(Advertisement)

No Excuse For America’s Oil Burden

UNITED STATES’ IMPORT PROBLEMS NOT CAUSED BY SHORTAGE OF DOMESTIC OIL PRODUCTION

By Art Hobson

Posted: September 25, 2011 at 4:51 a.m.

America’s oil imports burden us with enormous environmental, social, strategic, financial and political costs. During the 2000-09 decade, we paid $1.7 trillion, or 30 percent of that decade’s trade deficit, for foreign oil. Oil imports exceeded 60 percent of total oil consumption every year since 2000.

This story is only available from the archives. Click here to contact the online desk.

Opinion, Pages 13 on 09/25/2011

(Advertisement)



« Previous Story

We All Have Different Views Of The Truth

President Barack Obama came out with guns a blazin’ last week and offered a 10-year plan to cut the debt by $3.3 trillion. Sounds good to me. He’s proposing $1.1 trillion i... Read »

Next Story »

We Are Not Ourselves Anymore

We’re not Louisiana, which, except for culinary considerations usually and football ones in some years, is probably a good thing. Read »

Comments

To report abuse or misuse of this area please hit the "Suggest Removal" link in the comment to alert our online managers. Please read our comment policy.

Hobson: "And larger distances dictate neither road vehicle efficiencies nor use of nonautomobile transportation modes (walking, bicycle, bus, train), and theseissues account for most of America’s inferior performance."

The US has 84 people per square mile. The French have 289. And yet this difference has no meaning in this argument? Tell that to someone in Montana who has to drive 75 miles to get groceries.

As for the diesel vs. gas argument, "Make no mistake: the price of the raw gas is about the same as the U.S., but Europe taxes gasoline at a higher rate. At the moment, taxes in France make up about 70 percent of the pump price. For comparison, the U.S. federal gasoline tax of of 2005 was 18.4 cents per gallon, with each State adding between 10 and 33 cents of tax, according to Wikipedia. That makes the maximum gasoline tax rate 17% in the U.S."

So if one taxes the undesired, then the alternative is much more attractive. Art, you should really tell the whole story here when presenting your case. There is always a reason why things are the way they are...

On the high-speed rail issue, again, we have a population density much different than your idealogic quotations:

Germany - 609/sq mi
Switzerland - 490
Britain - 650
South Korea - 1288
Taiwan - 1849
Italy - 512
Japan - 836
China - 365

US - 84

High Speed rail from Bozeman to Orlando is not going to reduce our energy consumption. We need to get the federal government out of the way and drill here and now. There is a well going in between Key West and Cuba that was announced this week. Guess who is drilling where we dare not? The Spaniards:

http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/09/19...

And we don't have a supply problem? The US government is the largest landowner in the US, and the most protectionist in terms of exploration and drilling. We create our own high energy prices by poor legislative decisions based on a minority left. That changes in 14 months....

Posted by: commonsense96

September 25, 2011 at 5:22 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

The article Art refers to can be read here:

"Vaclav Smil: “America’s Oil Imports: A Self-Inflicted Burden"

http://www.vaclavsmil.com/wp-content/...

Now "Com" and this density confusion again:

COM: "Tell that to someone in Montana...">>

Had you read carefully you would have noticed that Dr. Hobson *specifically* addressed this:

"...nobody is talking about links between, say, Miami and Seattle, or Boston and Los Angeles.
America has several urbanized regions..."

COM: "if one taxes the undesired, then the alternative is much more attractive."

In a nutshell yes, precisely. Very good! Tax the dumb, reward the smart. Result = less dumb, more smart outcomes.

COM: "we have a population density much different than your idealogic quotations:">>

Actually, we don't. Here is the answer I gave you last time you floated this when the issue was NWA.

FLASHBACK:
***
"Again, we are not talking about Wyoming here but rather the NWA region which has a population of 464,623 [2009], and a population density of
"1,336.6 people per square mile."

Here is a density map of Germany: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pop...

Notice that at least 95% of Germany has a lower density of pop. than Fayetteville. (the country has 609 people per sq. mile).
***

And do we have regions with higher pop. density per square mile than NWA? Of course. Vastly higher. Consider the following, and this isn't cherry picking regions (which would be *many* times higher) but rather averages of entire states:

New Jersey -- 1,196
Massachusetts -- 839.4
Connecticut -- 738.1
Maryland -- 594.8
New York -- 411.2
Florida -- 350.6
Pennsylvania -- 283.9
Ohio -- 282.3
California -- 239.1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_...

So we see Hobson is exactly right, and using your own standard of comparing numbers to European density rates, America easily qualifies as having many areas ripe for the profound benefits and efficient use of energy provided by mass transit.

