Powerline:

Time reports that McCain supporters in Michigan will distribute tire gauges at Obama’s energy speech in Lansing, and that the RNC will also deliver gauges reading “Obama’s energy plan” to Washington newsrooms. Mary Katharine Ham may want to update her tribute to "Obama on your shoulder" to include his helpful hint on the importance of tire gauges and tune-ups.

Ha ha! Boy is Obama stoopid!

No one is disputing that proper inflation of your tires is a good idea and would help save fuel.

The laughable part is when Obama said that between that and getting a tune up, it would save the same amount as all of the oil that could be drilled offshore and ANWR.

Yes, he said that....and YES, it's laughable.

ElV, you said it's laughable. But is it untrue? The reason the proposals to drill in the already-set-aside Artic Refuge failed was because it was pointed out that small increases in average fuel efficiency for US cars would far outweigh any oil than could be drilled out of the refuge.

There are no magic bullets, and the US doesn't have very much oil. We do, however, have a huge number of cars, such that even a minor increase in fueld efficiency saves a lot of oil today, whereas drilling in the Artic Refuge provides a little bit of oil many years down the road.

Once again, I don't get the "joke," because it's something that everyone has been advocating.

Is it possible that it might be a good idea to increase supply and improve efficiency, both at the same time? Or is that way too complicated for political discussion?

ElV, you said it's laughable. But is it untrue?

Yes, it's untrue.

The MMS estimates that the quantity of undiscovered technically recoverable resources ranges from 66.6 to 115.3 billion barrels of oil and 326.4 to 565.9 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. http://www.mms.gov/revaldiv/RedNatAssessment.htm

And El V is going to suck it out of the ground himself tomorrow with a 10,000 foot straw and a dinghy.

In other news, improving fuel economy by 1 MPG across the nation's 250 million passenger vehicles would save 400,000 barrels of oil out of the 20 million barrels consumed in the US per day.

The MMS estimates that the quantity of undiscovered technically recoverable resources ranges from 66.6 to 115.3 billion barrels of oil and 326.4 to 565.9 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. http://www.mms.gov/revaldiv/RedNatAssessment.htm

Posted by: El Viajero

Oh look, everybody, Fred sited a source? And it's maybe not even from a wingnutjob site!
Well, there's the numbers. So what then? How long will it take to get this stuff to the market? A dozen years? How much of an impact would this have on prices? Maybe a nickel? Where will gas prices and air quality and car efficiency be in a dozen years?

ElV, to give you an idea of scale, assuming that such offshore oil really existed, and that it could be exploited over 20 years, we're talking about 13 million barrels of oil per day being pumped out, 15 times more than would be available from ANWR. The US consumes 20 million barrels per day. Saudi arabia produces 12 million barrels per day.

Either (a) the united states has some of the most substantial offshore drilling resources in the world,

Realistically, estimates of peak production off the coasts of Florida and California, were they opened for drilling, could be only 250,000 barrels per day. What we're interested in, after all, is in how much oil would come out of the ground if we opened up areas that are not already open. And that isn't much.

If we added 250,000 barrels/day, through offshore drilling, that could be offset by... a 1.5% decrease in our 20 million/bpd oil consumption. This is, most likely, what Obama understood (and what you don't seem to understand).

The laughable part is when Obama said that between that and getting a tune up, it would save the same amount as all of the oil that could be drilled offshore and ANWR.

Yes, he said that....and YES, it's laughable.

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/08/01/gingrich-tires-loony-tunes/

The Department of Energy estimates that (based on gas costing $3.96/gallon), “you can improve your gas mileage by around 3.3 percent by keeping your tires inflated to the proper pressure” which would ultimately save “up to $0.12/gallon” or, nearly the amount of the federal gas tax ($0.18/gallon), a tax Gingrich supports repealing. Moreover, the auto industry agrees with DoE’s assessment.

But more importantly, Obama is correct to suggest that inflating tires properly and getting regular tune-ups “could save all the oil that they’re talking about getting off drilling” — and by a long shot. According to the Energy Information Administration, if Congress lifted the moratorium on offshore drilling, by 2030, oil crude production in the “lower-48″ outer continental shelf will increase by about 200,000 barrels per day. By contrast, the production offset based on Obama’s proposal will likely approach 800,000 barrels per day, immediately.

