|
17 May 01 - 02:24 PM (#464880) Subject: Gas prices From: kendall People keep asking that question, "What can I do?" well, consider this. TIRED OF THESE HIGH GAS PRICES?? LET'S JUST WAGE A LITTLE WAR OF OUR OWN!!!!! This makes MUCH MORE SENSE than the "don't buy gas on a certain day" campaign that was going around last April or May! The oil companies just laughed at that because they knew we wouldn't continue to "hurt" ourselves by refusing to buy gas. It was more of an inconvenience to us than it was a problem for them. BUT, whoever came up with this idea, has come up with a plan that can really work. Please read it and join with us! With the price of gasoline going up more each day, the consumers (each of us) need to take action. The only way we are going to see the price of gas come down is if we hit someone in the pocketbook by not purchasing their gas! And we can do that WITHOUT hurting ourselves. How? Since we all rely on our cars, we can't just stop buying gas. But we CAN have an impact on gas prices if we all act together to force a price war. Here's the idea: For the rest of this year, DON'T purchase ANY gasoline from the two biggest companies (which now are one), EXXON and MOBIL. If they are not selling any gas, they will be inclined to reduce their prices. If they reduce their prices, the other companies will have to follow suit. But to have an impact, we need to reach literally millions of Exxon and Mobil gas buyers. It's really simple to do!! Now, don't wimp out on me at this point...keep reading and I'll explain how simple it is to reach millions of people!! I am sending this note to about thirty people. If each of you send it to at least ten more (30 x 10 = 300)... and those 300 send it to at least ten more (300 x 10 = 3,000) ... and so on, by the time the message reaches the sixth generation of people, we will have reached over THREE MILLION consumers! If those three million get excited and pass this on to ten friends each, then 30 million people will have been contacted! If it goes one level further, you guessed it..... THREE HUNDRED MILLION PEOPLE!!! Again, all you have to do is send this to 10 people. That's all. (If you don't understand how we can reach 300 million and all you have to do is send this to 10 or more people.... well, let's face it, you just aren't a mathematician. But I am... so trust me on this one.) How long would all that take? If each of us sends this email out to only ten people within one day of receipt, all 300 MILLION people could conceivably be contacted within the next 8 days!!! I'll bet you didn't think you and I had that much potential, did you! Acting together we can make a difference. If this makes sense to you, please pass this message on. PLEASE HOLD OUT UNTIL THEY LOWER THEIR PRICES TO THE $1.20 RANGE AND KEEP THEM DOWN. THIS CAN REALLY WORK.
|
|
17 May 01 - 02:29 PM (#464885) Subject: RE: Help: Gas prices From: Shields Folk Aw shut up! |
|
17 May 01 - 02:38 PM (#464893) Subject: RE: Help: Gas prices From: kendall Do you enjoy making the oil companies even richer than they are at our expense? I havn't bought Exxon gas since the Valdez spill, and, I havn't bought Mobil since the merger. |
|
17 May 01 - 02:40 PM (#464896) Subject: RE: Help: Gas prices From: Clinton Hammond Oh please... this same email went around LAST year!!! |
|
17 May 01 - 02:42 PM (#464897) Subject: RE: Help: Gas prices From: Shields Folk yea right the Valdez spill. good reason for not buying. but thats got nothing to do with cost or making people rich . It's got to do with the environmental damage. it doesn't whether you spill it or burn it. |
|
17 May 01 - 02:43 PM (#464899) Subject: RE: Help: Gas prices From: Shields Folk theres a 'matter' missed out of there somewhere! |
|
17 May 01 - 02:45 PM (#464902) Subject: RE: Help: Gas prices From: GUEST,UB Dan How about if we get 10 people to mail me a dollar, and then each of those people recruits 10 more people to send me a dollar and so on. Eventually the price of gas won't bother me at all and I will try to remeber those of you who helped me out at the beginning when I obtain vast amounts of wealth and power. I also promise to invest some of the money in alternative energy research. |
|
17 May 01 - 02:47 PM (#464906) Subject: RE: Help: Gas prices From: Clinton Hammond Tha majority of 'oil' taken out of the ground doesn't even go into fuel... Plastics, highways, edible oil products... give THOSE up! ;-) |
|
17 May 01 - 02:49 PM (#464910) Subject: RE: Help: Gas prices From: kendall So, all you pissers and moaners, just continue to bend over for the oil companies. I will continue to boycott Exxon and Mobil. |
|
17 May 01 - 02:53 PM (#464915) Subject: RE: Help: Gas prices From: Clinton Hammond Read my post above, Kendall... |
|
17 May 01 - 02:53 PM (#464916) Subject: RE: Help: Gas prices From: Shields Folk Yes thats right never buy fuel again. use public transport, get yourself a bike, move near your work, take your holidays nearer home and buy your food from local producers. I'm glad I helped :) |
|
17 May 01 - 03:09 PM (#464930) Subject: RE: BS: Gas prices From: GUEST,UB Dan I have pissed and I have moaned...but rarely due to gas...except that once - and in my defense, I didn't know there was that much cabbage in the meal |
|
17 May 01 - 03:15 PM (#464935) Subject: RE: BS: Gas prices From: Kim C My question is... don't the smaller companies buy their oil from the larger companies anyhow? If that is the case, then you may still be supporting the big oil companies without knowing it. Does anyone know? |
