Gas tax time?

[Shattered]

I am so there.

(We need a girly dancing thing)

 

[Mr.Conley]

I'm sure glad the libs are here to save us from ourselves. They're so noble, especially in their pursuit of population control through economic stupidity.

So your saying we should just forget about reducing our oil dependency because "the libs" also want to reduce our dependency. That's crazy. Some things are above petty partisanship. There's no vast, left-wing conspiracy here. Just facts.

There was an interuption in supply and the price did spike up, true enough. However in time the market corrected itself by brining more supply on board. You are avocating that the government falsely adjust prices to lower demand. That is not the governments role. Profit incentive for new sources of energy are the best motivators.

Raising taxes is a profit motivator. Companies will invest more to create alternative fuels for the money. People will switch to vehicles that have a higher MPG. Thats the goal.

So you're arguing that the oil supply is going to dry up in 10-15 years? Educate yourself with some better figures - like 2050 at least.

1. Saudi Arabia production capacity is expected to peak by 2010 , that means that from then on Saudi Arabia's production will fall. The world's gas station will run out.

2. Every single non-OPEC country has seen production fall.

3. US oil production continues to decline as it has for decades, producing less than 40% of our needs.

4. ANWAR will, at peak production capacity 15 years from now, produce 600,000 -1,200,000 barrels per day. The US currently consumes 20 million barrels per day, a number that will likely only continue to rise.

5. Most OPEC countries are believed to have vastly over inflated the amount of oil in their reserves. Kuwait recently revealed its oil stocks to be less than half of what was previously believed.

6. US relations with the owners of the world's third largest supply of oil, Iran, are less than good.

7. Chinese companies continue to bully international companies in attempts to seize forgein oil fields thanks to financial backing from the Chinese government. The Unocal debacal is a recent example of Chinese attempts to secure supplies for its increasing oil demand from overseas sources

8. Venezuela's, the largest non-OPEC producer, leader Hugh Chavez has repeatedly threatened to cut off US oil supplies. He has also begun establishing a close relationship with India

9. For every barrel of new oil dicovered, the world consumes six barrels of oil. For the past two years oil companies have spent more money exploring for new researves than actually finding new commercially viable fields. Finding oil is now a money loser.

10. The US Geographical Survey declared 2025 to be the year world oil production will "peak" after the peak date, oil production will decline despite new advances in extraction and production technologies simply because there isn't enough oil left in the ground. This phenomina has been repeatedly reserved in individual wells, fields, companies, and our own domestic production, which peaked in the late 60s. The USGS's numbers have been traditionally off by a factor of 2.5. Most sources place the peak between 2010-2012 at the least. Some experts believe oil production peaked last year.

11. The production of shale and tar sand oil is prohibitively costly and requires natural gas, a byproduct of oil, for production to be economically possible. The Alberta tar sands, the area generating the most interest and actual investment, will require 20-35 years to reach an estimated peak production of 10 million barrels per day, less than half or need and thats before factoring in Canada's own oil demands.

12. Hydrogen fuel cells are costly at nearly 1 million dollars. They only last for one year. The production of fuel cells requires platinum. The world is estimated to hold enough extractable platinum to replace the world car fleet with fuel cells once. With a one year lifetime, these fuel cells would not work without at least another two decades of research by most estimates. By which point peak production would have already occured. It would take at least 20 years to refit every vehicle on the road with a fuel cell.

13. Methane form the sea is volitale and could result in a global environmental catstophe if improperly extracted. No one knows how to extract methane from the sea floor. It would take years before a significant methane infastructure could be put in place to wean ourselves off oil.

14. Nuclear plants cost 2-4 billion dollars, take 4-5 years to build. The first nuclear plant probably would not begin contruction because of regualtory hassles until 2010.

15. All electrical sources of power would have little effect on a decline in oil production. This is because our transportation system is designed to run directly off of oil, not electricity derived from other sources. It would take years to reroute our 45 trillion global economy to run its transportation network off a non-oil source

16. Only 5 million of our nations cars can run off ethanol. The amount of land required to grow enough corn to fuel cars would be roughly equal to the landmass of Africa.