I have never understood the argument that any given energy source isn't worth pursuing unless it, by itself, would make a material difference to the markets. All potential energy sources, as well as conservation, will make an incremental difference. That doesn't mean we shouldn't pursue all of them.

It depends on the cost of pursuing them, doesn't it? Not necessarily a strictly monetary cost.

On NPR last week an oil exploration expert was asked why there were current Federal exploration leases lying fallow that total more than the combined land areas of Oregon and Rhode Island put together? His answer was there aren't enough resources and workers to actually take advantage of the existing leases, much less the 'bonanza' of ANWR or the two coastlines.

Same old BS from Bush and Cheney, who supposedly know something about the industry.

Like the Republicans used to say, it's a matter of personal resposiblity.
If you really want to better the situation and do something for the country, you will make sure that your car is tuned up, the tires are properly inflated, and you are minimizing your driving to only what you absolutely need to do. We have to do this because it is a matter of national security and national pride. Every little measure counts, and together it all adds up. We did it for WWII, and we can do it now.
Or, nah, we could just let the oil companies figure it out for us.

I think Tyro missed his (b) which is 'you can't fill your car up on geological surveys'.

Admittedly, massive-scale rigging off the coast of Florida and California would be fantastic for foreign workers, since they're the ones who can be brought in at short notice with the experience to handle that kind of work. (Though as Jaycal points out, most of the riggers are busy elsewhere.)

Still, it's a small price to pay for Republicans who, in a Vitterish kink, want to keep driving metal codpieces while someone else wipes their shitty asses.

After all is said and done...at the end of the day my statement stands.

Obama's statement was not true. Inflating your tires and getting a tune up is not equivalent.

When you say, "my statement stands," you mean that you haven't retracted it because you're a wingnut who doesn't give a fuck about things such as "facts" if they stand in the way of your talking points or your baseless attacks. Obama's statement was true by any reasonable measure, as has been vociferously documented. In fact, the only way to make it untrue is to assume that the U.S. has technological capability it simply does not have (not to mention a sprinkling of magic dust) — but you've insisted on such a ridiculous assumption because you can't figure out how to make your statements even remotely factually correct without abandoning the party line.

Keeping the right tire pressure is a good idea for all drivers, but I don't actually own a tire gauge; maybe I ought to head out to an Obama event so I can get a free one on the McCain campaign's dime.

I eagerly await next week's pronouncements by right-leaning political commentators that anyone who changes their oil regularly and drives less than 90 mph is objectively a fascist.

In fact, the only way to make it untrue is to assume that the U.S. has technological capability it simply does not have.

Let's reveiw once more for those of you who are 'challenged'.

From the article: The MMS estimates that the quantity of undiscovered technically recoverable resources ranges from 66.6 to 115.3 billion barrels of oil and 326.4 to 565.9 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.

Also from the article: These estimates represent the potential quantities of undiscovered hydrocarbons that can be conventionally produced using existing or reasonably foreseeable technology, without any consideration of economic feasibility. Current technology includes drilling in water in excess of 3000 meters (10,000 feet) deep and to subsea depths in excess of 9600 meters (31,700 feet).

The technically recoverable methane from one of the moons of Jupiter puts that figure in the shade.

And neither of them are coming to your gas station.

Some fun arithmetic here -- ANWAR peak production, 780,000 bbl/day. Savings from a fleet with properly inflated tires, 800,000 day.

So for ANWAR at least, the arithmetic adds up.

All numbers courtesy of your tax dollars & faceless, highly paid civil service drones.

Hmmm funny that El Viagrao missed the obvious source of alternative energy that all of us can share in. A recent study, done by some highly reputable people, concluded that the amount of hot air blowing from El Viagrao's posterior in one month would produce an amount of energy sufficent to match the wind production of Arizona over ten years.

Admittedly, the source is far from clean, and there may be political problems with hooking up an ageing jailbird to the national grid for long enough. However, once the McCain hot air farm comes into full production, that should overcome any shortfalls.

So....we're all starving and no one wants to plant a harvest for the fall. Instead, we should just all eat less and be in the same situation in the fall.

That about it?

And for those who whine about alternative energies, please tell us what technology we have today that will replace oil. All of it is "vapor-ware"...soon to be announced......someday maybe....

The American voters know better and that's why Barry has flip-flopped on this issue and now says he would like to drill as well.

Somebody tell Nancy...

