The circular logic of drilling in ANWR
I’ve been listening to too and have been struck by repeated discussion of increased production to offset oil prices. Just Listen to Randy Kuhl. Paraphrasing with my words.
It’s a supply problem stupid. More oil equals cheaper prices.
Well - OK, but does increased supply account for current or future increased demand?
Remember way back in the 70s with the oil shock. Detroit retooled, we got smaller cars. Then the middle east opened the spigots to cheap oil and over time - efficiency is out the window. More demand.
Save for a moment - oil from ANWR is a long way off, the environmental impacts, dispute over how much oil is in ANWR, and all the arguments against ANWR.
Drill in ANWR prices go lower because supply is increased. Well, wouldn’t that extra supply be consumed by the steady demand?
What exactly is the incentive to actually lower prices? I’m afraid there isn’t one.
Related posts:
I’d sure like to see incentives for people to purchase higher mileage cars. As in, a special tax on low gas mileage cars (which means the purchaser pays more), a tax rebate (where the purchaser gets money back) for high gas mileage cars. That could also lower demand, and is simple to do, it doesn’t depend on OPEC at all. It simply flies in the face of virtually every politician I know of on both sides of the aisle, who usually are not willing to change the tax code to promote the greater public well-being.
[...] true - the oil companies will be paying us to fill up out cars. Of course, when you are running in logic circles over ANWAR what can you [...]
[...] or keeps tax breaks for Oil companies like Randy Kuhl, or, again, like Randy Kuhl says, we need to increase supply by drilling in Anwar to solve our problems, or challenges the value of conservation or all the rest of the [...]