17. Your car is designed to run of oil and only oil and no matter how many solar or wind plants we build it won't run on electricity. Again it will take decades to replace the car fleet

18. As of 2003, the world produced 84 million bpd and consumed 83 million bpd. Any significant drop (like Mexico's revelation that they will lose 2.5 million bpd of production in the next year) will hurt.

The concern isn't, "Will we have oil?" It's, "Will we have enough oil at a low enough price to keep the economy moving long term?" The answer is not unless we do something now. Gas taxes would help us by forcing people to conserve.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

So your saying we should just forget about reducing our oil dependency because "the libs" also want to reduce our dependency. That's crazy. Some things are above petty partisanship. There's no vast, left-wing conspiracy here. Just facts.

I want to get off dependency. Just in general, libs annoy me with their dogoodism that always involves compulsion and loss of freedom.

 

[MtnBiker]

Raising taxes is a profit motivator.

That is one of the most ridicules things I have ever heard.

 

[Mr.Conley]

That is one of the most ridicules things I have ever heard.

All right, lets think about this.

Right now oil is comparatively cheap when compared to other resources.

This is because right now we have enough oil to meet our demands.

Oil is amazing, one gallon of the stuff is the equivalent of you working nonstop for 500 hours. Everything in society is based on a continuous supply of cheap oil.

However oil is so good that everything else that could take its place is both more expensive and less effiecent.

However, we know that soon we will start to run out of oil.

Despite this we're burning through what we have left like there's no tomorrow.

Fortunately we are at the top of Hubbert's bell of oil production, the problem is that since we're at the top we have no where else to go but down. Yet we still burn through the oil and no one is looking into implementing some "post-oil" measures for society. The biggest news on the reduce oil depedency front is that people aren't buying SUVs like they used to.

The reason for this is that oil is so cheap. Now I know your saying that oil is through the roof right now, but when you consider how important oil is to your daily life (the whole food, shelter, clothing part) aren't you getting a deal. Consider, your buying the equivalent of you working nonstop for 500 hours for $2.15. Now talk about substandard wages.

What people have to realize the importance of oil. By raising the price, consumers will purchase more fuel efficent vehicles and appliances. And when the price is higher, otherwise uneconomical alternatives start looking a lot better. Companies can now make a profit in ways previously unthinkable. This is "the profit motivator" created by high gas prices.

Now I'm sure your saying, "let the free market raise the price and then the problem will take care of itself." The problem with this kind of thinking is that is doesn't appreciate the difficulty of not just developing alternatives but implementing them. At minimum years, but when the oil supply is dropping by 5% yearly we don't have years to wait for someone to create an economic hydrogen vehicle and build enough to replace all our know useless cars along wiht all the infatructure to fuel and maintain these vehicles. By raising the price now we get a heade start on the problem and avert a crisis that could stymie the entire economy of the US for years.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Let's just let the normal scarcity of the commodity jack the price, not libs and their dogooderness.

 

[MtnBiker]

Now I'm sure your saying, "let the free market raise the price and then the problem will take care of itself." The problem with this kind of thinking is that is doesn't appreciate the difficulty of not just developing alternatives but implementing them. At minimum years, but when the oil supply is dropping by 5% yearly we don't have years to wait for someone to create an economic hydrogen vehicle and build enough to replace all our know useless cars along wiht all the infatructure to fuel and maintain these vehicles. By raising the price now we get a heade start on the problem and avert a crisis that could stymie the entire economy of the US for years.

I have much more faith in the free market to produce alternative fuels that can be sold for a profit rather than the government over taxing gasoline and spending the tax revenue inefectively and ineffeciently as they usually do.

This really is a moot discussion. The idea of a someone raising tax on gas to lower the demand would be political suicide for a politician.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I have much more faith in the free market to produce alternative fuels that can be sold for a profit rather than the government over taxing gasoline and spending the tax revenue inefectively and ineffeciently as they usually do.

This really is a moot discussion. The idea of a someone raising tax on gas to lower the demand would be political suicide for a politician.

This is why liberals hate democracy now. They think the people are too stupid and need to be told what to do, by liberal.

 

[Mariner]

who are supporting a gas tax, RWA--it's the majority of conservative economists (and a good percentage of Republican voters) too.