|
17 May 01 - 04:31 PM (#464986) Subject: RE: BS: Gas prices From: Pseudolus It simply won't work. Exxon and Mobil don't control the prices of gas the countries where it is being produced do. The only people hurt by a plan like this will be the folks who own the actual gas stations......if at all. Frank |
|
17 May 01 - 04:39 PM (#464997) Subject: RE: BS: Gas prices From: Jon Freeman So when I get usless emails regarding oil prices in a foreign country, I'll know who to blame... Sorry Kendall but I don't belive these email schemes help anyone. Jon |
|
17 May 01 - 04:44 PM (#465004) Subject: RE: BS: Gas prices From: Justa Picker The real problem as I understand it is that the oil companies are in bed with the automobile companies, and both make huge political contributions to government, and are intensive lobbyists. Big tobaccos interests are dwarfed in comparison to the oil and auto-manufacturing industries. The government has learned nothing since the Opec crisis of '72 about self-sufficiency. The technology for more efficient and environmentally friendly engines, that can use water (converted into hydrogen), and other easily renewed and environmentally-friendly fuel sources so as to have total self suffiency of resources have been available for 40 years. The oil companies don't want that to ever happen on a large scale, so all commercial efforts to implement a better engine running on cheap, easily renewable fuel, on a wide scale have been suppressed. |
|
17 May 01 - 05:26 PM (#465035) Subject: RE: BS: Gas prices From: Kim C But they could still make money regardless of the type of fuel. I guess that makes too much sense. |
|
17 May 01 - 05:54 PM (#465052) Subject: RE: BS: Gas prices From: DougR A noble effort, Kendall, and I applaud you for your efforts, but I believe we are very shortly going to begin to see a reduction in prices at the pump. Reports I have heard are that prices will peak in the U. S. at $1.75 or so a gallon, and will begin to decline soon after. I don't know if we will ever see gasoline at $1.20 per gallon again though. My dad owned a service station in the 1940's and I can remember when gasoline was $.30 a gallon, but a loaf of bread was only a dime then too. Even if gasoline rises to $2.00 per gallon in the U. S. it will still be considerably less than what citizens of other countries pay. At least that is my understanding. Good luck with your project, but I hope you don't bankrupt Mobil-Exxon in the near future. When my grandson graduates from the University of Arizona this month, he is going to work for them in New Orleans, and his folks need some relief after his six years in school, so he needs the income. DougR |
|
17 May 01 - 06:01 PM (#465056) Subject: RE: BS: Gas prices From: Shields Folk Thats the American way. Don't let principles or even, god forbid, the environment get in the way of the good old Yankee Dollar! |
|
17 May 01 - 06:05 PM (#465061) Subject: RE: BS: Gas prices From: kendall Look, I dont care what everyone else does, when Exxon put a convicted drunk driver in charge of millions of gallons of oil, they lost my gas money. Period. I have passed Exxon stations with my guage on E, and, prayed for another brand just around the bend. The concern about the independents selling Exxon under another name is valid, but, where I buy most of my gas I asked the owner what brands he buys, and he named a few. Exxon and Mobil were not on the list. How about this, tell the Saudis and Kuwait that if they dont shape up, and remember how we saved their bacon 10 years ago, that we will again tell Saddam that he can help himself to Kuwait. I understand the Germans have developed a car which runs on liquid hydrogen. Great, the oceans are full of it. |
|
17 May 01 - 06:17 PM (#465067) Subject: RE: BS: Gas prices From: Jeri IT'S A CHAIN LETTER. Here's the chain letter, now read the commentary. Go on, read it! I hate chain letters of any sort. There's no reason on earth for them other than to clog up the net and personally annoy me. |
|
17 May 01 - 09:30 PM (#465160) Subject: RE: BS: Gas prices From: Gypsy Hey Doug, we are paying between 2.30 and 2.50 a gallon in the northern end of California. I would love to pay only 1.75 a gallon! |
|
17 May 01 - 09:37 PM (#465163) Subject: RE: BS: Gas prices From: GUEST,Skipjack Shoite, Kend, we're payin' $7.50 a gallon over here. Please boycott the UK |
|
17 May 01 - 09:42 PM (#465167) Subject: RE: BS: Gas prices From: Peg People in the rest of the world pay the equivalent of $5 a gallon for gasoline; and they don't even drive those Stupid Useless Vehicles in the numbers we drive them here in the U.S. It will all run out sooner or later; why on earth can't we realize this and start learning to conserve? Stop driving alone to work! Stop taking the car to go pick up a gallon of milk at a store that is a ten minute walk from your home! This attitude extends to the encroaching electricity shortages... Our new, stupid president is whining about needing changes to the "infrastructure" and how it is "old and outdated" and wants us, gods forbid, to go back to using nuclear power and coal!!! Whether you agree with email schemes or not, you must admit that spreading some awareness about this monumental problem in our stupid, greedy world is well worth doing...
