US oil consumption

[Euro]

Whenever someone uses the "we are dependent on foreign oil" line I cringe...

Foreign oil is about as dubious a term as there is. First we have to realize that most of the actual discovery, drilling, refining, and selling or trading occurs either locally (refining, trade markets) or internationally by INTERNATIONAL CONGLOMERATES, corporations and funded by the other banks including the UN's World Bank. The UN itself is based in New York city but we do not even think of it as a US body now do we.

We are dependent on oil just as the rest of the world is, to maintain some silly idea that if its in the Middle East its foreign is just unrealistic in these modern times.

Matter of fact you have to look hard to find anything that is not made either fully or in part in another country these days. How can that be if there is still such a thing as "foreign oil"? Foreign oil is like the modern boogey man that politicians pull out to scare people.

Say the number 1 oil producing area declares war on us and stops supplying the markets what happens? Well we go in and take care of it and install a new government that sees it our way. We just did that recently maybe you all remember that? That's the reality of oil. Its no longer this or that countries property, not really. Its the worlds oil and has been since it became so important and scarce. Over the next few decades we will see the facade of national sovereignty crumble to dust, due to ever dwindling resources. There is no room for hording ones own resources, the world is too big and there are too many of us all needing the resources.[/QUOTE]

@gslack

Whenever someone uses the "we are dependent on foreign oil" line I cringe...

Foreign oil is about as dubious a term as there is. First we have to realize that most of the actual discovery, drilling, refining, and selling or trading occurs either locally (refining, trade markets) or internationally by INTERNATIONAL CONGLOMERATES, corporations and funded by the other banks including the UN's World Bank. The UN itself is based in New York city but we do not even think of it as a US body now do we.

We are dependent on oil just as the rest of the world is, to maintain some silly idea that if its in the Middle East its foreign is just unrealistic in these modern times.

Matter of fact you have to look hard to find anything that is not made either fully or in part in another country these days. How can that be if there is still such a thing as "foreign oil"? Foreign oil is like the modern boogey man that politicians pull out to scare people.

Say the number 1 oil producing area declares war on us and stops supplying the markets what happens? Well we go in and take care of it and install a new government that sees it our way. We just did that recently maybe you all remember that? That's the reality of oil. Its no longer this or that countries property, not really. Its the worlds oil and has been since it became so important and scarce. Over the next few decades we will see the facade of national sovereignty crumble to dust, due to ever dwindling resources. There is no room for hording ones own resources, the world is too big and there are too many of us all needing the resources.

But the US is much more dependent on oil than any other country. I dont think the US are able to just "take care of it" if some of the biggest oil producing nations stop their export. The biggest oil producer in the world is Russia and they are armed with nuclear weapon so to "just take care of it and place a new government" would probobaly not be a good idea. But countries like Iran and Saudi Arabia that also are large oil producers are about to develop nuclear weapons, and that would make an operation impossible.

Yes the world is dependent on oil but the US is even more dependent on it than the rest of the world. In the US every person is much more dependent of its car and public transportation is non excisting. In the future when the oil price increases even more transportation costs will increase so much that transportation of goods by trucks or planes will not be profitable.

Import goods would be so expensive because of the transportation costs that people and stores cant get nescessary goods imported. However other parts of the world would also note this, but not to the same extent they are more prepared for the day when the oil stops.

Other countries have already built electric railways and are planning to build even more to meet the future and the increased oil prices. If you live in a modern european city(London,Paris) or asian ciity(Shanghai,Tokyo) people dont need to have their own car because of good and environmentally friendly infrastructure. So their daily lives would probobaly be just as before but excotic goods that needs to transported by planes woud probobaly be limited. But for people living in LA or Houston where people are so dependent on their car because of the lack of infrastructure will get serious problems. The goods import will be expensive because the only way of transportation in the US is by plane or car. People would probobaly not afford to drive to their jobs because of the high oil price (In europe and asia we can just use cheap and enviromentally public transportation)

So if the US wants to meet the future where oil will be a scarcity independent of" the dependency of foreign oil" they must reduce their oil consumption. Taxes is a good of doing that because when the gasoline price increases people will park their cars. In the short run I understand that increased taxes is not something that people want but think of what you might get back for your taxes in the future and future generations.

