The point of the oil reserves isn’t to nick a couple cents off gas prices shortly before an election, it’s to provide a buffer of raw petroleum in case we go to war and the source pipelines and supply chains get hit.

The real waste of resources was the Democrats refusal to allow topping up the strategic oil reserves when the spot price collapsed in 2020. As a country we would have been mote secure for the future and the localized impact could have stabilized prices.

The oil reserves are not serving the purpose of controlling oil prices. You would need a truly astronomical amount of reserves to control the market, which isn’t exactly the best way to use your nations wealth. Buying more during the dip would not have changed the current situation.

Which is why, the only feasible solution to controlling oil prices is to change it demand side. Oil does have legitimate uses for eg military, petrochemicals etc. but most of it is just burned away.

Layman here. As I recall that dip was actually negative prices because no on could take delivery. Was there actual spare capacity to store more oil at that time?

Yes, in the strategic oil reserve there was, but not in many other oil storage facilities, and government buying processes for everything are slow and complicated. However, the negative prices aren't for oil as delivered where you want it. It is for oil coming out of a tap at a storage facility somewhere in Illinois (or rather, entering a tank that you rent in that storage facility). All of those tanks were full when oil prices went negative, and there wasn't enough demand to transport oil out of that facility. Most storage facilities were full, and new ones couldn't be built in time.

Buying the dip would be a cost effective way of maintaining our insurance policy. Buy low, sell high. We had saved cheap oil for a hurricane and released them for a light drizzle in order to try to cap gas price increases, which have more than doubled from one president to the next.

I don't understand - we sold high (>100) and can now buy cheap (~80). What you want is what's happening. What are you screeching about?

> still sold on the bs american dream of being stuck all day in a metal box instead

As opposed to what, being stuck all day in a larger metal box with dozens of others?

The quality of life solution is to kill the commute, not to kill cars in favor of transit.

Mixed-use zoning, housing policy that makes moving easy instead of extraordinarily expensive or impossible, and remote work -- these should be the focus. Transit is great for the environment, not so great for "being outside and enjoying the real world with other humans".

If public transit was significantly expanded and given priority over personal transport, it would significantly reduce trip times by massively reducing road congestion for simple geometric reasons. Not to mention, cities designed for not having cars are inherently less prone to congestion as housing, commercial and business areas are more interspersed (instead of everyone moving from the suburbs to downtown and back every day).

> If public transit was significantly expanded and given priority over personal transport, it would significantly reduce trip times

That’s the theory, but I think the reality is “induced demand” — the same reason expanding freeways from 5 to 10 lanes doesn’t reduce congestion.

Metro areas with transit don’t have shorter commutes time-wise: the average commute in large metros in the US is about 25-35 minutes across a huge range of densities and transit concentrations.

Why? The typical argument is that people often want more living space, or cities zone such that housing below a certain threshold size is illegal (and thus the smallest unit you can rent/buy has an inflated price), and residents move far enough that they can afford to live — often, their commutes are 15-30 minutes. Then, they change jobs, but often can’t move closer — because they can’t take their rent control with them, or their property taxes will spike, and the deal with a longer commute. Or, they have kids and need an extra bedroom, and move to the suburbs for the same reasons.

> cities designed for not having cars are inherently less prone to congestion

Yes, this was my point about mixed zoning!

How is it reducing trip times when every trip now has a 15-30 minute walk on both ends?

and you're still stuck in a confined space with all sorts of vibrant urban characters. not just you, but your mother, wife and children are too.

having a car to avoid that alone is worth it. I suspect the recently sprouted anti-car evangelists are genuinely unaware of the big city public transit experience. nobody in their sane mind would preach it otherwise

Higher density living means that commute is on foot or a bicycle, or on a bus or train but not for too long.

Cheap fossil fuels aren’t primarily about providing fuel for personal vehicles to go from exurbia to the city and back. That’s like saying that the agricultural revolution was about growing garlic at home.

Just spend massively

Yeah like the governments of the world need to do even more spending right now, lol. Where do you think that money comes from?

Can’t take an EV on a road trip. It would make it 3 times as long. And there are no convertible EVs. So I’ll think I’ll keep my oil burner which does about 12mpg, top down while I blast AC on my feet.

Attach diesel generator on trailer, and charge it while moving. Some EV cars use electricity from coal or natural gas, there is no difference...

Or skip battery, and use electricity from generator. It is called diesel-electric and is reliable way to produce EV vehicles. Well tested on cars, trains, tanks, boats even submarines...