What is Chuck Schumer's problem?
Posted by Yankee on April 19, 2006 - 12:27pm in The Oil Drum: Local
Topic: Policy/Politics
Tags: big oil, chuck schumer, gas prices [list all tags]
As American drivers shell out more and more money at the pump with each passing day, some are asking whether big oil companies are scheming to withhold supplies in order to boost prices.New York Senator Charles Schumer, speaking in front of a Hess station in Manhattan, called Tuesday for a federal investigation to see if oil companies and refiners are deliberately withholding gasoline production, taking advantage of the normal switch from winter gas to summer gas in an attempt to bid up prices.
It really gets me riled up when I see politicians making irresponsible comments that would have the effect of making people consume more oil. Regardless of the price of gasoline at the pump, the price that oil is trading at on the open market should be an indicator that Big Oil is probably not artificially raising the price of a gallon of gasoline. (Not that I'm sticking up for Big Oil. They're hardly innocent. But they don't have to bother with the ickiness of price gouging, since the market is so willingly obliging their quest for very well-lined pockets.) Furthermore, this trick has been tried twice before, and failed on both of those occasions:
A spokesman for The Federal Trade Commission, which is the agency that would look into Schumer's request, said it will take the senator's letter seriously and will respond appropriately, although the spokesman couldn't give a timeline or any other information because the agency had yet to review the letter.However, the FTC spokesman did point out that two previous investigations into unfair business practices by the oil industry conducted in 2000 and 2001 turned up no evidence of wrongdoing.
Can Schumer really be so completely divorced from the realities of the market? If the answer is no, then his actions are merely grandstanding, which I find somewhat surprising, since he's not up for election right now, and even if he were, his seat is probably not too threatened. If the answer is yes, then he's too ignorant to be my senator, and I won't vote for him next time.
Do I need to write Schumer another open letter?
Yep, I agree--enough grandstanding by politicians-- they need to truly discuss Peakoil and get the MSM to talk incessantly about it. Time to inform the general public what really lies ahead so we can start the task of Powerdown. They need to talk with other world leaders about ASPO's Energy Depletion Protocols too.
Bob Shaw in Phx,AZ Are Humans Smarter than YEast?
Respectfully Sen. Schumer, the point is to start moving away from oil and gas by increasing efficiency, changing our lifestyle and ramping up alternatives, not subsidizing it any further. OPEC simply can't increase production because of basic GEOLOGICAL reasons, not political/economic. They are simply at the limit of their ability to continuously produce ever greater quantities of a NON-RENEWABLE resource. For more on peak oil, please read The Hirsch Report or this analysis of current oil production levels.
If you would like to read about a community that is planning to deal with these issues proactively, I highly recommend you read the plan written by the Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission. Or perhaps you could sponsor a resolution in the US Senate joining Rep. Bartlett of Maryland calling all the President and all agencies of the Federal government to recognize the importance of the coming peak in oil production as San Francisco recently has.
And then I put my name, address, phone number
Best,
Matt
There's a website somewhere that shows who donates how much money to particular parties and/or candidates. The heavy-hitters on that last might be a good place to go also.
Most exclusive country clubs also.
Best,
Matt
Best,
Matt
http://i-r-squared.blogspot.com/
Meanwhile, gasoline inventories just fell for the 7th week in row. I will say that Big Oil is profiting from the situation, but not because they are gouging. They are making money because supplies are so incredibly tight. The falling gasoline inventories tell the tale. Oh, and someone tell Schumer that some refineries are still down from the hurricane. That is why utilization isn't above 90%. It has nothing to do with restricting supply.
RR
Since that day I've had nothing but contempt for Chuckie Schumer, his grandstanding, or his deliberate ignorance. That he refuses to understand peak oil or address the issue directly does not surprise me at all.
In fact, I will go so far as to say that as long as CONgress is staffed with CONmen (namely lawyers), we will have no forward progress on technical issues like global warming, peak oil, conservation, etc. Note that it is the rare congressional member like Bartlett who has a technical background who comes to grips with such issues. This is also why I laugh at people who think that electing Democrats instead of Republicans will make a difference.
I notice that India has some rather technical people in their highest offices.
Put me in Schumer's shoes. I am going to pound on the podium and say "The problem here with gas prices is because of us, and the way we built our society". I am going to come off sounding more like Kunstler, and that is not going to be a popular stance. The person who gets up and says that the oil companies are the problem, and they have a plan for punishing them and happily transitioning us all to alternative energy is the person who is going to be elected.
RR
Mosca and Pareto shot the notion of representative democracy to hell definitively over 100 years ago. And they missed a few points.
However, the Prime Minister who is the head of the executive branch of tehe government doesnt seem to have a clue about it. He was recently talking about laying gas pipelines in the major cities of India (right now distribution of LPG/Cooking Gas is done by oil companies using cylinders). So hence I feel he has no clue. The finance minister who has a very big role to play in policy making is a Harvard trained attorney and going by the statements that he makes regarding growth, credit etc he also has no clue. Folks feel he thinks of himself as a very "smart economist".
I've been thinking about this and how it relates to PO. If one candidate stands up and says "sacrifice, powerdown, downsize, etc" and his/her opponent says "It's a plot by Arabs or God-hating liberals or tree-hugging commies. We are the chosen ones, I promise you everything, tax-cuts, more military, balanced budgets, etc." Who do you think will get more votes?