A gas tax would not make the prices of everything go up. The prices of locally grown foods, for example, would fall, since local growers could expand their production based on increased local demand. This would help save family farms everywhere, and help limit the sprawl of the suburbs into the farmland surrounding cities.

Another argument against the idea that the free market should adjust the price is that many gasoline-related activities are already heavily subsidized, particularly driving, which uses most of our oil. A tax on vehicle fuel would help reduce this disparity, thereby helping the railroads and barge industries, for example, by making their far more energy-efficient services economical again.

A final argument is global warming (which is so real that even Bush has stopped denying it). Waiting for oil supplies to dictate price means further damaging our environment. Coral reefs are on the edge, the Atlantic conveyor that keeps Europe from looking like Newfoundland is down 30%, and islands are being evacuated due to rising seas. This is not a small problem, and may come to be the dominant obstacle facing humanity in the next century--one of our own making.

Yes, we can wait for the prices to rise on their own, as India and China compete with us for oil. It makes a lot more sense to place a tax now, use the money to fund research into alternatives, and then move smoothly--rather than jarringly--into an oil-free future. In the big picture of civilization, this two or three hundred years of fossil-fuel burning is going to be a brief period, just like the use of oil from the heads of sperm whales was a temporary phase in the history of lighting.

No one has addressed Friedman's geopolitcal point. This is not just about how fun it is to be able to drive your car around. This is about the fact that each time you fill up you're funding Al Qaeda.

Mariner.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

who are supporting a gas tax, RWA--it's the majority of conservative economists (and a good percentage of Republican voters) too.

A gas tax would not make the prices of everything go up. The prices of locally grown foods, for example, would fall, since local growers could expand their production based on increased local demand. This would help save family farms everywhere, and help limit the sprawl of the suburbs into the farmland surrounding cities.

Another argument against the idea that the free market should adjust the price is that many gasoline-related activities are already heavily subsidized, particularly driving, which uses most of our oil. A tax on vehicle fuel would help reduce this disparity, thereby helping the railroads and barge industries, for example, by making their far more energy-efficient services economical again.

A final argument is global warming (which is so real that even Bush has stopped denying it). Waiting for oil supplies to dictate price means further damaging our environment. Coral reefs are on the edge, the Atlantic conveyor that keeps Europe from looking like Newfoundland is down 30%, and islands are being evacuated due to rising seas. This is not a small problem, and may come to be the dominant obstacle facing humanity in the next century--one of our own making.

Yes, we can wait for the prices to rise on their own, as India and China compete with us for oil. It makes a lot more sense to place a tax now, use the money to fund research into alternatives, and then move smoothly--rather than jarringly--into an oil-free future. In the big picture of civilization, this two or three hundred years of fossil-fuel burning is going to be a brief period, just like the use of oil from the heads of sperm whales was a temporary phase in the history of lighting.

No one has addressed Friedman's geopolitcal point. This is not just about how fun it is to be able to drive your car around. This is about the fact that each time you fill up you're funding Al Qaeda.

Mariner.

I disagree. Your libs are always looking for ways to get your hands on everyone else's money. Get jobs.

 

[BaronVonBigmeat]

I fully support a gas tax, the higher the better. If it reduces our oil dependency even marginally, it will be worth it.

http://jscms.jrn.columbia.edu/cns/2005-03-15/russell-cornplastic

Corn based plastic is becoming increasingly popular, although it still uses some petrolium.

Be careful what you wish for. Even if gas is $10 a gallon, it does not change the fact that the cheapest place to suck it out of the ground is the mideast. And if we develop 50 mpg cars, people will drive more and move even further out into the suburbs.

The corn plastics thing is interesting though. At least we'll have alternatives, developed by the free market. (Of course, the sierra club guy is 100% correct about the subsidies)

1. US oil demand declined for the first time in 5 years after Katrina sent prices up.
2. High prices reduce demand. If the tax is high enough, demand will drop.

Prices will rise. Higher gas prices aren't fun for anyone, but they are inevitable. Oil is a finite resource, you can either pay a little more today or a whole lot more in 10-15 years. A higher tax make the price higher, making alternatives more attractive to industry and consumers now instead of in a decade when we start seeing major supply issues. If we work ahead than when oil prices start going crazy, we'll be a bit more insulated from shocks.