There is another obvious (but never mentioned) point about the unused federal leases. The *entire* Gulf of Mexico between the Mexican border and Mobile Bay is available for leasing. However, oil is not present beneath every square mile of the Gulf. In fact, oil is not present beneath most of the Gulf. Acreage that is technically available for leasing but contains no oil may be useful as a talking point, but it contributes nothing to energy security.

So....we're all starving and no one wants to plant a harvest for the fall. Instead, we should just all eat less and be in the same situation in the fall.

A harvest implies renewability, which oil is most definitely not. A more accurate metaphor would involve going to the woodshed and getting the last few jars of preserves, and pretending that it's a long-term plan.

And for those who whine about alternative energies, please tell us what technology we have today that will replace oil.

Solar is already there, in terms of potential (it simply just needs to be exploited), and is getting cheaper all the time. Recent innovations have solved both the expense and inefficiency of solar cells and the problem of nightime energy storage.

So....we're all starving and no one wants to plant a harvest for the fall. Instead, we should just all eat less and be in the same situation in the fall.

So, you're gorging yourself and want to keep gorging, because you're too fat to move without a Super Duty underneath. Mr Pastry wants his waffer-theen mint.

There's an intelligent discussion of the pros and cons at The Oil Drum. The most compelling pro argument: drilling now means you know the energy suppply's there to do it. The wrinkle: every rig in the US is booked solid for the next five years. So it's up to Elvira, his DeWalt drill, and a 10,000ft straw. Take a Beverly Hillbillies DVD with you.

Solar is already there...

Great! So fill up your car with photons next time.

Better still, tell the poor to go out and buy the new technology. How long do you think it will take for the poor and middle class to retool at their own expense?

next year?
3 years?
5 years?
15 years?
30 years?

The most intelligent path would be to drill like motherfuckers today for the next few decades while we develop real alternative solutions.

So what's wrong with that?

I've put up with a lot in these comments, but a line has been crossed. THIS WILL NOT STAND.

It's Mr Creosote who wants the waffer-theen mint. (Actually, the headwaiter pretty much forced the mint on him.)

Obama claimed you could get just as much oil from inflating your tires as you could from 'drilling'.

NOW THAT IS FUNNY!

Perhaps Ezra you need to include his entire stupid thought. Anyone with a clue will tell you inflating your tires is not the equivalent of drilling for oil.

In 30 years time, if we're still using Oil as our primary energy source, we're fucked no matter where we drill.

Thats reality. Ignore it if you want to, but laughing at 'photons' doesn't change the fact that your solution is even more unrealistic. The world is running out of a substence that can't be synthesized and takes millions of years to produce. This substance is the bedrock of our civilization. Only conservative retards would think it's the kind of issue you play politics with. Well, that and scumbags who know they will be dead in 30 years.

Drilling is just one part of McCain's energy plan.

45 new nukular reactors is also a part. Now, before you poo-poo the nukular reactors, remember that your idol France generates about 80% of their electricity that way and the country is a net exporter of energy.

You wanna be like France, don't you?

Drilling is just one part of McCain's energy plan.

45 new nukular reactors is also a part. Now, before you poo-poo the nukular reactors, remember that your idol France generates about 80% of their electricity that way and the country is a net exporter of energy.

You wanna be like France, don't you? Ya' know...all socialist and nukular....

ElV, nice try to change the subject after we've shown that more drilling really isn't a solution. You think McCain knows what his energy policy is? Of course not. All that matters is that there are Republican special interests agitating to open up more drilling, not because it will be useful, but rather because they just want to feel as though they're pissing off the hippies. The astute political policymaker will pursue initiatives that are actually useful, rather than pandering to the spiteful elements within republican base. The call for more offshore drilling is only being made by a few people hoping to take advantage of a difficult situation for their own ends.

What's hilarious is that this "big initiative" that Republicans think is so great is no better than... making sure your tires are inflated. I can't say I'm impressed.

Notice Obama didn't say that if he and Al Gore and their Hollywood friends stop flying around in private jets and drive around limosines they will save just as much oil as McCain wants to drill for.

I noticed alot of Hollywood elites at Obamas Florida fundraiser last night? Did they all fly in commercial??
Were Matt Damon, Ben Affleck and Jennifer Garner all taking the bus to the fundraiser??

Why are Obamas dictates allways stuff 'I' can do and never stuff he and his elite friends can do??