|
|
17 May 01 - 09:54 PM (#465174) Subject: RE: BS: Gas prices From: Gypsy oy, i am RED in the face! Forgot from the last thread of this nature, just how much petrol costs in the UK. Please don't hate me for paying a mere 2.50 a gallon! |
|
17 May 01 - 09:58 PM (#465175) Subject: RE: BS: Gas prices From: Bill D kind of a quandry in the USA...we have such long distances to drive...(well, many of us, especially in the west) just going to see Aunt Sally can be an all day (or 2-3 days) trip ..I have to drive 450 miles tomorrow in a BIG Dodge van to get my son home from college. The gas I buy is 'about' $1.68 right now, and the only thing that keeps me sane is that I work mostly at home. I buy from cheap stations and HOPE I'm not getting 2nd rate stuff. I expect the days of ckeap fuel are long gone.. (in about 1970-1972, I lived around some of the cheapest gas in the country...once filled the tank at 17.9¢ a gallon during a price war, and seldom paid over 29¢ for several years...*sigh*) they say the refineries are runnint at about 99% capacity, and if that's true, we'll have high prices for some time... |
|
17 May 01 - 10:00 PM (#465177) Subject: RE: BS: Gas prices From: CarolC Here's a question I've been wondering about for a while. We (our president in particular) keep talking about how we need to reduce dependency on foriegn oil sources. The solutions being proposed include increasing oil exploration in the U.S., including the Arctic Wildlife Refuge. This is my question. How much of the oil that's being produced here in the U.S. is being exported to other countries. If relying on oil coming from the U.S. is so important, why don't we just keep more of what we produce here, instead of shipping it elsewere? |
|
17 May 01 - 10:01 PM (#465179) Subject: RE: BS: Gas prices From: Nancy King I'm with you, Jeri. I don't do chain letters, whatever the cause. Kendall -- "..saved their bacon"??? Nancy |
|
17 May 01 - 10:03 PM (#465182) Subject: RE: BS: Gas prices From: Skipjack K8 Cags, can't make this machine PM you, but wanting to. X |
|
17 May 01 - 10:10 PM (#465184) Subject: RE: BS: Gas prices From: CarolC Hey Skipjack! Sorry to hear about the prices you have to pay for gas. Carol |
|
17 May 01 - 10:14 PM (#465186) Subject: RE: BS: Gas prices From: Skipjack K8 What the hell, it's only dosh! |
|
17 May 01 - 10:19 PM (#465190) Subject: RE: BS: Gas prices From: kendall The thread was plainly marked BS. I am not sending it as a chain letter because I dont like them either. Saved their bacon was an intentional slip. Like I said before, I dont give a rats ass what you all do, I will do what I can to protest, and, I WILL NOT BUY EXXON OR MOBILE. You cant tell me that if everyone did this it would do no good. There are complainers and there are doers. I'm both. Screw the money grubbing bastards.Keep feeding the greedy bastards, and quit bitching about the price. |
|
17 May 01 - 10:21 PM (#465192) Subject: RE: BS: Gas prices From: CarolC You must be adopting my crazy sleep patterns, Skipjack. It must be about 4:30 am where you are. Give the box a squeeze for me. |
|
17 May 01 - 10:27 PM (#465194) Subject: RE: BS: Gas prices From: DougR I think one of the main problems in the U. S. is politics. And I am referring to both Democrats and Republicans. All of the talk shows here (in the U. S.) feature individuals from both parties assailing the other party and trying to lay blame. Why? Not because the politicians are so concerned about solving the problem, but rather which party's candidate is going to be the next president ...and we are barely into the current administration! As long as the American people want to drive big gas guzzeling vehicles, and are willing to pay the price for it, things won't change. Why is it so difficult to understand that the demand, created by our (U.S.) population growth, and our appetites for fuel guzzlers, has exceeded the amount of fuel available. If the population increases in size, the demand for fuel is going to also increase. No one, in either party, has suggested a reasonable suggestion for a quick fix for the current problem. I doubt there is one that will work. Sorry to write such a lengthy post, but it pains me that the whole argument revolves around which political party is right. Now, I will invite the flamers. If the reason for not drilling in Alaska, even though it is in a protected area, can alleviate the problem (long term), and it can be done without contaminating the environment, why shouldn't it be done? My side says it can be done. The other side says it can't. Can it? I have no idea. I heard Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., a man I admire, by the way because of his work in upstate N.Y., say it might disturb the calving area for Alaska's Caribou. That, to me, is not reason enough not to drill, if the solution to the energy supply problem can be solved by drilling. It is obviously a pristine area that they are talking about. How many people do you know, though, that will ever see it. It's sad that the millions of Buffalo that used to dot the western plains are gone, but the sky hasn't fallen because they are no longer here in those numbers. Ok. Take your shots, my friends. DougR |
|
17 May 01 - 10:48 PM (#465202) Subject: RE: BS: Gas prices From: Peg The problem with drilling in Alaska is not just about a few caribou herds, or other groups of animals. It is about the destruction of a unique environmental system. There are a number of such unique systems in the world; the Columbian rainforest is one; the Florida Everglades is another. The ice-fields of Greenland, the forests of Bavaria, the deserts of Australia, the grasslands of Mongolia: all deserve protection, if for no other reason (say, their beauty, the people they support, or the sheer RIGHT THEY HAVE TO EXIST) than that there is much to be learned from such systems on a scientific basis. The medicines discovered in the plants of the rainforest, the priceless information that the unique creatures of the Everglades can impart to zoologists, these are reasons for preserving these systems; this includes the Alaska refuge. When such a unique system is compromised or ruined, it can never be repaired. The continuing decimation of species on this planet, leading to a decrease in biological diversity, is harming ALL creatures. Nature exists in a symbiotic, synergistic relationship with itself. A tree in the forest is connected to the moss and fungus that grow on it, the humus decomposing beneath it, the flowers that spring up around it, and the squirrels, birds and insects that feed upon it. Destroy one of those creatures, the other ones in the system suffer. If we drill in that Alaskan wildlife preserve, not all the species will die all at once. But the first ones to go will eventually lead to the death or lessening of the others. It will be irrevocable. Some species may never recover; even to extinction. And that is not even factoring in what would happen to that system (not to mention the humans who live near it) if there was major oil spill: something that, given previous track records at off-shore sites, is VERY likely to happen...