 

[Unkotare]

So if the US wants to meet the future where oil will be a scarcity independent of" the dependency of foreign oil" they must reduce their oil consumption. Taxes is a good of doing that because when the gasoline price increases people will park their cars. In the short run I understand that increased taxes is not something that people want but think of what you might get back for your taxes in the future and future generations.

Your every idea as relates to the US falls completely apart when you begin from the assumption of a socialist, centrally-planned, controlling and limiting euro-ish point of view. Your ideas are self-important and willfully ignorant.

 

[gslack]

Say the number 1 oil producing area declares war on us and stops supplying the markets what happens? Well we go in and take care of it and install a new government that sees it our way. We just did that recently maybe you all remember that?

NO, because we did not do that.

We went into Iraq and installed a new government... We did so over oil, there were no WMD's and to pretend it was anything BUT stabilizing the region to ensure energy security is naive..

 

[Euro]

Your every idea as relates to the US falls completely apart when you begin from the assumption of a socialist, centrally-planned, controlling and limiting euro-ish point of view. Your ideas are self-important and willfully ignorant.

There needs to be a balance between personal accountability and social solidarity. You can’t be so dependent on the state that you no longer have any initiative. And you can’t be so abandoned by society that you’re all on your own and there’s no helping each other.

If Europe is so moribund and America so economically strong, why is the dollar continuing to devalue against the euro? It’s because the investment community says economic fundamentals are sound enough to guarantee payoff. this is what you’ll get if you go with the American model. You’ll get a winner takes it all system, a greater disparity in income, you’ll have increased poverty. You’ll get debt for your family. The only other country that has really followed american system is Britain, and it now has the worst consumer debt ratio in the world– an achievement it has accomplished in just five years. The average Brit spends 120 percent of his or her income.

If you look at the American economy in a detached way, there’s no doubt that the unfettered market produces some innovation and growth. But the truth is that the recent economic growth seen in the US has been, in large part, the result of a massive increase in consumer debt. The US came out of the 1989-92 recession by issuing credit cards. went on a huge credit binge and basically kept the American economy and the whole global economy afloat on consumer credit and American consumers continuing to buy. The cost of this was the depletion of the family savings rates of millions of Americans — we had an 8 percent family savings rate in 1990 and it’s in almost in below zero(-ve) today.

 

[Unkotare]

We went into Iraq and installed a new government... We did so over oil..

No, we did not. That is a liberal talking point that has never been substantiated.

 

[Unkotare]

There needs to be a balance between personal accountability and social solidarity. You can’t be so dependent on the state that you no longer have any initiative. And you can’t be so abandoned by society that you’re all on your own and there’s no helping each other..

If you can't view things from any but your own subjective and cultural biases you will never understand why you continue to be wrong.

 

[gslack]

Whenever someone uses the "we are dependent on foreign oil" line I cringe...

Foreign oil is about as dubious a term as there is. First we have to realize that most of the actual discovery, drilling, refining, and selling or trading occurs either locally (refining, trade markets) or internationally by INTERNATIONAL CONGLOMERATES, corporations and funded by the other banks including the UN's World Bank. The UN itself is based in New York city but we do not even think of it as a US body now do we.

We are dependent on oil just as the rest of the world is, to maintain some silly idea that if its in the Middle East its foreign is just unrealistic in these modern times.

Matter of fact you have to look hard to find anything that is not made either fully or in part in another country these days. How can that be if there is still such a thing as "foreign oil"? Foreign oil is like the modern boogey man that politicians pull out to scare people.

Say the number 1 oil producing area declares war on us and stops supplying the markets what happens? Well we go in and take care of it and install a new government that sees it our way. We just did that recently maybe you all remember that? That's the reality of oil. Its no longer this or that countries property, not really. Its the worlds oil and has been since it became so important and scarce. Over the next few decades we will see the facade of national sovereignty crumble to dust, due to ever dwindling resources. There is no room for hording ones own resources, the world is too big and there are too many of us all needing the resources.

@gslack

Whenever someone uses the "we are dependent on foreign oil" line I cringe...

Foreign oil is about as dubious a term as there is. First we have to realize that most of the actual discovery, drilling, refining, and selling or trading occurs either locally (refining, trade markets) or internationally by INTERNATIONAL CONGLOMERATES, corporations and funded by the other banks including the UN's World Bank. The UN itself is based in New York city but we do not even think of it as a US body now do we.