1 and 2 are correct. And assuming that oil is a finite resource (the Russians disagree), price will start drifting upwards as sources dry up.

But people seem to think that there is one big lake of oil in arabia, with none of the oil companies aware of how much is left. Why, Lake Arabia could dry up any day now, shocking all the oil companies and leaving us in the dark ages! It doesn't work like that. One well after another dries up, and the price starts moving upwards. There is no need for government taxes to do this. True, there have been some big, sudden spikes in gas prices in the last 3 years. But that's mostly due to wars in the mideast and Katrina.

1. Saudi Arabia production capacity is expected to peak by 2010 , that means that from then on Saudi Arabia's production will fall. The world's gas station will run out.

2. Every single non-OPEC country has seen production fall.

3. US oil production continues to decline as it has for decades, producing less than 40% of our needs.

4. ANWAR will, at peak production capacity 15 years from now, produce 600,000 -1,200,000 barrels per day. The US currently consumes 20 million barrels per day, a number that will likely only continue to rise.

5. Most OPEC countries are believed to have vastly over inflated the amount of oil in their reserves. Kuwait recently revealed its oil stocks to be less than half of what was previously believed.

6. US relations with the owners of the world's third largest supply of oil, Iran, are less than good.

7. Chinese companies continue to bully international companies in attempts to seize forgein oil fields thanks to financial backing from the Chinese government. The Unocal debacal is a recent example of Chinese attempts to secure supplies for its increasing oil demand from overseas sources

8. Venezuela's, the largest non-OPEC producer, leader Hugh Chavez has repeatedly threatened to cut off US oil supplies. He has also begun establishing a close relationship with India

9. For every barrel of new oil dicovered, the world consumes six barrels of oil. For the past two years oil companies have spent more money exploring for new researves than actually finding new commercially viable fields. Finding oil is now a money loser.

10. The US Geographical Survey declared 2025 to be the year world oil production will "peak" after the peak date, oil production will decline despite new advances in extraction and production technologies simply because there isn't enough oil left in the ground. This phenomina has been repeatedly reserved in individual wells, fields, companies, and our own domestic production, which peaked in the late 60s. The USGS's numbers have been traditionally off by a factor of 2.5. Most sources place the peak between 2010-2012 at the least. Some experts believe oil production peaked last year.

11. The production of shale and tar sand oil is prohibitively costly and requires natural gas, a byproduct of oil, for production to be economically possible. The Alberta tar sands, the area generating the most interest and actual investment, will require 20-35 years to reach an estimated peak production of 10 million barrels per day, less than half or need and thats before factoring in Canada's own oil demands.

12. Hydrogen fuel cells are costly at nearly 1 million dollars. They only last for one year. The production of fuel cells requires platinum. The world is estimated to hold enough extractable platinum to replace the world car fleet with fuel cells once. With a one year lifetime, these fuel cells would not work without at least another two decades of research by most estimates. By which point peak production would have already occured. It would take at least 20 years to refit every vehicle on the road with a fuel cell.

13. Methane form the sea is volitale and could result in a global environmental catstophe if improperly extracted. No one knows how to extract methane from the sea floor. It would take years before a significant methane infastructure could be put in place to wean ourselves off oil.

14. Nuclear plants cost 2-4 billion dollars, take 4-5 years to build. The first nuclear plant probably would not begin contruction because of regualtory hassles until 2010.

15. All electrical sources of power would have little effect on a decline in oil production. This is because our transportation system is designed to run directly off of oil, not electricity derived from other sources. It would take years to reroute our 45 trillion global economy to run its transportation network off a non-oil source

16. Only 5 million of our nations cars can run off ethanol. The amount of land required to grow enough corn to fuel cars would be roughly equal to the landmass of Africa.

17. Your car is designed to run of oil and only oil and no matter how many solar or wind plants we build it won't run on electricity. Again it will take decades to replace the car fleet

18. As of 2003, the world produced 84 million bpd and consumed 83 million bpd. Any significant drop (like Mexico's revelation that they will lose 2.5 million bpd of production in the next year) will hurt.