|
|
17 May 01 - 10:53 PM (#465203) Subject: RE: BS: Gas prices From: toadfrog Hey Doug R! I actually started off agreeing with you, until you started talking about drilling the North Slope. Sure. Neither party is up to telling the American people what they don't want to hear, but need to hear. "Which is, high gas prices are the only thing that will stop you self -indulgent swine from wasting gasoline and destroying the planet." High gas prices are good for you! Maybe you'll even learn to walk! If even McCain had that kind of cojones, America might have some kind of future. But no politician does. |
|
17 May 01 - 10:57 PM (#465205) Subject: RE: BS: Gas prices From: CarolC "That, to me, is not reason enough not to drill, if the solution to the energy supply problem can be solved by drilling." --DougR And then of course, there's the other question. Is it reason enough not to drill if it is only one of many possible solutions? Especially if there are other solutions that are less destructive to our planet? |
|
17 May 01 - 11:02 PM (#465206) Subject: RE: BS: Gas prices From: Peg toadfrog wrote: "If even McCain had that kind of cojones, America might have some kind of future. But no politician does." Nader did.
|
|
17 May 01 - 11:08 PM (#465207) Subject: RE: BS: Gas prices From: CarolC I'm watching BBC World News right now. There's an ancor person interviewing an American. She asked him, "Do you think the political advantage of not asking Americans to make any sacrifices is part of the reason the administration is taking the position it is?" My god. What does that say about us as a people? |
|
17 May 01 - 11:26 PM (#465212) Subject: RE: BS: Gas prices From: DougR Peg: are there studies that show a detrimentale effect on wildlife and the ecology to the "Slope" since oil exploration began there many years ago? Just asking for information, not to start a war. Toadfrog: thanks for your input. CarolC: I did not mean to imply that the sole solution to the problem can be found by drilling in Alaska. Obviously, we have to learn to conserve energy more, and learn to be satisfied with vehicles that burn less fuel, and content ourselves in our homes where temperatures are not as cool as we might like in summer, or warm as we might like in winter. These, however, are long-term fixes. We need to be more accepting of nucuelar power plants (we have one in Arizona), solar energy and other sources to supply us with our needs also. I do understand the repulsion strict conservationists feel for drilling in that pristine area of Alaska. But I ask again, how many people will ever see those areas? Possibly the wildlife in the area will suffer, but which is the most important? The preservation of the wildlife in that small section of Alaska, or the filling of the energy needs of people? Now that, I'm sure will get me in hot water! DougR |
|
17 May 01 - 11:40 PM (#465215) Subject: RE: BS: Gas prices From: SeanM Well, Carol, It says that we elected politicians ready to say whatever it takes to stay in office. Big surprise, huh? As to my understanding of the Alaskan drilling, it would NOT solve the energy crisis. The percieved optimistic amount of oil in the reserve (I'm going off of memory. Please correct me if wrong, as I really think I'm off) as being between 2 years worth of usage, 10 if we increased purchases from overseas suppliers (the optimistic view) and 6 months, (2 1/2 years under the same increased buying). In neither case does it do anything but stave off the inevitable. What IS of concern are the collusions and price fixing that are quite possibly happening behind the scenes. A federal judge recently stated that a memo passed between competing natural gas companies showed a clear tendency towards mutual price fixing and a distinct attempt to manipulate California's current crisis for their economic benefit. I find it hard to believe that this is an isolated incident. I also find it hard to believe that Pres. Bush is completely dismissing his and his VP's family and friends' financial futures by encouraging further reliance on fossil fuel and nuclear energy... Nor do I believe that the Congress (ALL parties involved) doesn't hope to further feather their nests from the same sources as well. I DO think that the hope lies in what the automotive industry is FINALLY coming around to releasing - hybrid and fuel cell vehicles. Watched a recent interview with a hybrid owner (now that it's become expedient to let the general public in on them), and these vehicles could be a good step towards the needs of the future. Plus, they still use fossil fuels in low amounts, allowing the oil companies to economize their expenses and jack the prices up even more. *sigh* Depressing topic. It's a form of famine, and as has been often noted - in recent history, every single famine has at its heart a political cause. M |
|
18 May 01 - 03:38 AM (#465295) Subject: RE: BS: Gas prices From: DougR Sean M., are you really so biased that you could believe that Dubya and the V.P. are dependent on something like this to ensure their future? They have it made, come what may! Geeze. Why don't we have a serious discussion about the energy crisis without the histronics involved in political parties? Both parties are self-serving. Why can't we just accept that, and move on to a discussion about what could solve the problem? Sorry if I sound abrupt, but when serious problems arise for discussion on the MC, too often they just become partisan bickering. DougR |
|
18 May 01 - 03:53 AM (#465303) Subject: RE: BS: Gas prices From: CarolC What would solve the problem would be the development and promotion of renewable, non-poluting, clean energy sources that have the lowest possible impact on the envrionment. These not only exist, they've been proven to be viable alternatives. I heard on the 'News Hour with Jim Leherer', that President Bush is cutting funding for these things by about one third in his proposed budget. The good news is that the lobbyists for the clean, renewable energy industries are becoming stronger and may eventually have as much clout in Washington as the non-renewable, dirty energy industries have. |
