No I am not. Repeating over and over that we get most of our oil from Canada and Mexico etc is not going to change the fact that we have to spend a ton of money to protect the additional sources in the persian gulf.
I never said that we rely on Iraq, again this is you putting words in my mouth to make it appear that is my suggestion.
I am stating that we are not including the entire costs in the price at the pump. That includes all costs associated with protecting and ensuring the flow to the states. We aren't up in Norway or Sweden with a massive military effort, why is that. Why the gulf ?
I don't care how you want to twist the truth, the bottom line is that those are hidden costs that are not in the price. There are very good reasons for this, because if they did it would change our habits and that would not be in the interest of the oil companies and those who want to get re-elected. People get angry when the price of gas goes up significantly. They change their lifestyle accordingly and they vote for whoever promises to try and reduce the price so they can go back to living their promised lifestyle.
The other bottom line here is that we should be looking at all of our options, consider what is the cost to bring them online and include all of the costs in the final price at the pump or outlet.
We may find at the end of the day that even with the costs to protect and secure the flow of oil it is still less then the alternatives. But we need to put all costs in there for each.
We also need to consider, if by subsidizing other options, they may be an initial cost up front but in a few years we will be able to save a tremendous amount over time. Thus that is the better direction.
For example, if we can subsidize the construction of numerous nuclear plants to supply power to electric cars, which would be enough to offset the use of persian gulf oil, I know it's more complicated the way oil is traded, but my point is that could be justified if the numbers work out.
Likewise, with butonal, algae etc etc.
Arguing that those costs should not be included is evidence that you want to delude yourself about the situation.
I never said that food subsidies are costing us that much additionally, I said that MANY of our foods are not the true cost. The cost to raising beef for example if offset by many other hidden to the consumer costs. They aren't in the price of the burger.
By the way I like beef, I avoid burgers but enjoy a good steak or roast. So it's not an emotional argument. It's just the reality, if you once again want to ignore that there are hidden costs which allow for cheap meat then you are choosing to ignore the reality.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factory_farming
http://usfoodpolicy.blogspot.com/2008/05/meat-other-culprit-in-world-food-price.html
http://www.ucsusa.org/publications/catalyst/fa08-untold-costs-of-cafos.html
http://www.foodbubbles.com/blog/2009/02/26/true-cost-of-beef-flowchart/
The way to solve it is to get rid of the subsidies for corn etc used as fed stock, free range which will help eliminate or reduce the cost of clean-up etc etc.
In the end, with the above changes in place, we may see a higher price at the market, but can largely eliminate the hidden costs associated with the current approach.
There will always be some hidden costs I imagine, it is idealistic to think we can eliminate them all, but at least consumers would get to choose to pay more for the burger or not purchase one. Each then pays according to the lifestyle they want.