The concern isn't, "Will we have oil?" It's, "Will we have enough oil at a low enough price to keep the economy moving long term?" The answer is not unless we do something now. Gas taxes would help us by forcing people to conserve.

1-5: These may very well be correct, and if so we'll see higher prices. Government does not need to "help" in this regard!

6. True. And the correct answer is a political solution, not higher gas taxes.

7. Unless these companies are backed by the Chinese military, I don't see how it can qualify as "bullying".

8. See point #6

9 & 10. See point #1, and remember that we have heard experts proclaiming the end of oil since--quite literally--the late 1800's.

11. I'm not so sure that's true, from what I've read...but since I don't have a source handy I'll point back to point #1.

12. I agree, and doubt that hydrogen will pan out. But then again, there's plenty of private research into hydrogen tech, so we'll see. The way things are going, I tend to think that battery cars have a better chance of becoming practical.

14. Which is why we need to eliminate regulatory hassles. The newest pebble bed reactors are incredibly safe, even if everyone were to walk off the job. And arguments of "it won't be ready for X number of years!" is weak. If we'd ignored those arguments in previous years, we'd have more energy now!

15. If battery-powered cars (plug-in hybrids at first) become widespread, it won't require as many new power plants as people think. Most charging will be done at night, when current power plants currently have a lot of downtime. The newest lithium-ion batteries can be almost fully charges in 5 minutes (not a typo!) however. Gas stations are already hooked into an electricity grid, which makes this more attractive than hydrogen, which would require a vast new generation and distribution network.

16. True, ethanol is an impossible joke, at least now anyway. Maybe someone will make a big breakthrough, but it seems unlikely.

17. It won't take decades, people rarely buy a car and hold onto it more than 10 years. Unless government mandates expensive cars that aren't ready for the market yet of course. If that's the case, people will just hold on to their old cars as long as they can.

And electric cars are just now beginning to be somewhat practical:
http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/003339.html

18. See point #1

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Yes. The suburbs must be supressed. THOSE PEOPLE ARE REPUBLICANS. The voters must be kept in urban democrat slums of ignorance.

 

[Mr.Conley]

Be careful what you wish for. Even if gas is $10 a gallon, it does not change the fact that the cheapest place to suck it out of the ground is the mideast. And if we develop 50 mpg cars, people will drive more and move even further out into the suburbs.

Correct. However I envision a higher gas tax as making alternatives to oil more practical, rather than making other oil sources preferable.

AS for the drive more bit, do you have any links I could look that up on?

1 and 2 are correct. And assuming that oil is a finite resource (the Russians disagree), price will start drifting upwards as sources dry up.

You must mean the abiotic oil theory. Until I start seeing "empty wells" refill themselves I won't believe it. I've only heard of one semi-credible example of abiotic theory, and it could have beeen just as well explained by other theories as well.

But people seem to think that there is one big lake of oil in arabia, with none of the oil companies aware of how much is left. Why, Lake Arabia could dry up any day now, shocking all the oil companies and leaving us in the dark ages! It doesn't work like that. One well after another dries up, and the price starts moving upwards. There is no need for government taxes to do this. True, there have been some big, sudden spikes in gas prices in the last 3 years. But that's mostly due to wars in the mideast and Katrina.

I am not one of those people.

7. Unless these companies are backed by the Chinese military, I don't see how it can qualify as "bullying".

CNOOC, a state company, supported its extremely large bid with financing from the Chinese government. This support gave CNOOC the power to outbid privately held corporations, corporations that don't have the financial resources of the worlds most populace country. CNOOC can "bully" competitors out of the market with bids it otherwise could not afford.

14. Which is why we need to eliminate regulatory hassles. The newest pebble bed reactors are incredibly safe, even if everyone were to walk off the job. And arguments of "it won't be ready for X number of years!" is weak. If we'd ignored those arguments in previous years, we'd have more energy now!

Agreed. My point is that we should not expect nuclear alone to save us.

1-5: These may very well be correct, and if so we'll see higher prices. Government does not need to "help" in this regard!

