The truth is that oil prices are set on world markets by forces largely beyond America’s control. Chief among these is soaring demand in countries like China. Unrest in oil-producing countries is another factor. The Times noted fears in some quarters that gas could jump to $5 a gallon if the standoff with Iran disrupted world supplies.
Therein lies the biggest weakness in the Republican litany. A country that consumes more than 20 percent of the world’s oil supply but owns 2 percent of its reserves cannot drill its way out of high prices or dependence on exports from unstable countries. The only plausible strategy is to keep production up while cutting consumption and embarking on a serious program of alternative fuels.
American innovation is a big part of the answer. Two byproducts of the automobile bailout were the carmakers’ acceptance of sharply improved fuel economy and a new commitment to building cars that can meet those standards. The new rules are expected to cut consumption by 2.2 million barrels a day — more than America now produces in the gulf. These and other measures are not nearly as catchy as “drill, baby, drill.” But they have a far better shot, long term, of lessening this country’s dependence on oil imports and keeping gas prices under control.
This is what Sarah Palin just can't understand.
"The truth is that oil prices are set on world markets by forces largely beyond America’s control."
So you're saying that the nation that has only 4% of the world's population while consuming 19% of the world's oil, is subject to forces beyond its control?
Were you born this stupid, or did you work at it?
America consumes too much oil, which is suicidal as it's a fossil fuel. Consumption is a major factor in setting the price. Econ 101. Go back to college, or in your case, grade school.
"A country that consumes more than 20 percent of the world’s oil supply but owns 2 percent of its reserves cannot drill its way out of high prices or dependence on exports from unstable countries."
Your sentence -- the president's sentence -- is a non-sequitur.
Daily consumption rates are not comparable to total reserves. This is especially true when domestic reserves are predicted -- today -- to last another century.
As we always learn and must re-learn, every day we realize global reserves are greater than we believed they were a day earlier. Yes, those reserves will become more difficult to extract. So waht? That difficulty, which will translate into higher prices, will make alternative fuels more competitive sooner.
"The only plausible strategy is to keep production up while cutting consumption and embarking on a serious program of alternative fuels."
As always, the energy content of every product is reviewed and steps are taken to reduce the energy to make something and/or operate it.
But we are decades away from discovering the secret to batteries for electric cars that hold as much energy as a tank of gas and we are decades from making solar voltaic cells that can produce electricity at an afforadable cost.
Today, in oil terms, solar cells are like oil at $500 a barrel.
The US lacks total control of oil prices. But, as a major producer and major consumer, every move we make is discounted by the world oil market. Same for Saudi Arabia, too.
But if the US were to substitute natural gas for oil wherever possible -- such as in cars and trucks -- AND we were to increase our oil drilling, those factors would work against rising oil prices.
However, rising demand from China and India might offset the benefit of the US meeting more of its domestic demand with domestically produced oil and gas.
China is probably approaching a near-term peak in its economy. A slowdown in the US becomes a slowdown in China.
In any case, drilling and producing more oil and gas in the US means more jobs for Americans here at home. That boosts the economy, which is something Sarah Palin understands completely.
If she can understand something as simple as that, you should be able to understand it too.
I'm curious, why do you give Obama a pass on this?
When George W. Bush was President the Democrats were all screaming that gas prices at the pump were his fault. But for some reason with Obama as President you guys all find reasons why the President can't control the price at the pump.
Which is it? Does the President have anything to do or can he affect the price or not? Did George W. Bush have some magic button that Obama can't seem to find in the oval office that will control the pump price?
Be careful and very scared. The truth is not welcome by most posters on this board. They live in a parallel negitive universe of un-truth. They make it up as they go along. To them belief is stronger than truth. If you believe something strong enough and long enough it must be truth.