half. Shale oil can be used for diesel, but more importantly, to the extent it can be used for any use to which crude oil is currently put, it will result in net savings of crude. That’s all one can hope to accomplish by proper tire inflation, either. Surely you didn’t think that the air in the tire could be used to make gasoline.
Second, unless “they” was really code for “he,” i.e., McCain, ANWR should be counted as well.
Third, even with those two methodological thumbs on the scale, Obama’s tire inflation theory still falls short of the mark. The only reason it comes close is that the tire numbers are artificially high while the OCS estimates are artificially low. The tire inflation figures are high because they assume half of us are currently driving around on flats – a dubious assumption in my book (mine, FWIW, are slightly overinflated). The OCS estimates are artificially low because exploration has been banned there for some time. We don’t know how much undiscovered oil is sitting there, but it’s unrealistic to assume there is none.
Fourth, the notion that opening drilling won’t affect prices immediately doesn’t pass the laugh test. Ever heard of the law of supply and demand? Or wondered why gas prices have been tumbling ever since President Bush took the purely symbolic act of lifting the executive order against offshore drilling? Physical demand won’t be met for 10 years, of course, but the futures market is affected immediately.
Fifth, didn’t we have this same “let’s not do anything ‘cuz it won’t help us for 10 years” debate 10 years ago?
I do agree with you on one point, though: this is one of the best middle names we’ve seen in some time, possibly ever.
August 11th, 2008 at 2:26 pm
Yes, I’ve heard of the law of supply and demand. I fail to see how even the most optimistic projected increase in supply from the OCS and ANWR is going to make a dramatic difference. We currently export more oil than we would get from those two sources once they came on-line in a decade. (If we can sell oil overseas for more money than we can sell it domestically, how is additional domestic drilling going to change that equation?)
Oh, and for what it’s worth, the assertion that additional domestic drilling won’t dramatically affect world prices comes from a recent DOE report commissioned by that anti-drilling commie Ted Stevens (R-AK). It estimates the impact of opening ANWR (which the report was specifically addressing) as lowering prices by at most $1.44 per barrel in 2027. By today’s prices, that’s a whopping 1.3% reduction! Oooooh, I can just see OPEC shaking in their collective shoes!
Here are the facts as I see them:
– North America (including Mexico and Canada) only has about 5% of the world’s remaining oil reserves, while the Middle East has roughly 2/3 of the world’s oil.
– As long as we’re dependent upon oil, we’re going to be dependent on foreign oil — no amount of domestic drilling will substantially change that
– The reason there’s such a big push for more drilling isn’t to bring oil and gas prices down. They want to drill because prices are high, and because they expect them to stay that way. They want to drill because there’s a whole lot of money to be made doing so.
– All additional domestic drilling would accomplish is to postpone the inevitable.
But unlike many other liberals, I’m not wholly opposed to additional drilling. Given the right conditions, I’d give the go-ahead to explore additional domestic resources, including such places as ANWR. But “the right conditions” would include coupling the exploration with efficiency mandates, a moratorium on exporting domestically-produced oil (unless, by some miracle, domestic production significantly exceeds domestic use), etc.
August 11th, 2008 at 2:27 pm
I will say this, however: it would be interesting for some enterprising somebody to go to, say, a mall parking lot, and check the tire pressure on a random sampling of cars to see just how many are actually underinflated.