We are dependent on oil just as the rest of the world is, to maintain some silly idea that if its in the Middle East its foreign is just unrealistic in these modern times.

Matter of fact you have to look hard to find anything that is not made either fully or in part in another country these days. How can that be if there is still such a thing as "foreign oil"? Foreign oil is like the modern boogey man that politicians pull out to scare people.

Say the number 1 oil producing area declares war on us and stops supplying the markets what happens? Well we go in and take care of it and install a new government that sees it our way. We just did that recently maybe you all remember that? That's the reality of oil. Its no longer this or that countries property, not really. Its the worlds oil and has been since it became so important and scarce. Over the next few decades we will see the facade of national sovereignty crumble to dust, due to ever dwindling resources. There is no room for hording ones own resources, the world is too big and there are too many of us all needing the resources.

But the US is much more dependent on oil than any other country. I dont think the US are able to just "take care of it" if some of the biggest oil producing nations stop their export. The biggest oil producer in the world is Russia and they are armed with nuclear weapon so to "just take care of it and place a new government" would probobaly not be a good idea. But countries like Iran and Saudi Arabia that also are large oil producers are about to develop nuclear weapons, and that would make an operation impossible.

Yes the world is dependent on oil but the US is even more dependent on it than the rest of the world. In the US every person is much more dependent of its car and public transportation is non excisting. In the future when the oil price increases even more transportation costs will increase so much that transportation of goods by trucks or planes will not be profitable.

Import goods would be so expensive because of the transportation costs that people and stores cant get nescessary goods imported. However other parts of the world would also note this, but not to the same extent they are more prepared for the day when the oil stops.

Other countries have already built electric railways and are planning to build even more to meet the future and the increased oil prices. If you live in a modern european city(London,Paris) or asian ciity(Shanghai,Tokyo) people dont need to have their own car because of good and environmentally friendly infrastructure. So their daily lives would probobaly be just as before but excotic goods that needs to transported by planes woud probobaly be limited. But for people living in LA or Houston where people are so dependent on their car because of the lack of infrastructure will get serious problems. The goods import will be expensive because the only way of transportation in the US is by plane or car. People would probobaly not afford to drive to their jobs because of the high oil price (In europe and asia we can just use cheap and enviromentally public transportation)

So if the US wants to meet the future where oil will be a scarcity independent of" the dependency of foreign oil" they must reduce their oil consumption. Taxes is a good of doing that because when the gasoline price increases people will park their cars. In the short run I understand that increased taxes is not something that people want but think of what you might get back for your taxes in the future and future generations.[/QUOTE]

Dude you don't get it... You either read half what I said, or didn't understand it...

What part of global escapes you? You are thinking in one dimension and only seeing the one small aspect. Oil, Coal, Natural Gas, or anything else we can use to feed the energy requirements of the world, is no longer viewed as one countries property any longer. If the last batch of oil on the planet is under your house and we still need it, your house will be moved with or without your consent. When its a matter of survival personal property and rights are luxuries that the world will not have time for.

We have electric train lines here as well. New York, New Jersey, and other larger US cities have them and have had them for a long time. The problem is, England is the size of one or two US states, and we have 50 states. Outside large cities running electric rail lines gets more and more difficult. In Europe each country pays for their own rail lines and eventually they can connect to others and so on. Here each state will have to do that and given not every state is wealthy enough or warrants such a rail line you can hopefully see the problem. A state save a few of the very wealthy here, is no match for that of a sovereign nation, and that's just the beginning.

65 million people or there about live in France. Our most populated state here is California with about 37 million people. A little more than half that of France, and France is part of the Republic of France which includes outside Municipalities and provinces. All of these generate revenue for France. And that was our MOST populated State...

What you are asking for is the entire country to adopt electric railways like in Europe when Europe is full of Nations and we are full of States. Nations with far more people in each one than their are in our states. Who will pay for this mass electric railway revolution? The states which are going broke and suffering from the same economic woes our Federal government is? What about states like Wyoming with fewer than 200,000 people in them? Do they have to electric railway their state as well?

And lastly what will power this railway? Coal is the number electricity provider and its a fossil fuel and burning makes CO2 which is what you are wanting to avoid...

You people have all these fantasies that greenpeace and the liberal media feed you and no real grasp of the reality of it all. You are told "they got electric trains in france that goes all over the country" and since france is nowhere near as wealthy as we are we should have them too. And you dreamers just go with it. Sure if france can do it, maybe New York can. And if france, england, italy, and spain can all do it, maybe we can eletric train the east coast... Maybe... What about the rest of the country though?

Look, there is reality and then there is fantasy. Cutting back CO2 by cutting back on cars and replacing them with electric trains at massive costs in infrastructure and even more coal burning, is unrealistic and even worse for the environment..

 

[gslack]

We went into Iraq and installed a new government... We did so over oil..

No, we did not. That is a liberal talking point that has never been substantiated.

Well thats nonsense, I am no liberal and care nothing for talking points they employ. You can hold onto your fantasy of it being about something more than regional stability and safeguarding oil and energy in the future all you want, but the reality is still there staring you in the face. That's not a liberal or conservative talking point, that's plain old truth.

BTW, I am the only person I know who can be accused of using liberal talking points and being a right wing oil lover in the same forum in the same day... Want to accuse me of something better make it better than trying to dismiss as a liberal...

 

[Unkotare]

Well thats nonsense, I am no liberal and care nothing for talking points they employ. You can hold onto your fantasy of it being about something more than regional stability and safeguarding oil and energy in the future all you want

I'll talk about regional stability all I want because it was regional instability and the unfettered (or even assisted - thanks France) aggression and machinations of tyrants like saddam and terror-sponsoring and harboring states like Iran and Afghanistan (among others) that led to the worst terrorist attack on US soil ever. If we had been after oil we would have gotten it, but we did not. For 12 years Iraq's oil was not a major part of the global energy market aside from the black-market oil our craven european 'allies' brought to market, so we were not desperate to go get that. Oil is meaningless to oil-producing states if they don't sell it, and they always do - apart from the occaisional and temporary political posturing 'embargo' - no matter how shitty the government. If you choose to ignore what was and is the real regional threat, then you are the one indulging in fantasy.

And if you don't care about liberal talking points it sure is a coincidence that you are repeating them.

 

[gslack]

Well thats nonsense, I am no liberal and care nothing for talking points they employ. You can hold onto your fantasy of it being about something more than regional stability and safeguarding oil and energy in the future all you want

I'll talk about regional stability all I want because it was regional instability and the unfettered (or even assisted - thanks France) aggression and machinations of tyrants like saddam and terror-sponsoring and harboring states like Iran and Afghanistan (among others) that led to the worst terrorist attack on US soil ever. If we had been after oil we would have gotten it, but we did not. For 12 years Iraq's oil was not a major part of the global energy market aside from the black-market oil our craven european 'allies' brought to market, so we were not desperate to go get that. Oil is meaningless to oil-producing states if they don't sell it, and they always do - apart from the occaisional and temporary political posturing 'embargo' - no matter how shitty the government. If you choose to ignore what was and is the real regional threat, then you are the one indulging in fantasy.

And if you don't care about liberal talking points it sure is a coincidence that you are repeating them.

Stop with the Republican party line rhetoric already...

Dude I was talking about regional stability, I said you can talk about it not being about it all you want. Which you did.

So where are those pesky WMD's? Saddam DID NOT HARBOR AL QAEDA! Everyone knew that even George W. Saddam was a tyrant, a tyrant helped into power. Tyrants do not share power and do not harbor those who could challenge their rule..

You are still thinking its Iraq's oil... Its not. Its the worlds oil. When the world needs it they will take it. They always do and always will. And whats worse is they won't have to take it. Iraq will give it up to ensure their own survival. They need the things that oil will bring into their country just as much as the rest of the world needs that oil.

Just to clarify some things about my political leanings.... Go check out the environmental threads here and see what my leanings are before calling me something... I am about as much a liberal as The Pope is Jewish...

I find the concept and logic behind CO2 induced global warming to be utter bullshit from start to finish. I think that Obama is a yes man with no clue to what he is doing. I think George W. was daddy's boy doing what he was told. I also think that Bill Clinton's Rhodes Scholarship made him a capitalist in a socialists hat. I think you cannot make enough laws to deter crime, I agree with the death penalty, and I support a woman's right to choose. I oppose the welfare state and think the more you do for people the less they do for themselves. I think legislating every possible way a crime can be committed is an exercise in futility. I appreciate your and my right to free speech, bear arms and the entire bill of rights. I think the patriot act was a deliberate act to undermine that bill of rights and lay the groundwork for future transgressions against the people of this country.

And all of that makes me a liberal???

 

[Unkotare]

Stop with the Republican party line rhetoric already...

Sorry if reality does not conform to the liberal outlook and talking points - which you are parroting almost to a word.

You can't claim to be a vegetarian while munching on a hamburger, champ.

 

[BoycottTheday]

Freakin hippies dont even know what oil is butt they have buckets of opinions about it.

 

[Unkotare]

Edited, no altering posts-meister

Yes, yes it does.


You sound exactly like liberals who justify class warfare and 'tax the rich' solutions to everything by claiming that the money wealthy people have made is really "our money," which they are justified in taking whenever they want. You sound exactly like pro-abortionist liberals with no regard for the most innocent and vulnerable human life. And you sound exactly like empty-headed, emotive liberals who try to paint every (successful) effort to secure the nation following 9/11 as some evil fascist conspiracy (that is until any of them is actually in a position of responsibility, when reality suddenly smacks them in the face).

So yeah, that makes you a liberal.

 

[Toro]

I am a bit worried about the US oil consumption.
If the consume dosent decrease the economy wil decrease.

US consumes 22.7% of all oil in the world. US only have 2% of the worlds oil reserves and US will be more dependent on import in the future. US only have 4.5% of the worlds total population, but still they consume allmost 1/4 of the worlds oil. US is heavily dependent on oil compared to other countries.

The oil price will increase in the future years and the US oil production is falling and every year they get more and more dependent on oil import.
The whole US transportation system is build up on the idea that every person has its own car, and except from some european like cities like Chicago, NYC, SF their are almost no public transportation excisting. LA most be the worst example of a sustainable city in the world. Their must be a large potential to reduce the oil consumption in a city like this to meet the future.

The cost for transpotation will increase rapidly in the future and this will affect US a lot harder than any country in the world. As far as i know US dont have any electric railway system at all. In europe and Asia almost every railway system is electrified and they have high speed trains and modern railways that can transport large amounts of goods and people. In the future transport of goods and persons with plane and trucks will not be competitive with large scale electric train systems.. The cost for co2 pollution will also increase and this will affect the US economy largely.

Here are som suggestions for a sustaniable future:
**Increase taxes on gasoline a lot. (6$ pr gallon is a fine price as a start and comparable to europe.).( Price today 3.5$ is very low and should be increased)

**Green taxes on cars with low fuel economy (SUVs for instance). In europe US suvs are so heavily taxed that it costs from 200.000$ and up.
**Use the taxes from gasoline and cars to build high speed train networks between all major cities across the country.
++more, their is a large potential for reduction in the transport sector. Building wind and solar etc. is fine but the largest potential is in the transport sector by reducing the consumption.

Is this a good idea as a start?

No.

America is not Europe.

Noep America is not europe and for that reason higher oil prices will hit us harder than it does them.
The USA was built around cheap abundant oil and we will pretty much collapse when it is no longer either cheap or abundant.

Oil has gone up by 900% in 13 years, yet America didn't collapse. When oil was at $20, everyone thought that if oil doubled, the economy would go into a deep recession. It didn't happen.

 

[Toro]

Your every idea as relates to the US falls completely apart when you begin from the assumption of a socialist, centrally-planned, controlling and limiting euro-ish point of view. Your ideas are self-important and willfully ignorant.

There needs to be a balance between personal accountability and social solidarity. You can’t be so dependent on the state that you no longer have any initiative. And you can’t be so abandoned by society that you’re all on your own and there’s no helping each other.

If Europe is so moribund and America so economically strong, why is the dollar continuing to devalue against the euro? It’s because the investment community says economic fundamentals are sound enough to guarantee payoff. this is what you’ll get if you go with the American model. You’ll get a winner takes it all system, a greater disparity in income, you’ll have increased poverty. You’ll get debt for your family. The only other country that has really followed american system is Britain, and it now has the worst consumer debt ratio in the world– an achievement it has accomplished in just five years. The average Brit spends 120 percent of his or her income.

If you look at the American economy in a detached way, there’s no doubt that the unfettered market produces some innovation and growth. But the truth is that the recent economic growth seen in the US has been, in large part, the result of a massive increase in consumer debt. The US came out of the 1989-92 recession by issuing credit cards. went on a huge credit binge and basically kept the American economy and the whole global economy afloat on consumer credit and American consumers continuing to buy. The cost of this was the depletion of the family savings rates of millions of Americans — we had an 8 percent family savings rate in 1990 and it’s in almost in below zero(-ve) today.

The savings rate is about 5% today. It was negative during the last decade.

It is incorrect to say that the growth in the economy for the past generation is because of a credit binge. Certainly, it was important during the past decade, but that's not true of the 90s. Productivity growth has been the underpinnings of the American economy, which is fairly exogenous from the growth in consumer credit.

 

[editec]

The cost for transpotation will increase rapidly in the future and this will affect US a lot harder than any country in the world. As far as i know US dont have any electric railway system at all. In europe and Asia almost every railway system is electrified and they have high speed trains and modern railways that can transport large amounts of goods and people.

You speak of ELECTRICITY as though electricity was an alternate energy SOURCE.

WE still need to MAKE the electricity, do we not?



Here are som suggestions for a sustaniable future:
**Increase taxes on gasoline a lot. (6$ pr gallon is a fine price as a start and comparable to europe.).( Price today 3.5$ is very low and should be increased)

**Green taxes on cars with low fuel economy (SUVs for instance). In europe US suvs are so heavily taxed that it costs from 200.000$ and up.
**Use the taxes from gasoline and cars to build high speed train networks between all major cities across the country.
++more, their is a large potential for reduction in the transport sector. Building wind and solar etc. is fine but the largest potential is in the transport sector by reducing the consumption.

Is this a good idea as a start?

Finding more efficient ways to do work is obviously the path we must take.

I'm sure that expanding our rail system is probably part of that solution, but it is hardly the whole solution.

We move one hell of a lot of stuff now on train, ya know.

42% of all goods shipped in the USA move by trains.

But obviously it is often not economically sensible to build a train system leading to places that don't require much traffic.

And when it comes to moving things locally, trains are worthless.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

@gslack

Whenever someone uses the "we are dependent on foreign oil" line I cringe...

Foreign oil is about as dubious a term as there is. First we have to realize that most of the actual discovery, drilling, refining, and selling or trading occurs either locally (refining, trade markets) or internationally by INTERNATIONAL CONGLOMERATES, corporations and funded by the other banks including the UN's World Bank. The UN itself is based in New York city but we do not even think of it as a US body now do we.

We are dependent on oil just as the rest of the world is, to maintain some silly idea that if its in the Middle East its foreign is just unrealistic in these modern times.

Matter of fact you have to look hard to find anything that is not made either fully or in part in another country these days. How can that be if there is still such a thing as "foreign oil"? Foreign oil is like the modern boogey man that politicians pull out to scare people.

Say the number 1 oil producing area declares war on us and stops supplying the markets what happens? Well we go in and take care of it and install a new government that sees it our way. We just did that recently maybe you all remember that? That's the reality of oil. Its no longer this or that countries property, not really. Its the worlds oil and has been since it became so important and scarce. Over the next few decades we will see the facade of national sovereignty crumble to dust, due to ever dwindling resources. There is no room for hording ones own resources, the world is too big and there are too many of us all needing the resources.

But the US is much more dependent on oil than any other country. I dont think the US are able to just "take care of it" if some of the biggest oil producing nations stop their export. The biggest oil producer in the world is Russia and they are armed with nuclear weapon so to "just take care of it and place a new government" would probobaly not be a good idea. But countries like Iran and Saudi Arabia that also are large oil producers are about to develop nuclear weapons, and that would make an operation impossible.

Yes the world is dependent on oil but the US is even more dependent on it than the rest of the world. In the US every person is much more dependent of its car and public transportation is non excisting. In the future when the oil price increases even more transportation costs will increase so much that transportation of goods by trucks or planes will not be profitable.