By the way, the MSNBC nitwits this morning laughed their heads off when told that ocean drilling actually reduces the oil seepage into the oceans that pollutes the beaches. It was real funny, I wonder if they ever realized that it was actually true and every study proves it to be true.

Obamas energy ad is just ridiculous. It was Obama, not McCain that voted lock-step with Bush's energy bill giving the oil companies 15.5 Billion in tax breaks.

McCain opposed the bill, Obama voted for it....now Obama wants to claim its McCain and Buch that are the same?? BS

June 19, 2008
Sen. Obama voted for the 2005 Energy Bill, written in secret by Vice President Cheney and the energy lobby. Thomas Friedman referred to the bill as “the sum of all lobbies.” U.S. PIRG noted that the bill’s “heavy tilt toward big oil companies reflects the influence of Exxon Mobil and other oil companies on policy-makers in Washington, DC.”

The Washington Post editorialized that the bill was a “piñata of perks for energy industries.” Indeed, the bill contained $6 billion in subsidies to the oil and gas industry and $12 billion to the nuclear power industry.

Although Sen. Obama voted for the legislation, he has spoken as if he opposed it on the campaign trail, criticizing it repeatedly.

Hey, that never stopped him before!!

ElV, nice try to change the subject after we've shown that more drilling really isn't a solution.

Senator Obama disagrees with you....or he sold out...you pick

Americans save more (per anum) than you could from drilling over the next ten years (per anum). That is a fact. nothing linked her debunks that fact. It just states that if you compare the savings from one year of ensured tire inflation, and compare it to the total amount of gas drilled for over a 30 year period, then you get more gas by drilling over 30 years than from conservation over 1.

The fact of the matter is that keeping a well tuned car with well inflated cars will save more money over the course of the average persons life than drilling in ANWAR ever could. Those results run out when the gas in ANWAR runs out. The results from keeping your tires inflated only runs out when all the gas in the entire planet has run out. That only happens because then there will be no more gas to conserve.

Pretending that this isn't true is blatant dishonesty. Dishonesty to such a degree can only be the result of complete stupidity, or complete disregard for the truth.

soullite, ElV's ravings make a lot of sense if you realize that he's asking himself, "What can I say that I think will piss off the hippies and Al Gore the most?"

Because Republicans don't believe that government can ever form good policies, the only place they can work from is out of spite. Their ideas grow out of who they want get back at for perceived slights and resentments, not because they think the idea will be helpful or useful.

Soullite, I think you might note that per anum is El Viajero's specialty for the Larry Craig demographic. What you mean is per annum.

"""The fact of the matter is that keeping a well tuned car with well inflated cars will save more money over the course of the average persons life """

First, only clowns use inflated cars.
How do we even know if anyone has underinflated tires or even needs tune ups?

In addition, your not even including the addtl gas spent for going to the car repair facility to have the work done, the trucks having to use gas to service the air pumps, the electricity used to power the air pumps, the factories needed to build more airpumps since they will be sooo busy and well used they will need replacements more often.

Then there all the gas spent on the production and distribution of tune-up parts that have to be shipped worldwide, all the gas spent to deliver those parts to the gas stations, etc. etc.

How much addtl energy and gas will all of the downside of the Obama inflation plan cost??

But the entire point is mute anyway. It was never Obamas, or the lefts contention that we should use less gas because it will lower prices, the Democrats point has always been that we should use less gas for two reasons:

1. We are wasteful pigs who don't give a shit about the poor, suffering world that gets by on far less energy per capita and Americans need to learn to sacrifice and suffer for once.

2. Americans use of fossil fuels is killing the planet, raising the cost of gas was Democratic policy and banning drilling was meant to save the planet by restricting our ability to access energy. Nancy Pelosi still maintains not drilling off-shore and in ANWR will save the planet, and allowing votes on these is no different then destroying the planet.

The Democratic party policy has been to raise energy costs as high as possible to get people to reduce consumption, and has never been to lower prices, which will have the affect of people using more and more energy.

Whether you want to admit it or not, this is a complete and utter policy cave in by Obama, sellling out the entire environmentalist movement...lierally throwing them under the bus....and a low tire, no tune-up 12 cylinder gas guzzling bus at that.

Just as long ago as June, Obama had no intention of lowering gas prices and supported the higer prices, the only thing he complained about was he wanted gas prices to rise more gradually so that Americans could adjust to the high price.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gehaf7_TBAs

What happened to that Obama? the Obama of principle?