Or we can wait for the electric cars (keeping the congestion and road cost). Either way, the Hummer days are over. Those are doomed and headed for the crusher.

D.
------------
"The National Academy of Sciences says that this level [40 MPG] is not even technically achievable."
-- Vice President Dan Quayle arguing against suggestions to raise fuel efficiency standards for American automobiles.

Why are conservatives so consistently on the wrong side of "commonsense?"

Posted by: fayfreethinker

September 25, 2011 at 8:37 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

"'"The National Academy of Sciences says that this level [40 MPG] is not even technically achievable."
-- Vice President Dan Quayle arguing against suggestions to raise fuel efficiency standards for American automobiles."
In 1960, When I was going to school at KU,one of my classmates, a mechanical engineering major, was driving an Oldsmobile 98, getting 75 mpg with a carburetor he built himself. He became very wealthy before graduating when a petroleum company bought the carburetor and shelved it.
We could do as it is done in India: drive cars using methane for fuel that are produced by Ford and Chevrolet. This from a citizen of Nepal, here on a student visa.
I wonder what kind of foot print on the ecosystem is made when an electric car is produced, as opposed to gasoline or methane?

Posted by: Oldearkie

September 25, 2011 at 9:35 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

You might be thinking of this classic, Oldarkie:

http://www.snopes.com/autos/business/...

It's *extremely* (understatement) unlikely anyone could get this mileage out of a Olds '98, all fiddling with the carburetor included. A certain amount of energy is just lost to heat when fuel is combusted. That only leaves a certain amount left over to do work. Fifty years later we have learned a lot and even with regen brakes, special motor, electric assist, much better wind dynamics etc, a Prius (much smaller and lighter) struggles to get around 50 miles out of a gallon. These high mileage stores are very much stories (with an oil company conspiracy on top).

Oldark: "what kind of foot print on the ecosystem is made when an electric car is produced...">>

There are a lot of myths about that too. It depends on the battery technology. Speaking of the Prius (which uses NiMH batteries), the pack only weighs 115 pounds and could fit in a back pack. It should last about 200,000 miles (2% failure rate at 150k), and is completely recyclable.

"NiMH (Nickel Metal Hydride) of the battery-pack is a environmentally benign substance. It can be recycled too. In fact, the guarantee for recycling is rather high since nickel is a valuable metal. Toyota even offers a bounty to help ensure their recovery. Misconceptions about rechargeable batteries typically stem from the obsolete NiCd (Nickel Cadmium) technology, which actually is harmful."
http://john1701a.com/prius/prius-misc...

The new Nissan "Leaf," now available uses these I believe, range about 100 miles. The new Chevy Volt will use lithium batteries (range about 40 then the motor kicks in to charge the batts). Expensive. We'll see how that goes....

Posted by: fayfreethinker

September 25, 2011 at 11:45 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

commonsense96 (with my apologies to Thomas Paine)--

RE "The US has 84 people per square mile. The French have 289. And yet this difference has no meaning in this argument?"
More fuel-efficient solutions could still be applied to urbanized parts of the country. For example, from the article: "America has several urbanized regions suited for downtown-to-downtown fast rail links, including the Northeastern megalopolis (a region with three times the population density of France)..." 931.3 people per square mile is a figure that has meaning in this argument.

RE "Tell that to someone in Montana who has to drive 75 miles to get groceries."
As Dr. Hobson points out, greater distances don't preclude greater efficiencies; if anything, they suggest them. We could have developed much more fuel-efficient cars and trucks, but we didn't. I'll bet that person in Montana would love to have a car that gets two-plus times the miles per gallon he can get now-- why, it's just common sense.

RE "'Make no mistake: the price of the raw gas is about the same as the U.S., but Europe taxes gasoline at a higher rate....'"
Your quote ignores the other funding that go to highways-- fuel taxes pay for only about 70% of it. It also fails to consider the billions of dollars in tax breaks and subsidies given to oil companies. We are paying far more than the fuel tax for our deteriorating transportation infrastructure. Other countries are honest about charging for and providing transportation services; it's very commonsensical.

RE "So if one taxes the undesired, then the alternative is much more attractive. Art, you should really tell the whole story here when presenting your case. There is always a reason why things are the way they are..."
But wouldn't it be less socialistic to tax the gas used for transportation enough to pay for that transportation infrastructure? And wouldn't that shift in funding force those people who pay no FEDERAL INCOME TAXES to pay more toward pulling their weight and contributing to society? Surely you would find this to be a huge relief-- even a good common sense approach-- considering the perniciousness of your obsessions.