Your main point, government involvement is not neccisary. In many ways this is simply a difference of opinion. I feel that the coming oil crisis is real and a serious threat. While I fully support free enterprise, I feel it to sometimes be too shortsighted. If we start transitioning now we'll be a lot better off for it in ten years, when things will likely start to really hurt. Ideally, I see a free enterprise system solving our problem, but with government action to motivate companies to produce alternatives. A higher gas tax would be a big motivator for any company to find an alternative I feel.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

It's so funny. liberals seek to head off a possible resource disaster with a guaranteed disaster of their own making. It's not wise. It's not taking the long view. Just as China's was no great leap forward.

 

[sitarro]

Correct. However I envision a higher gas tax as making alternatives to oil more practical, rather than making other oil sources preferable.
.

You are dillusional Mr. Con, taxes are a waste of OUR money. It is tax manipulation that got us the incredible glut of huge truck stationwagons(SUVs). Because of the small business tax credit for 6000 pound vehicles, millions became CEOs of their own small businesses and had we, the tax payers, buy them their Excursions, Hummers, Suburbans and M-1 tanks.

Your simplistic ideas are the same type that have put us where we are today. It would appear that you have your very own signed copy of that twit AlGore's joke. . . Earth in the Balance. How about this idea, you and other gullible asslicks go ahead and quit burning fossil fuel. Start riding bikes and taking buses. Show all of us nonbelievers how much of an impact you can make. What, you want everyone else to do it? You, like most Demacrits, want us to do what you say not what you do?

Did you ever wonder why Greenland is called Greenland even though from 37 thousand feet you don't see any green only white? Do you honestly believe that climate change hasn't been happening on this planet from day one. Do you honestly believe that we humans are responsible for changing the climate? After watching the levees fail do you honestly feel we humans have any power over nature to hold it back or redirect it? If so I have some gorgeous property in the middle of New Orleans I would love to sell you.

 

[MtnBiker]

Rather than the government raising gas tax to lower demand on oil, lets have the government ration the amount of gas that is sold in the U.S.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Conley, go bug china for a while

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/PEK158590.htm

There is no question that there is room to slash energy use. China currently uses more than four times as much to generate a unit of output than the average Group of Seven developed country, the Asian Development Bank says. "From an engineering perspective, the targets are very easy to hit. There is nothing technologically preventing it," said Robert Watson, director of the international energy programme at the U.S.-based Natural Resources Defense Council.

More challenging will be giving all of China, from officials to builders, real incentives to sacrifice profits for efficiency. Policy makers acknowledge they have set themselves a tough target, but they are driven by worries that a growing reliance on imported oil makes the country's economy vulnerable, while burning domestic coal reserves is devastating its environment. A net exporter of oil until 1992, China now imports more than 40 percent of its needs. Acid rain falls in more than a third of the country and air pollution is linked to some 400,000 deaths a year.

Edicts handed down from Beijing are often ignored by grassroots officials, who mouth the leadership's slogans but carry on making money as rapidly as possible and as dirtily as suits them. "This goal is achievable... (but) at the local level enforcement is a problem for current energy-efficiency policy," said Yang Fuqiang, head of the Energy Foundation in Beijing.

"A lot of local environment protection officials still agree with the local finance officials who think that development is the most important thing," he added. Politicians preoccupied with social stability need to create around 9 million jobs a year to keep the growing population employed and manufacturing remains the base of the economy, much of it in such energy-thirsty sectors as steel and aluminium. Urban growth has also spurred the rise of a prosperous middle-class that is buying up appliances from air-conditioners to washing machines, and taking to the roads, encouraged by state price caps that keep gasoline costs among the lowest in Asia.

 

[Mr.Conley]

You are dillusional Mr. Con, taxes are a waste of OUR money. It is tax manipulation that got us the incredible glut of huge truck stationwagons(SUVs). Because of the small business tax credit for 6000 pound vehicles, millions became CEOs of their own small businesses and had we, the tax payers, buy them their Excursions, Hummers, Suburbans and M-1 tanks.

Thank you for illustrating my point. People hate taxes so much that they will do anything to get around them. Corporations will dedicate themselves to helping those people do it for a profit. In your example this lead to a bad thing. However, I cannot think of anything about a gas tax that would increase our consumption.

