I really, really, really don’t understand how the solution to $4/gal gasoline can be $5/gal gasoline.

It’s not really hard.  It’s like this:

1.  The US consumer doesn’t pay the full price of oil at the pump.  We pay a huge amount via the military budget, a lot as externalities, and even more in hidden taxes due to currency debasement as payments deficits drive the dollar down.
2.  Paying the full price at the pump, instead of just part, helps market forces minimize the total cost.  That’s impossible now due to the subsidies.
3.  Excessive dependence on imported oil is a security risk, both economic and military.  Taxes can be considered as insurance payments.
4.  Paying taxes at the pump allows people to choose how much they want to pay.  This is very much unlike income and payroll taxes.

Unfortunately, the time for $5 gasoline is past.  We probably need $7-$8 gasoline to get people’s vehicle purchases, driving habits and commuting patterns on a course that will let us weather the price increases that are coming all too soon.  We’re already seeing predictions of $200/bbl oil by 2012.  This may be low.

McCain’s proposal is excellent politics.

It’s more of the “same old, same old”.  There’s only so much oil being pumped, and consumer demand will equal the total supply at some price to the consumer; we only get to decide who gets what fraction of that price.  Taxes cut demand at a given crude oil price, so the price of crude goes down.  This works.  If Europe’s auto fleet got the same lousy 22 MPG that the US fleet does, oil would be $150/bbl already and heading higher.  The main beneficiaries of low US gas taxes are Hugo Chavez, the Saudi royal family, the mad mullahs of Iran, etc.

We also see the infrastructure being build to impose rationing of electricity and natural gas under the rubic of “Smart Grid.”

Would you rather have blackouts?

It’s a fact that the last 1% of electric demand is the most expensive part to meet.  If you can clip demand peaks, you can eliminate a lot of expensive generators and reduce wear and tear on the transmission system.  If you think the consumer doesn’t ultimately pay for all of this, I’ve got a bridge for sale.

Energy policy should be on the table this election.

Yes, it should.  And demagoguery like cutting our paltry gas tax is exactly the kind of policy nonsense which should get a candidate laughed right out of the race.

Of course, the justification is “it’s for our own good” one way or the other.

McCain’s proposal is excellent politics. The liberals and the left are trying hard to use global climate change and oil imports as justification to capture more and more taxes from the public. Some claim they have “revenue neutral” proposals but I, for one, don’t trust such a promise.

We also see the infrastructure being build to impose rationing of electricity and natural gas under the rubic of “Smart Grid.” Remember California’s remote controlled thermostat proposal?

Energy policy should be on the table this election. The Democrats will have, slightly hidden, a plan to restrict, ration and tax energy. I’m glad to see McCain come out to support lower energy costs to Americans, even if temporary lowering of an excise tax.

McCain has a winning issue here. Let’s hope he is bold enough to follow up.

2007 Major Oil Company profits ~ $643 Billion
2007 Gas Tax collected by US government ~ 1.32 TRILLION

Who are the greedy bastards here? At least with the oil companies we get fuel for our dollars spent…

WE need MORE consumption, NOT less! There is a direct relationship between OIL consumption and Wealth creation.

Great!  That means there’s a simple way to become fabulously rich:  let’s take all the oil wells in the world and just light them on fire to consume all the oil!  Saddam Hussein was right, and we were wrong!

Of course, if results have any relevance, the amount of wealth produced is proportional to the efficiency with which that oil is used.  The economy which produces the most per unit will be the ultimate winner, able to out-bid the rest; just burning oil for its own sake produces nothing.

Tell me, John:  how much does commuting to work in a Hummer H2 produce, compared to commuting in a Prius?

And along the same lines, “Dave may” complains about his own choices:

I work for a living and have to commute 42 miles each wayand spend about £350 a month on fuel costs.That works out at about $700 a month.

With petrol at 109 p/litre (Reality got it wrong), so he’s burning about 320 litre/month (84.5 gallons).  His commute is 84 miles for 23 days and weekends might be 20 miles/day for 8 days, so his total mileage is ~2100 miles/month.

He’s averaging about 25 MPG (US).  His vehicle is a LONG way from an economy car, especially for Britain.  A Mini Cooper would get 35 MPG or so (cutting his cost to ~GBP230/mo) and the aforementioned Lupo would get nearly 3 times that mileage, slashing fuel costs to ~GBP115/mo.

But that’s only the beginning.  If Mr. May drove something like an Aptera, he’d get to work almost entirely on electricity.  If he only recharged at home, he might drive 40 miles/day on electricity and 44 miles/day on petrol, for a daily petrol consumption of 1.28 litres at a cost of GBP 1.40/day.  Weekends would be within the 40-mile electric range and petrol free, so his total monthly fuel cost would be GBP 32.20.

Do you want to look forward or back, Mr. May?

http://www.awerbuch.com/shimonpages/shimondocs/sewp129.pdf

“In percentage terms, the OIL-GDP effect is relatively small, producing losses in the order of
0.5% of GDP for a 10% oil price increase. In absolute terms however, even a 10% oil price
rise— produces GDP losses that, could
they have been averted, would significantly offset the cost of increased RE deployment.”

These guys are greenies with an unparalled capacity for looking at data and drawing the wrong conclusions. In this case their dogma is Renewable Energy sources, so they reach a conclusion that suits their dogma. Yes, these are the fools that are starving millions of people thru the use of crop lands to groq OIL substitutes.

That is real stupid, since there is Lots of OIL out there. More OIL then corn. People can eat corn, nobody eats OIL.
Last estimate I saw on the Oil Shale in Colorado was that it would produce billions of barrels, more then OPEC could;

“Unocal operated the last large-scale experimental mining and retorting facility in western United States from 1980 until its closure in 1991. Unocal produced 4.5 million barrels of oil from oil shale averaging 34 gallons of shale oil per ton of rock over the life of the project.”

http://emd.aapg.org/technical_areas/oil_shale.cfm

How many tons of shale rock are there is Colorado?

http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,660227927,00.html

Most people think America gets it’s OIL from the ME. It’s gets some, about 1/3.
Canada is the nation that the USA imports most of it’s OIL from. It’s Shale OIL for the most part.
Open ANWR and start digging in Colorado and the USA will be energy independent.
All that prevents that from happening is a few thousand wacked out greenies.
Today is Earth Day. Save the planet, shoot a greenie.

84 miles per day, times 20 days per month, is 1680 miles or about 2700 km.

350 pounds divided by 2 pounds/liter is about 175 liters.

I figure Mr. May gets about 37 MPG, give or take. This is a lot for an American car, but VW made (makes?) a Lupo TDI which gets roughly twice that.