Posted by: AlphaCat

September 26, 2011 at 1:12 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

I'm a fan of the fast trains. In fact, I road today from Uijeongbu to Seoul and back for less than a dollar. The trains in Europe aren't as cheap though. It would cost me about 30 bucks to cover the same distance without a bahn card.

V/r,

Tank

Posted by: Tankersley101

September 26, 2011 at 3:42 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

FFT stated, "Notice that at least 95% of Germany has a lower density of pop. than Fayetteville. (the country has 609 people per sq. mile)." After living in Germany for 7 years, I can undoubtebly say that these numbers are extremely misleading. Overall, most people that live outside of urban areas are the very few that are the frontline contributors to German agriculture. In other words, virutally the only people that live outside of town are farmers and there is a lot of open space. Most Americans value space. The measure of space even goes down to lawns/yards which are considered a luxury in Germany. Even the small towns in Germany are composed of buildlings and people crammed togethor in a manner not acceptable to most suburban and especially rural Americans in my experience. Remember, different cultures require different considerations.

Posted by: Tankersley101

September 27, 2011 at 4:08 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

"FFT stated [long ago], "Notice that at least 95% of Germany has a lower density of pop. than Fayetteville. (the country has 609 people per sq. mile).">>

TNK responds: "After living in Germany for 7 years, I can undoubtebly say that these numbers are extremely misleading.">>

Tank, you completely misunderstand. That citation, as noted, was a *flashback* to a conversation months ago regarding transit for the NWA area. "Common-nonsense" was going on, once again, about how we didn't have enough population to warrant it (but Germany does). Germany, has areas of higher density, just like us, but much of Germany has *less* population density than vast areas of the US, including entire US states. Our areas of higher population density are just as ripe for the benefits of mass transit as anybody else's.

D.

Posted by: fayfreethinker

September 27, 2011 at 8:58 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

FFT,

I didn't misunderstand you. I was explaining the layout in Deutschland and how the population density numbers are misleading if you look at other countries the same way you look at America. Also, mass transit outside of major population centers in America would require a paradigm shift away from our love of self transportation. Again, different cultures require different considerations.

Tank

Posted by: Tankersley101

September 27, 2011 at 10:21 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

TNK: "I was explaining the layout in Deutschland">>

The pop. density and land area numbers are there for anyone to see.

You said:
TNK: "virutally the only people that live outside of town are farmers and there is a lot of open space.">>

America has a lot of open space, and a lot of farmers too. You said my comparison of these areas with similar populations and densities was "extremely misleading." I don't see why.

I cited pop. density for 9 states above. If you add them together and average them, you get a density of 548 people per square mile. That's just 10% less than Germany with 609. Why is it inappropriate and "extremely misleading" to compare areas with such similar concentrations of population?

California is larger than Germany, so let's set it aside. If we look at just the first six states I gave above: New Jersey, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Maryland, New York and Florida, we find they are 147,000 square miles in total. Germany is 137,000. So, a similar size. If we average the pop. density of those six states, we get 688. This is somewhat *higher* than Germany. I don't see how comparing a similar sized area, with similar pop. density, is extremely misleading. If you want to see what extremely misleading look likes, you need look no further than the first comment in this thread:

COM: "US has 84 people per square mile. The French have 289... Tell that to someone in Montana..."

Montana has a pop. density of 6, and the article in question (and my comments) have specifically and purposely excluded areas that do not have rather high pop. density.

TNK: "America would require a paradigm shift away from our love of self transportation.">>

Now that makes more sense and is absolutely true. But this extravagant and wasteful habit has been artificially facilitated by our cost shifting and direct subsidy of cheap gas, cheap roads and huge tax incentives for giant inefficient SUV's.

Gas in Germany is $5.57 (US) per gallon.
http://money.cnn.com/pf/features/list...

What do you want to bet that when gas is $5+ a gallon here, mass transit in appropriately populated areas is going to look mighty good. Maybe, with all of these folks out of work, it would be a good time to plan and build for the future by investing in efficient infrastructure for America. Maybe, with several trillion invested in the last two wars, we've invested enough in that for awhile.

Posted by: fayfreethinker

September 28, 2011 at 12:03 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

FFT,

The numbers are misleading (if one perceives Europe in the same light as the US), not your comments. As for gas being over $5, I don't think it will change anything. If folks want to drive, they are going to pay it. Americans just love to drive. Also, there is alot of things we have "invested in" for too long.

Posted by: Tankersley101

September 28, 2011 at 3:31 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

TNK: "As for gas being over $5, I don't think it will change anything.">>

The evidence shows otherwise. Examples:

---
Jan/2011

Higher Gas Prices Affect Drivers' Habits
$4 Per Gallon Is The Breaking Point

"How high would the price of gasoline have to go for you to begin using some method other than your car to get to work?" Nearly a quarter of the respondents said $4 per gallon was the tipping point,....