How much oil would be available if all the hypocrites who oppose oil drilling actually stopped using the oil they complain so much about??

If you did anything today, ANYTHING, you used an oil consumption related product, period, including the computer you typing on.

Presumably that last observation applies to fuckwits called Anonymous? Or does your own hypocrisy not occur to you?

If you did anything today, ANYTHING, you used an oil consumption related product, period, including the computer you typing on.

That's not true: some of us use a solar charger to recharge our laptops, which we then use to find pornography, which we masturbate to using only water-based lubricants.

Personal responsibility and thrift makes conservatives howl. Says it all about the 28%ers.

“66.6 to 115.3 billion” napkin math says at 100 a barrel that is 6.6 trillion to 11.53 trillion dollars worth. Money elasticity says that would roughly increase our GDP 66 trillion to 115.3 trillion dollars. Not sure off hand what percent of GDP the government takes in through carious taxes but I’m thinking we are looking at minimum a couple trillion.

So to be clear, Democrats oppose;
1. creating 100s of thousands of high paying jobs;
2. adding 66 trillion to 115.3 trillion to our GDP at the expense of the ME and other countries we don’t get along with; and
3. collecting trillions in additional taxes that could be used to fund the transition from oil;
because it will only lower the cost of gas by a couple cents and take 10 years to start that. I see nothing laughable about proposing tune-ups and tire pressure over the above. Your right Tyro

pseudonymous in nc,

We can’t wait 10 years for the oil to start flowing from OCS and ANWR but we can wait 15-20 for new higher efficiency vehicles to replace those already on the road. Just because I can’t see it doesn’t mean there isn’t logic in the somewhere.

Chowchowchow,

Efficiency and air quality will be the same and worse respectably. It would take 5+ years for the first car meeting the new standards to roll off the line. Another 5-10 years for these new higher efficiency cars to have any measurable impact. Thanks for supporting ElV’s thesis.

Nice editing job Tyro, the full quote is…”that if the most promising areas off Florida and California were opened for drilling, their peak production in a decade could be as little as 250,000 barrels a day” one man’s opinion, quote in NYT at that and you bungle it. If the handful of the most promising produce 250K then the entire things could logically produce 1 million or more.

Crazy IDEA here….”ANWAR peak production, 780,000 bbl/day. Savings from a fleet with properly inflated tires, 800,000 day.”

What is we did nboth??????

Soullite???? Time to expand your reading beyond this blog.

http://www.rdmag.com/ShowPR.aspx?PUBCODE=014&ACCT=1400000100&ISSUE=0806&RELTYPE=MS&PRODCODE=00000000&PRODLETT=GJ&CommonCount=0

To be more precise: the genetic alteration of bugs—very, very small ones—so that when they feed on agricultural waste such as woodchips or wheat straw, they do something extraordinary. They excrete crude oil.

We can’t wait 10 years for the oil to start flowing from OCS and ANWR but we can wait 15-20 for new higher efficiency vehicles to replace those already on the road.

And where did I even say that? Those voices in your head need checking out, Nate.

Frankly, you don't have to be a tinfoil peak-oiler to appreciate that a long-term energy policy directed primarily at "keeping all the cars running" is as doomed as that gaudy oasis you call home.

(And yet you point to the 'bugs shitting oil' thing, when the current output could fit in a beer glass. How did that cold-fusion F150 work out for you?)

I'm not misty-eyed about this. I honestly expect that the crackwhore SUV demographic will get its way, and that if it turned out that you could fill up a truck on babies' blood, people would gladly sign on. But it won't stop the desert from sweeping in to reclaim Vegas.

I believe there is a lot of dishonesty of motives.

*If* the goal is to break our dependence on foreign energy, we should be doing everything to that end. That includes drilling our asses off, OCS and ANWR included, as well as making it easier for entrepreneurs to develop viable alternatives that won't promote world starvation.

However, breaking foreign dependence doesn't seem to be the real goal for liberals. If it were,there would be no arguement. Instead, Pelosi embodies the liberal position of "saving the planet", even if it means using her position to thwart the will of the elected representatives, Democrats and Republicans alike. Nancy is a power hungry whore.

Would on of you paid Obama trolls get Obama to mention how much energy can be saved by switching to CFLs. I have a tire gauge but could use some new light bulbs.