In addition to the actual PO issues/problems, there is a psychological dimension of denial, TV commercial-driven elections, and Machiavellian political crap to overcome just to get at the 'real stuff'.
Very few seem willing to touch the idea even with a ten-foot pole...
A tax increase is basically telling people that you want to increase their already significant pain, to force them to do less of something they really want to do. More than that, you're dealing with three generations of people that have known nothing but increasing driving for almost their entire lives. They think that episode in the 70s was due to Jimmy Carter being a wimp. They think Reagan fixed the problem by walking into the middle east bar with spurs jingling and pointing his six-shooters at the bad guys. Americans have been rewarding Republicans ever since.
Look at it another way. Some people may want to switch to a more efficient car/truck, but are suddenly having a harder time affording it. An increase in the gas tax would make it even harder for them to save anything to make the switch. That would mean they'd be paying more to operate the car/truck they had in mind as well. Instead of downsizing one notch, they'd have to drop to a Kia or something. Downsizing at all is seen as deprivation and admission that you're lower class than before. America is all about status, and cars are some of our most effective status symbols.
So increasing gas taxes is seen as an elitist way to deal with a problem that is not seen as a problem, while avoiding the "real" problem of "unfair" expensive gas, and trying to give everyone a social demotion at the same time. But people wonder why there's so much opposition? There's an alternative way to do the same thing that would give people something to hang their hat on, but no one here seems interested in an idea that might actually fly.
"Downsizing at all is seen as deprivation and admission that you're lower class than before." - I have already assumed I will live at a lower level of luxury and comfort than I have so far. It's an important concept that one needs to move past in order to make appropriate changes.
Kia's are actually very nice!
When the price starts rising again, once it rises by a certain percentage, the stabilization fees decrease and become negative, and the price rise is blunted until the fund is depleted or prices are falling on their own. On the way up, the stabilization fees look a lot like a gas tax cut.
We set a cap on the maximum the stabilization fund can accumulate, and we don't allow it to go negative.
The benefit to consumers is that the price spikes and troughs are smoothed, so prices are as volatile. The fund builds when prices are falling, when people are happy enough that prices are falling to not mind the increased fees as much. The fund depletes when the prices are rising, easing the pain of the increase until the fund runs out.
The benefit WRT peak oil is that the largest price spikes, which convey the strongest price signals, are preserved, and the whole thing starts with building a stabilization fund the first time prices drop. Or, if you prefer, the whole thing starts with something that looks like an automatic gas tax increase.
thanks
rao
gaia will solve the problem:)
Perhaps this time we can edumucate everyone about how the market works?
Alternatively, just because they didn't turn up evidence five years ago is no reason to think they are squeaky clean now. Not to say that market conditions have nothing to do with it, just saying that in the bid to make a buck (or more bucks), greed trumps just about anything else. Now, I must be off to watch coverage of the Enron trials...
Why bother? He will just ignore you, as he would anyone who suggested that defending the oil companies or pushing for a gas tax was a good political idea. Besides, if this truly was a free market, Americans wouldn't see gas prices marching upward in unison for every brand. If there's no actual competition, consumers can be forgiven for thinking that it's closer to a cartel than a free market.
Local Phoenix news ahs shown people commenting on the rising prices the past few weeks. The one thing that jumps out at me is how outraged they all are at he price. Comments like "Ridiculous!" "Outrageous!" "The president should do something!" are what I hear from the people interviewed.
I can't say I'd be any different if I hadn't leared about peak oil and associated issues about a year ago.
RR
It seems that the Democrats want to use this for political gain more than anything else. Not that they have any say over what goes on in DC right now. If they were to try and propose any meaningful legislation, the Republicans in congress would kill it.
I keep coming back to the lesson of Jimmy Carter. Any politician that gives us the straight dope about energy is going to get his ass handed to him. Thus what happens is that no politician wants to touch the issue, and they are going to sit back and let market forces make the consumer reduce oil consumption. They can grandstand a bit like Schumer did, or they can push for other things that are equally pointless (ANWR, tax breaks for the oil companies), but nobody dares to tell the American consumer that they need to cut back.
There are a few lessons one can pull from Carter. (Many of them ~since~ his term in office, granted) But even from the Sweater Speech, which makes him look stronger and wiser the farther we go down this road. Yes, those with the 'Non-negotiable Lifestyle' mentality will still sneer that it was weak or compromising, but the strength to do something so potentially frugally-geeky seems a much better statement of character and self-confidence than any amount of 'Photo-Op Brush Clearing, with Real Gloves on..'
Bob
Carter inherited a variety of problems, and other political leaders refused to back him with regard to reality-based policy.
The real political knife in Carter's back came from the Rwagan campaign, who were working to keep American hostages from being released by (ahem!) Iranian militants so that Carter would appear to be weak. The Reagan campaign wanted the hostages to be freed, but after the campaign, as I recall.
Carter did attempt reality-based policy discussion, but the political elite f\left him isolated and eventually did the equivalent of political assassination -- courtesy of the Reagan/Iranian terrorist cooperation.
Meanwhile, the populace was content to get numb and dumb.
Where we are now: we need to do it all -- change our own lives (with or without cultural or political support) and also to advocate for reality-based policy in every dimension and at every level of human organisation.
It is obviously too late, and outcomes are out of our control anyway, but we must focus on those things we can do, and do them.
Alas the feds won't do anything good with the money they'd thus raise. But not to worry, their friends on Big Oil won't let them impose such a tax!