"Once it reaches above four dollars a gallon, people will start making a change," ... COTA [Bus] ridership jumped in 2008, the last time gas prices skyrocketed.

"[At $4.00] They showed an increase in ridership on their buses," Cage says. "You saw more people biking. You saw more people walking. You saw more people carpooling..."
http://tinyurl.com/63tzhge

---
As gas goes up, driving goes down
MEMORIAL DAY
May 26, 2008

Americans are not driving as much as they did a year ago as gas prices skyrocket... Americans have curtailed their driving at a historic rate.
The DOT said figures from March show the steepest decrease in driving ever recorded. [Gas was $3.11 in March, it went up another dollar by July].

DOT [called] it "the sharpest yearly drop for any month in FHWA history." Records have been kept since 1942. http://tinyurl.com/3go4kpb

---
Why high gas price effects may be different this time
4/19/11

"In 2008 we spent 12 months with gas above $3," and that resulted in notable changes in consumer spending choices,... "Nearly half reduced their gas consumption by consolidated shopping trips, 29% cancelled or modified vacations, 25% found alternatives to driving. The more sustained price spike, the greater the impact."

http://www.usatoday.com/money/industr...

---
When Will Gas Prices Affect Your Driving Habits?

“How high will gas prices need to get before you drastically alter the amount of driving you do?” 42% of respondents stated that they had already altered their driving, 25% said they would alter their driving at $4 per gallon, 20% stated they would alter their driving at greater than $5 per gallon and 13% said they would alter their driving at $5 per gallon.

"...previous poll [found] 74% of respondents stated that they would travel less this summer if gas prices were to reach $4 per gallon."
http://www.dailyfueleconomytip.com/mi...

---
The Impact of High Gas Prices

"A new report from the American Public Transportation Association finds that $4 per-gallon gas prices could result in an additional 670 million public transit passenger trips. If pump prices jump to $5 a gallon, the report predicts an additional 1.5 billion passenger trips can be expected."

http://transportation.nationaljournal...

---
It's pretty clear $5 gas would (will) have a huge effect on American consumption of gas and transportation use.

Posted by: fayfreethinker

September 28, 2011 at 10:11 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

If the population density of Northwest Arkansas is not great enough to implement mass transit of some sort-- a big-city approach to transportation-- why is there talk of widening I-540-- another big-city approach, and one that has proven unsuccessful in almost every instance?

Posted by: AlphaCat

September 28, 2011 at 12:41 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

According to a 2008 Congressional study increased fuel prices will only moderatly effect American driving habits and will not have a "huge effect."

"Recent research suggests that consumers are not very responsive to changes in the price of gasoline, at least in the short run. (Increased expenditures on gasoline have, however, reduced consumers’ saving, real income growth, and probably other forms of consumption.) For a variety of reasons, consumers are currently only about one-fifth as responsive to short-run changes in gasoline prices as they were several decades ago. That decline in sensitivity has been attributed to growth in real income, which has rendered gasoline a smaller share of consumers’ purchases from disposable income."

The study does admit that a continued rise in fuel prices will effect useage, but huge in not an adjective used.

Tank

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/88xx/doc88...

Posted by: Tankersley101

September 29, 2011 at 5:17 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Yes, I saw that study, Tank. I think it's better to look at what actually happened, rather than a projection of what might happen based upon a government study. And there are important caveats you are leaving out, for instance:

"Estimates of the longrun elasticity of demand for gasoline indicate that a sustained increase of 10 percent in price eventually would reduce gasoline consumption by about 4 percent. That effect is as much as seven times larger than the estimated short-run response,"

You are referencing the "short-run" change and as this study says, that is only 1/7th as large as the long run response.

Also, this was published in Jan of '08, before we fell off the economic cliff that fall. There goes "growth in real income" (and wealth in home equity).

About 42% of Americans live pay check to pay check. A (small) ten percent increase in gas will, according to your study, have a 7x greater effect than the "short run" effect you reference from the study. Ten percent is nothing compared to a doubling.

The average price of gas from about '05 to Jan 2011, was about $2.60:

http://gasbuddy.com/gb_retail_price_c...

Germany's $5.50 is double that. I stand by the comment that $5.00+ gas in America will have a HUGE effect. And I can bring lots of evidence to bear backing that up (if the above wasn't enough).

D.

Posted by: fayfreethinker

September 29, 2011 at 11:03 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Registration is required to make comments. Click here to LOGIN.
You can register for FREE to post comments and receive alerts.