|
18 May 01 - 04:11 AM (#465309) Subject: RE: BS: Gas prices From: SeanM Doug - While I don't believe that the Powers that Be need this to 'ensure their future', I also believe that they (and the many, many legislators on both sides of the isle who are in their pockets) will attempt to slant any energy concerns so that they reflect most favorably upon the oil concern's best interests. THIS IS NOT A REPUBLICAN THING! Were Gore in the White House, I'd be even less surprised to see him paying lip service to the 'alternative energy' lobbies while padding things out for the interest of Oil as well. The only thing I'll give him is that there probably would be a less blatant bias. Gore would have to keep up a front of being 'the Green president' that Bush and company have no need (or desire) to. Even if Nader were in (OK, it's a fantasy 'what if', but bear with me), the Oil Industries would still be the 'fuel of choice' because that's what the nation is geared for, and because even if the president weren't bought and paid for, the Legislature IS. Now - I DO believe that Bush is rewarding his cronies in the oil business with some of his policies. I DO believe that Cheney is MORE than happy to see this happen. I DO NOT believe that this is anything besides 'political business as usual'. One of the tried and true events of a presidential changeover is making sure that one's friends get a better slice of the pie now that you're in. I'd imagine you could find examples of this going back to the earliest presidents. It's dirty, but it's a fact of life. My particular problem with the current administration is one that I don't think they could have avoided, unless they'd delayed the traditional 'gimmies' until after the current 'crises' passed. They're attempting to portray themselves as Bipartisan objective decisionmakers on this, when about the only part of it that applies is 'decisionmakers'. Bipartisan lost any meaning in Washington back around Watergate (Yes, I put the blame for a fair amount of the historic vitriol on the Democrats. It was a necessary witch hunt that got a LOT nastier than it should have been.) Objective doesn't have a place in politics - by definition, any thing done to, for or by the people (the 'polis' in 'politics') is done from a certain bias. Personally? I think they're screwed no matter what they do, that they've inherited a term in a period that would doom ANY administration, and have said "Screw it! We're going to do EVERYTHING WE CAN to push as much of the hardcore conservative platform through as possible! We're out anyway in four years, so why the hell not!" If it's any consolation, I think Gore would be doing the exact same thing, just for the Liberal side. It'll be a great academic discussion in a couple decades as to whether it would have done more damage than the conservative dogma looks like it might do. M |
|
18 May 01 - 08:40 AM (#465397) Subject: RE: BS: Gas prices From: kendall Doug, you got more guts than a fiddle string factory! I would like to point out that Cheney is against drilling in Montana, and Jeb Bush is against drilling off Florida. What does that tell you? Fact is, even if we get cars that give 100 miles to the gallon, it is still going to run out in time. We must get away from fossil fuels, and the government should be putting more money into research. Now that I've "plowed up a snake" it seems to me that one way to cut down on consumption is to RAISE the price even more. It has worked on cigarettes. $5.00 a gallon would certainly cut down on the need to build more and more highways, and, it would force us to use mass transit, something we independent Yanks are not willing to do. Amtrak loses millions every month. I went to a meeting on environmental issues the other night, and, a man spoke about his automobile which runs on vegetable oil, (or diesel) it does not pollute, it is renewable and it smells like french fries! |
|
18 May 01 - 09:03 AM (#465417) Subject: RE: BS: Gas prices From: LR Mole Just to cheer you up further, the NYT had a piece yesterday about the fact that any number of nuke plants have failed security drills to guard against (simulated) sabotage and hostage/destruction situation. The NRC responded by complaining that they're hamstrung by regulation and wants to DECREASE security. AND, though I had never heard this before, uranium ore is finite and expensive to process into fuel.Yee-haw, Bushie! |
|
18 May 01 - 09:19 AM (#465426) Subject: RE: BS: Gas prices From: wdyat12 In times of plenty we waste much. wdyat12 |
|
18 May 01 - 09:47 AM (#465456) Subject: RE: BS: Gas prices From: JedMarum I just drove 2300 miles on a band tour through the southwest. Because this was our first, as a group, we did the tour on a shoestring budget, and planned to learn how to extend our range profitably on future tours. We paid pretty high gas prices throughout, and hauling three people and gear got us about 18 miles to the gallon. Our biggest single expense for the trip was gasoline. While we spent more for fuel on this trip then we would have last year, it was still affordable and fit within the budget. Throughout the trip we marveled at the beauty of the American southwest; the desert of West TX and AZ, the mountains and pine forests of NM, the rolling fields of the TX panhandle. Just about everywhere there were oil rigs; some idle, some quietly pumping. All fit as naturally into the landscape as the farm equipment and roadside Indian Reservation shops. |
|
