Why We Can’t Stop $100 Oil

It's becoming evident that the rising price of oil has little relationship to anything Americans do, or don't do.

By Daniel Gross | NEWSWEEK
From the magazine issue dated Jan 14, 2008

« Return to Article

Discuss

Member Comments

  • Posted By: seekingworldlywisdom @ 06/03/2008 2:09:19 PM

    It's because we have a dumb president, a big corp vice president, hawkish administration and finally....drum roll pls...5 generations of Americans addicted to OIL - the (used to) cheapest energy. Imagine all the money spent in Iraq & Afghan for the last 5 years - no less than 2 trillion are used to build alternative energy like solar, wind farm, hydro and etc. We can cut all the oil import from middle east probably in 2007. The solution is so simple and obvious but we miss it and now, the window is closed and lets brace for the train wreck...

  • Posted By: Mark B @ 03/03/2008 4:23:10 PM

    Why would anyone think that a politician would care how much gas prices would go up?
    We pay for it, would you care if I paid for you to drive. Hell No!

  • Posted By: inkspots7 @ 01/16/2008 9:07:28 PM

    To accept the idea that there is nothing we can do to solve the problems that we face is simply irresponsible. Everyone can agree on the fact that this world will continue to change; our problems will either get much worse or much better. It is clear to see what Mr. Gross believes, and it is true that his is the popular position. However, there are some thinking individuals who would disagree with the belief that no improvements can be made.

    We as Americans are obligated to solve the problems that we are largely responsible for creating. The problems of the world can be solved, but it is important to note that the solutions will not come from big business, government, or the media. As Einstein observed, ???We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.??? Clearly, true solutions will only come with a change in mindset and accountability. We all have a choice; we can, as Mr. Gross has done, despair and pass off responsibility, or we can join together, question the obvious, and save the world. Those who are committed to asking the right questions and solving the difficult problems can meet like-minded individuals on the Taffix yahoo group at http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/Traffix/

  • Posted By: anton kaltygin @ 01/12/2008 2:23:05 PM

    Let's see - oil price depends on supply and consumption. The consumption of US decreases, so there's no possibility to be "influential buyer" for America any more. But, it seems like global oil market now is "seller's market", what means that seller sets the price and what buyer can do is only agree. If so, why don't US become the new world's supplier? Just start drilling Grand Canyon or whatever and sell oil to the world.

  • Posted By: jlohman @ 01/10/2008 9:01:01 AM

    Only our politicians can solve this, and they are on the take: http://tinyurl.com/yr2vfd

  • Posted By: saudiy @ 01/09/2008 8:37:07 PM

    a dollar is it,s price
    now a dollar can,t buy have of what a person can buy in the past

    thanks

  • Posted By: Mr Sunshine @ 01/09/2008 8:59:00 AM

    Economics 101 deals with the law of supply and demand. Of course the demand for oil is increasing due to factors beyond any single country's control. However the supply side is a different story as it is ultimately limited by geology. Most independent experts (and no one associated with Cambridge Energy Research Associates is included in this category) in the field now believe that we are at or very near "Peak Oil" - the point at which our ability to extract oil from the earth has peaked and will begin to decline. This global supply constraint will make $100 per barrel oil appear to be the bargain of the century in the next 5 to 10 years. The real question is how will the general public react when the reality of peak oil enters the public domain.

  • Posted By: shirleywatts @ 01/08/2008 5:20:18 PM

    It's probably going to be a hardship in the short run. In the long run it may be our salvation, so I'll just pay up and put it in drive

  • Posted By: shirleywatts @ 01/08/2008 5:19:00 PM

    It's probably going to be a hardship in the short run. In the long run it may be our salvation, so I'll just pay up and put it in drive

  • Posted By: misterharban @ 01/07/2008 9:29:45 AM

    Oil company conspiracy? Lets look at some numbers from the Energy Information Agency. In 1970 the light transportation sector (cars, trucks, SUV's) consumed approximately 80 million gallons of fuel. In 2002 the same sector consumed approximately 130 million gallons, a 61 percent increase. During that time the country implemented fuel efficiency standards to reduce our fuel consumption. Also during that time, our population increased, the weight of our fleet including cars, trucks and sport utility vehicles increased, the acceleration performance of the fleet including cars, trucks and sport utility vehicles improved from an average zero to sixty time of around 15 seconds to around 10 seconds, the fleet ratio of sport utility vehicles and trucks to automobiles increased and the annual miles driven per capita increased. If all of the items enumerated had remained constant, with the exception of the fuel standards, our fuel consumption in 2002 would have been around 37 million gallons, a 54 percent decrease from 1970. Instead we found ourselves at 130 million gallons. The difference between where we ended up and where we could have ended up was, for the most part, the result of our own choices. Analyzing the EIA data, one can estimate that 16 percent of the difference between where we ended up and where we could have ended up was simply a reflection of our increased population. 17 percent was a result of increasing the weight and improving the acceleration across the entire fleet including cars, truck and sport utility vehicles. 25 percent was a result of shuffling our fleet to a greater proportion of trucks and sport utility vehicles. 41 percent was the result of increase annual per capita miles driven. In essence, we squandered the technological benefits of increasing auto efficiency to drive bigger vehicles faster and farther. Most puzzling to me in all of the discussions of our energy appetite is the fact that I cannot recall a single leader, political or industrial who has had the guts to suggest that the foremost and most direct thing we can do to reduce our fuel consumption is to drive a little less. We have doubled the number of miles we drive since the first warnings of energy problems over 25 years ago. Perhaps this time we will not squander our technical advances to sate our appetites to drive further and faster in bigger vehicles. Oil company conspiracy? Who among them held a gun to our heads to make the choices that we made? Looking back over the past 25 years, the biggest single factor in our increased demand for transportation fuel has been

    • Posted By: misterharban @ 01/07/2008 10:02:45 AM

      The "millions" in the article above should be "billions"

  • Posted By: nawawimohamad @ 01/06/2008 3:50:31 AM

    We are addicted to oil. Once addicted we will need it no matter what it takes .

  • Posted By: stlantasky @ 01/06/2008 2:53:56 AM

    We have the technology to increase computer power 2-fold every year and half or two, but we can't increase the technology of our vehicles to depend lesser on oil? Give me a break. It's all about the $$$. Collectively, automakers, oil companies, and world governments have a piece of this large pie and there is no pressure to tame it. We haven't seen a recession yet like the one we will see if there is a world oil crisis.

  • Posted By: fiddle-fart @ 01/05/2008 7:31:33 PM

    I feel that it started when the greedy (big oil companies) put oil prices on the open market

Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse