<Do they have a 'responsibility' to supply us?The Oil DrumHas the Algae Cavalry Arrived?>
<DrumBeat: May 10, 2007DrumBeatDrumBeat: May 12, 2007>

241 comments on DrumBeat: May 11, 2007

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

tstreet on May 11, 2007 - 9:12am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Yes, Opec should cut output at least 4% per year for the next 20 years. All the other major oil producers, including the U.S. should do likewise. Of course, we can just burn it all now, which seems like the preferred approach.

If Monbiot is even close to correct, we need to start the downward path of fossil fuels burning yesterday.

But nooooo. OPEC would prefer to play hide and peak, or peak-a-boo if you will. Here you see it, here you don't. And, if you decide to be prudent by seeking alternatives, including conservation, we will punish you by refusing to raise our outputs. We need to call their bluff. The irony, however, is that they may be embarking on this policy not by choice, but out of necessity. But they still want to maintain the illusion that they are in control of their and our destiny.

More of than not, people use the word "fear" when they are projecting supply and prices over the coming summer and beyond. My fear is that prices will just spike temporarily as usual and settle down to a new slightly higher price which people have learned to tolerate. If we went to $5 per gallon tomorrown and then settled down at $4, we would be consuming like it was under $3.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
TenThousandMileMargin on May 11, 2007 - 9:21am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

My fear is that prices will just spike temporarily as usual and settle down to a new slightly higher price which people have learned to tolerate.

Absolutely. An environment of consistently rising prices is required in order to create a sense of urgency. Hopefully another year or two of September prices spikes will cause the penny to drop in Detroit. (Well, maybe not Detroit. Tokyo?)

If we are to believe in things we cannot see or touch, how do we tell the true belief from the false belief?

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
TenThousandMileMargin on May 11, 2007 - 9:29am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Actually, what we really need is a steady 7% a year rise in prices for the next twenty years. And for people to realise that it is happening, and expect it to continue - an "oil inflation" environment. People might make different decisions when buying (or designing) a car if they thought of the price they were likely to pay at the pump ten years down the track.

If we are to believe in things we cannot see or touch, how do we tell the true belief from the false belief?

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Richard on May 11, 2007 - 6:55pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Actually, what we really need is a steady 7% a year rise in prices for the next twenty years.

Actually, that started already 5 years ago. Remember oil was 25$ / barrel?

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
gTrout on May 11, 2007 - 9:52am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

OPEC would prefer to play hide and peak,

This is only an issue because we keep hoping the market will save us, rather than making rational but difficult choices.

Instead of our acting like an enlightened democracy, we place our faith in Kings to make the wise move for everyone. I guess the world has not really changed as much as I thought.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Aniya on May 16, 2007 - 12:39am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Hi gTrout,

Thanks for your comment.

When I've talked to people (commuters) many of them believe that they *are* being rational in their decision to go by "what the market says". They say they'll start to ride-share when the price of gasoline goes higher. In fact, they say, if there was a problem, either "the market" or "the media" or "someone" (presumably, someone other than yours truly) - would have told them.

In other words, they believe "the market" is "rational". As though "the market" exists as something more alive than descriptive.

Now, some things have changed. (People voluntarily cutting back; people questioning; the largest anti-war protest in the history of the world, prior to a an invasion, more than 5 million "green" and "human rights" organizations around the world; etc.) The question is, how do we use those changes to help us?

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.