18 May 01 - 09:56 AM (#465470) Subject: RE: BS: Gas prices From: Kim C My Stupid Useless Vehicle is not so stupid and useless when I have a car full of camping gear, or 2 50-lb dogs to haul around. Also it came in pretty handy last weekend when I had to take a bunch of boxes of giveaway stuff to an event my office was participating in. Plus it's nice to be able to drive friends around without them having to sit in the back seat with their knees up to their chins. Not to mention hauling firewood, because a woodstove is my main means of heat in the winter. And the fact that Mister is tall and he prefers to drive a vehicle whose seat goes back far enough. My Jeep Cherokee has a V6 engine. My mother's Cadillac (not an SUV) has a V8 and has to have Premium. You tell me who wastes more gas or money. I don't see anyone trying to get rid of big luxury cars. I don't see anyone trying to get 18 wheelers off the roads, either, probably because we are too dependent on them economically. All y'all who don't want to drive one, great! There's plenty of other things to drive if you don't need the cargo space. But don't you even dare to presume to tell me I don't need to drive one, because you don't know. I can tell you from experience that a Mazda 323 has barely enough room for one large dog, let alone two. Carpooling is a noble pursuit. It don't work too well, though, if your spouse's work hours are different from yours, and no one in your office lives in your neighborhood. Right now, I have to get gas wherever I can find it the cheapest. |
|
18 May 01 - 10:15 AM (#465489) Subject: RE: BS: Gas prices From: wdyat12 Spice, the whole planet runs on spice! wdyat12 |
|
18 May 01 - 10:57 AM (#465535) Subject: RE: BS: Gas prices From: mousethief One huge way to cut back on consumption of fossil fuels would be to move more interstate goods by rail. This would require making rail more economically feasible. This would require relaying a lot of rails. This would require federal money. This would require the trucking and energy lobbies to stop killing such proposals when they come up. This will never happen. Alex |
|
18 May 01 - 11:04 AM (#465543) Subject: RE: BS: Gas prices From: Kim C Now wdyat, if we could make fuel out of red pepper, that would be AWESOME! I do believe, as someone stated earlier, that the prices will decrease again. They do go up every summer, after all, because peak travel season increases demand for fuel. Then they go down. It happens every year. It happened last year. The oil moguls are missing out, though, because they could really make a killing with alternative fuels, if they're willing to sink the time and money into research. And monkeys might fly out my butt, too. |
|
18 May 01 - 11:20 AM (#465562) Subject: RE: BS: Gas prices From: mousethief Spaw makes fuel out of red pepper! |
|
18 May 01 - 11:22 AM (#465568) Subject: RE: BS: Gas prices From: wdyat12 We do need a new drug, maybe, but "He who needs least is most like the gods." Socrates? wdyat12 |
|
18 May 01 - 11:55 AM (#465594) Subject: RE: BS: Gas prices From: DougR I like Kendall's friend's idea. Imagine driving around with your car smelling like french frys. Wow! And Kim C., one thing on which I believer there would be little disagreement: I think all of us would like to be around when the monkeys do that. DougR |
|
18 May 01 - 12:20 PM (#465620) Subject: RE: BS: Gas prices From: Kim C Is that because you want to see the monkeys, or my tattoo? :-O |
|
18 May 01 - 01:24 PM (#465684) Subject: RE: BS: Gas prices From: Clinton Hammond " would be to move more interstate goods by rail." Ya, but the tree-huggers don't like rail either... Anybody here watched The Lone Gunmen? x-files spin off?? I only ever caught one or 2 episodes, but there was quite a good argument AGAINST the use of water powered cars on one show... just wondering if any one here caught it? ;-) |
|
18 May 01 - 01:28 PM (#465690) Subject: RE: BS: Gas prices From: mousethief Show me a tree hugger who never buys an interstate shipped product, and I'll show you a naked man starving to death. I won't show you any naked women. You gotta find your own. Alex |
|
18 May 01 - 03:14 PM (#465769) Subject: RE: BS: Gas prices From: DougR Kim C: I don't have a whole helluva lot of interest in monkies. The tatoo sounds interesting though! (Don't tell Mister I said so though) Tell Mister I'm facinated by monkies. DougR |
|
18 May 01 - 03:18 PM (#465773) Subject: RE: BS: Gas prices From: Clinton Hammond wanna swap naked women urls MT?? LOL!! |
|
18 May 01 - 03:22 PM (#465775) Subject: RE: BS: Gas prices From: InOBU Fact is... the people in the US use much to much gas... here is a solution... This Sunday take the subway to Hugh O'Lunney's on 46thst NYC at 4 pm and catch Sorcha Dorcha Live! No whales will be killed, no small seals skined, no cars driven during the performance, no animals killed, no hydrocarbons released into the venue, no workers under the legal age will perform, WE WILL DO NO HARM!!! So, if you worry about driving out of town to Pinewoods events, take the train to hear us! (Only kidding Pinie bros and sisters, DO enjoy the weekend, is it this one?) But serriously folks, FOR A GAS FREE WEEKEND! CATCH SORCHA DORCHA! |
|
18 May 01 - 03:25 PM (#465777) Subject: RE: BS: Gas prices From: DougR DURN! I would have sworn you spelled monkeys, m o n k i e s! That's the way Dan Quale spells it! DougR |
|
18 May 01 - 04:15 PM (#465810) Subject: RE: BS: Gas prices From: mousethief He misspells tattoos, too? Also french fries. |
|
18 May 01 - 04:30 PM (#465820) Subject: RE: BS: Gas prices From: JedMarum I think InOBU's got the best answer ... a little music, a few pints, a chat with your neighbors in a freindly bar ... who needs gas? |
|
18 May 01 - 04:31 PM (#465823) Subject: RE: BS: Gas prices From: DougR Arghhhhhhhhhhhhh! Mousethief, I stand corrected! Thank you. |
|
18 May 01 - 05:34 PM (#465865) Subject: RE: BS: Gas prices From: InOBU Jed, avoid the potato pancakes though, to much gas... potatoe? Larry |
|
18 May 01 - 05:40 PM (#465871) Subject: RE: BS: Gas prices From: Kim C Mister and I are carpooling to a party this evening. In our Stupid Useless Vehicle. Not so useless when you take along food, drink and musical instruments. |
|
18 May 01 - 05:43 PM (#465873) Subject: RE: BS: Gas prices From: mousethief I can fit food, drink, and musical instruments in my mini-van, and it gets 20mpg. Alex |
|
18 May 01 - 05:50 PM (#465876) Subject: RE: BS: Gas prices From: Kim C Jeep gets about 20 mpg too. We also have a 4-cylinder Jeep that gets a little more, especially on the highway. Heck, you probably have more cargo space in the minivan than I do in the Cherokee! :-) |
|
18 May 01 - 05:51 PM (#465877) Subject: RE: BS: Gas prices From: mousethief If I take the seats out. |
|
18 May 01 - 05:54 PM (#465878) Subject: RE: BS: Gas prices From: Blackcatter Do you know just how much pollution is made by brewing beer? LOL Listen everyone - this world is screwed. Gas prices are just a tiny part of the evidence. The way that I look at it is that if you don't have kids - try to enjoy yourself as best you can and try not to do too much harm. If you have kids & care about their happiness - fight really hard for space exploration and encourage your kids to learn how to be useful either on a spaceship or on a colony on some other world. Of course, getting a whole bunch of money would help too. Other than that - who cares? Petrolium will be used up in another 20 years or so, some or another nuclear plant will have a meltdown and make a European or Japanese or U.S. city the next Chernobyl. And some disease that makes AIDS look like the sniffles will eventually come along (and will still seem to miss affecting the wealthy.) By the way - a question up above (from Kim, I think) asked how much of US oil is exported - as far as I know, none is, though we do export a lot of oil-based products (plastics, additives, chemicals, etc.) If Bush want's to reduce our dependency on foreign oil, the easiest thing to do would be to annex Mexico and possible Venezuela (rename them Old Mexico and South Alaska). pax yall
|
|
18 May 01 - 06:58 PM (#465920) Subject: RE: BS: Gas prices From: DougR Wow, Blackcatter, thanks for sharing those cheerfull thoughts with us.:>) DougR |
|
18 May 01 - 08:53 PM (#465975) Subject: RE: BS: Gas prices From: MarkS Anybody who thinks SUV stands for Stupid Useless Vehicles is hereby invited to live in Pennsylvania from November to the end of March. Now lets get back the the discussion of urls leading to naked women. Since we cannot afford to drive anywhere, we might as well stay home and oogle our monitors! Mark |
|
18 May 01 - 09:32 PM (#466000) Subject: RE: BS: Gas prices From: Jon Freeman I can fit me, a passenger, banjo, guitar and lots more in the passenger compartment of my mum's Citroen ZX. There is plenty of room for the dog (smallish border-collie size) in the back and the car will still do over 40mpg (UK gallon) driven fairly hard. 1.9 litre 4 cylinder deisel engine. Jon |
|
18 May 01 - 10:39 PM (#466023) Subject: RE: BS: Gas prices From: CarolC "By the way - a question up above (from Kim, I think) asked how much of US oil is exported - as far as I know, none is, though we do export a lot of oil-based products (plastics, additives, chemicals, etc.)
--Blackcatter
Thanks for addressing my question, Blackcatter. It took some digging around, but I have found a document that mentions oil exports coming from the United States.
The third to last paragraph of this document states the following...
"The United States exports oil, gas and coal after keeping reserve of oil for 30 years, gas for 65 years and coal for 250 years for its own use." And you brought up another thing that I think is worth mentioning... other products that are made from petroleum. If industrial grade hemp were to be legalized, we could use it to make products that are currently made with petroleum, such as plastics. It seems to me that this would free up more petroleum for use as fuel, if supply is really the issue. |
|
18 May 01 - 10:52 PM (#466027) Subject: RE: BS: Gas prices From: gnu GOSH !!! I can't believe I just read this whole thread... ok, I scanned it and may have missed the point I was looking for, but I think this is new to the discussion. Bullets cost money. Guns to use the bullets cost money. People to pull the triggers cost money. In fact, the only way to get enough people to pull triggers is to place them in an economic position where they are willing, nay, want to, pull the triggers. I do not purport to understand the game of chess that world powers play. Indeed, some might argue that wars are fought for more than power or for more than economic stimulation. However, the destruction of oil and gas transportation plans in eastern Europe in recent armed conflicts, the Gulf War, the continuous upheavals in the middle east, and, now, this crap with China, seem a tad coincidental, no ? The cost of oil and gas ? Gee whiz. All you gotta do is drill a hole and pump it out or extract it from shale and sand. If it was a matter of environment and of development of alternate fuels, no sweat... we'd just do it. Is it a matter of oil companies supressing new technologies ? Hell, if they wanted to supress new tech's, they'd just lower the price of gas. Done deal. Power costs. Economic stimulation costs. Blood and bullets have a price. You pay that price at the pump. |
|
18 May 01 - 11:22 PM (#466045) Subject: RE: BS: Gas prices From: catspaw49 Larry, I'd DEARLY LOVE to grab the subway to hear Sorcha Dorcha..........minor problem though...........It would take about 50 gallons of gas to get to the train and then back home. Spaw |
|
18 May 01 - 11:33 PM (#466051) Subject: RE: BS: Gas prices From: catspaw49 Well, there are also about 17 or so folks on this thread who I haven't seen on the thread I'm going to link so to all of you, let me make this suggestion. We all love the music and the BS and the many things that the 'Cat has to offer...............And since you are all gassing about gas here................... If the 17 people on this thread that haven't as yet, would take the value of two gallons of gas....say $3.00 (US).......and pledge that amount on a monthly basis to Mudcat, that would be $612.00 that could be put to the yearly goal of $4800.00. It all adds up! How about reading a bit more on the subject and then DOING IT??? Thanks!!!!! Spaw |
|