Import goods would be so expensive because of the transportation costs that people and stores cant get nescessary goods imported. However other parts of the world would also note this, but not to the same extent they are more prepared for the day when the oil stops.

Other countries have already built electric railways and are planning to build even more to meet the future and the increased oil prices. If you live in a modern european city(London,Paris) or asian ciity(Shanghai,Tokyo) people dont need to have their own car because of good and environmentally friendly infrastructure. So their daily lives would probobaly be just as before but excotic goods that needs to transported by planes woud probobaly be limited. But for people living in LA or Houston where people are so dependent on their car because of the lack of infrastructure will get serious problems. The goods import will be expensive because the only way of transportation in the US is by plane or car. People would probobaly not afford to drive to their jobs because of the high oil price (In europe and asia we can just use cheap and enviromentally public transportation)

So if the US wants to meet the future where oil will be a scarcity independent of" the dependency of foreign oil" they must reduce their oil consumption. Taxes is a good of doing that because when the gasoline price increases people will park their cars. In the short run I understand that increased taxes is not something that people want but think of what you might get back for your taxes in the future and future generations.[/QUOTE]

"But the US is much more dependent on oil than any other country"

Much more dependent? How do you figure? I think Japan imports about 97% of their oil.

We're so dependent on oil that your solution is to make it much more expensive?
Why don't you come up with an entire list of things we could do to crush our economy?
Why limit yourself to just one?

 

[gslack]

Stop with the Republican party line rhetoric already...

Sorry if reality does not conform to the liberal outlook and talking points - which you are parroting almost to a word.

You can't claim to be a vegetarian while munching on a hamburger, champ.

Really? Than why not quote my entire post then tool?

Get some sleep douchebag, you made an ass of yourself in two threads now. Im not a liberal and anyone who knows me here will tell you that...

 

[gslack]

Edited....No altering posts-meister

Yes, yes it does.


You sound exactly like liberals who justify class warfare and 'tax the rich' solutions to everything by claiming that the money wealthy people have made is really "our money," which they are justified in taking whenever they want. You sound exactly like pro-abortionist liberals with no regard for the most innocent and vulnerable human life. And you sound exactly like empty-headed, emotive liberals who try to paint every (successful) effort to secure the nation following 9/11 as some evil fascist conspiracy (that is until any of them is actually in a position of responsibility, when reality suddenly smacks them in the face).

So yeah, that makes you a liberal.

YOU EDIT MY POST?

OKay tool that's your ass...

1. My post #30
I said the following...

Stop with the Republican party line rhetoric already...

Dude I was talking about regional stability, I said you can talk about it not being about it all you want. Which you did.

So where are those pesky WMD's? Saddam DID NOT HARBOR AL QAEDA! Everyone knew that even George W. Saddam was a tyrant, a tyrant helped into power. Tyrants do not share power and do not harbor those who could challenge their rule..

You are still thinking its Iraq's oil... Its not. Its the worlds oil. When the world needs it they will take it. They always do and always will. And whats worse is they won't have to take it. Iraq will give it up to ensure their own survival. They need the things that oil will bring into their country just as much as the rest of the world needs that oil.

Just to clarify some things about my political leanings.... Go check out the environmental threads here and see what my leanings are before calling me something... I am about as much a liberal as The Pope is Jewish...

I find the concept and logic behind CO2 induced global warming to be utter bullshit from start to finish. I think that Obama is a yes man with no clue to what he is doing. I think George W. was daddy's boy doing what he was told. I also think that Bill Clinton's Rhodes Scholarship made him a capitalist in a socialists hat. I think you cannot make enough laws to deter crime, I agree with the death penalty, and I support a woman's right to choose. I oppose the welfare state and think the more you do for people the less they do for themselves. I think legislating every possible way a crime can be committed is an exercise in futility. I appreciate your and my right to free speech, bear arms and the entire bill of rights. I think the patriot act was a deliberate act to undermine that bill of rights and lay the groundwork for future transgressions against the people of this country.

And all of that makes me a liberal???

DO NOT edit my posts like that again. That was a dishonest and blatant attempt to change what I said and cover parts of what I did say.

Thats lying and I am pretty sure doing it to the extent you did is a rules violation here...

Editing peoples post to change what they meant is a douchebag tactic...

 

[OODA_Loop]

Hot rods dont run on sunshine.