Your simplistic ideas are the same type that have put us where we are today. It would appear that you have your very own signed copy of that twit AlGore's joke. . . Earth in the Balance.

Never heard of the book. Your pointless insults are noted and hamper your arguement. Do you have anything to back up what you say?

How about this idea, you and other gullible asslicks go ahead and quit burning fossil fuel. Start riding bikes and taking buses. Show all of us nonbelievers how much of an impact you can make. What, you want everyone else to do it?

I do ride a bike and take the bus/subway. In fact, I've never driven a car. This is because where I live using a car is, if anything, expensive and unnessicary. I have no incentive to buy a car, it would be far too inpractical. I walk to other places to see people, perform errands, and get around in general on foot. My college provides all meal with tuition, and if I want to eat somewhere else, there are plenty of restaurants. So I am in fat practicing what I preach. See this is what happens when you make statements about things you don't know anything about (in this case my life). They get shot down. Again, your uncalled for fould language is noted.

You, like most Demacrits, want us to do what you say not what you do?

If you would look at my signature, you would see I voted for Bush. Again, don't make assumptions.

Did you ever wonder why Greenland is called Greenland even though from 37 thousand feet you don't see any green only white?

Because Eric the Red wanted to found a colony and named it as such in hopes of attracting people. Hoever, as we know, Greenland is cold and inhospitable. The colony eventual failed as everyone starved to death. No climate change 'degreeniified' Greenland. Check your facts.

Do you honestly believe that climate change hasn't been happening on this planet from day one. Do you honestly believe that we humans are responsible for changing the climate?

I make no statement concerning climate change. It is not really relevant to this conversation, but yes, climate change most definitally has and is occuring. Whether humans are affecting it is a topic for another thread.

After watching the levees fail do you honestly feel we humans have any power over nature to hold it back or redirect it?

Given other instances where humans have and do hold back back nature, like the Dutch dams, the Three Gorges and Hoover dams, and the Mississippi leeves thank thankfully held, I would answer yes. However, it requires resources, determination, and effective governance to build and maintain such installations.

If so I have some gorgeous property in the middle of New Orleans I would love to sell you.

I you had revieved the board, you would have realized I am from New Orleans. My parents already own property and fortunately suffered no damage so no, I would have no interest in such a property.

 

[Mr.Conley]

Conley, go bug china for a while

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/PEK158590.htm


Quote:
There is no question that there is room to slash energy use. China currently uses more than four times as much to generate a unit of output than the average Group of Seven developed country, the Asian Development Bank says. "From an engineering perspective, the targets are very easy to hit. There is nothing technologically preventing it," said Robert Watson, director of the international energy programme at the U.S.-based Natural Resources Defense Council.

More challenging will be giving all of China, from officials to builders, real incentives to sacrifice profits for efficiency. Policy makers acknowledge they have set themselves a tough target, but they are driven by worries that a growing reliance on imported oil makes the country's economy vulnerable, while burning domestic coal reserves is devastating its environment. A net exporter of oil until 1992, China now imports more than 40 percent of its needs. Acid rain falls in more than a third of the country and air pollution is linked to some 400,000 deaths a year.

Edicts handed down from Beijing are often ignored by grassroots officials, who mouth the leadership's slogans but carry on making money as rapidly as possible and as dirtily as suits them. "This goal is achievable... (but) at the local level enforcement is a problem for current energy-efficiency policy," said Yang Fuqiang, head of the Energy Foundation in Beijing.

"A lot of local environment protection officials still agree with the local finance officials who think that development is the most important thing," he added. Politicians preoccupied with social stability need to create around 9 million jobs a year to keep the growing population employed and manufacturing remains the base of the economy, much of it in such energy-thirsty sectors as steel and aluminium. Urban growth has also spurred the rise of a prosperous middle-class that is buying up appliances from air-conditioners to washing machines, and taking to the roads, encouraged by state price caps that keep gasoline costs among the lowest in Asia.

I already know about this and have discussed it with my friends from China. I would do more, but then you would probably call me a liberal.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I already know about this and have discussed it with my friends from China. I would do more, but then you would probably call me a liberal.

Actually, i'm glad libs rarely do more than discuss things. Their ineffetiveness is their only redeeming quality.