19 May 01 - 02:25 AM (#466091) Subject: RE: BS: Gas prices From: Blackcatter Good plug Spaw I don't have much $$, but I just ordered a Mudcat T-shirt today (partially to help with $$ and partially to promote the site with all my folkie friends who do have $$ and might give some if they come here). Doug: Sorry to bring you down, but this is kind of a heavy thread anyhow, aint it? Carol: About the U.S. exporting oil - I'd like to see how much they do - it's a shame the article you site doesn't say, but we can't export too much - it wouldn't many any sense. Oh, and by the way, I have a small, 11-year-old Mitsubishi that gets around 30 MPG, though since I work at home, my church is 3 blocks from my home, my girlfriend is 50 feet from my home and I live in Downtown Orlando, FL, it takes me more than a month to empty my 12 gallon gas tank. No, not everybody can do that, but if you want, you probably can do something more to reduce your consumption of oil. As for the SUV issue - 1) Those who need them where they live - use the damn things. 2) Those who don't get a freakin' minivan or wagon (the government requires better gas milages and cleaner emmissions packages). 3)Those who refuse to stop using a SUV when they don't need one - at least get a SMALLER one. pax yall |
|
19 May 01 - 07:28 AM (#466148) Subject: RE: BS: Gas prices From: gnu A cousin of mine just moved back home to New Brunswick from "The Patch" (Oil/Gas Patch), northern British Columbia and Alberta, driving a one ton crew cab dually GMC with Euclid sized tires. According to him, your success and power in The Patch are judged by the size and year of your truck. More than three years old is considered shameful. Non-NA made vehicles are not allowed in some areas... they are actually trashed, usually with a match, after night falls. |
|
19 May 01 - 09:54 AM (#466201) Subject: RE: BS: Gas prices From: kendall I live in a rural state with tens of thousands of miles of secondary roads, yet, I do not own, nor do I need an Urban Assault Vehicle. If the weather is so bad that I would need 4 wheel drive, I shouldn't be out anyway.I would only be a pain in the ass to snow plow drivers who have to steer around some clunk who thought his SUV was invincable. Ever notice how many of these things are pizzle end up on the medians after a slight freezing? So, what did folks do before these behemoths were invented? What do folks do in the UK? They dont drive big rigs over there do they? What I'm hearing here is a lot of justifying the use of gas guzzlers that are not really necessary at all. It is one of our human failings that we cant see the difference between want and need. |
|
19 May 01 - 12:18 PM (#466260) Subject: RE: BS: Gas prices From: DougR You convinced me, Kendall! I'm gonna saunter out and saddle up old paint and head out for the grocery store. DougR |
|
19 May 01 - 02:24 PM (#466301) Subject: RE: BS: Gas prices From: wdyat12 The majority of gas produced in the USA is wasted before it is consumed by automobiles. Methane gas produced by cows and alchohol produced from corn are renewable resources. Before we build another expensive sewage treatment plant that spews "harmless" human waste byproducts into our rivers we should consider harnessing the methane gas produced from our own consumption...but "not in my backyard." wdyat12 |
|
19 May 01 - 06:20 PM (#466433) Subject: RE: BS: Gas prices From: gnu Methane from us is used in a lot of wastewater processing plants, as in a couple of different systems developed by ADI of Fredericton, New Brunswick and marketed all over the world. One of my university roomates is a proponent of the developement and marketing of these systems and he has overseen the installation of a great many plants throughout the world - many in the USA. The methane is used to generate electricity which, in turn, is used to power the waste treatment process. |
|
19 May 01 - 10:52 PM (#466597) Subject: RE: BS: Gas prices From: Gypsy Howzabout the hybrids? Saw a woman with the new toyota, and pinned her down for how she liked it. sounds like a good deal to me. Oh yeah, i DO live in the northwest nowhere, and still am able to transport: Hammered Dulcimer (a BIG one) husband, guitar, and mandolie. All in a four cylinder Nissan. SUV's belong where they ain't no roads that are paved. |
|
20 May 01 - 01:50 AM (#466671) Subject: RE: BS: Gas prices From: SeanM Chalk me up on the 'some people have use for SUVs' list. I don't own one, and likely never will, as I don't have use for one. But, I've known people who previously drove half ton trucks to haul the stuff around that they did on a regular basis, and had to jury-rig campershells and the like to keep it sheltered. That kind of use, to me, is what 'justified' SUV drivers have. But also - if they're willing to pay the extra money for the gas they're burning, and willing to pay the exorbitant rates that the insurance companies charge, and are willing to deal with the myriad of slings and arrows thrown against 'em, more power to them. Oh... couple reasons that the 'luxury cars' don't get as much flack anymore... First of all, they've become TRUE luxury items. Think about how many you really see any more, unless you live in or around 'upper class' communities. Also, look at the reports on MPG that they run - they've vastly improved the levels that they run at now. It's part of the strategy that the auto companies use to deal with the 'brand average' requirements... if they make the high end cars more efficient, they still comply while giving their incredibly expensive toys another feature to sell to the rich... M |
|
20 May 01 - 10:29 AM (#466762) Subject: RE: BS: Gas prices From: Peg they are not ALWAYS Stupid and Useless Vehicles; of course, if one NEEDS one to drive in bad weather on unsafe roads, go for it. I live in New England, far be it from me to wish an unsafe vehicle on anyone (though I am not convicned these behemoths are safe and there is much eveidence to the contrary). But I think of the whole cell phone thing; if you had asked your average Joe on the street five years ago if people would constantly have their cell phones on, interrupting meetings, dates, conversations, etc. and woudl "need" to be available to any idiot that wanted to call them 24-7, well he might have said you were crazy... YES cell phones are useful for emergencies and those who need to be in contact with their jobs etc. when they are on the road; but if I never hear another person in the aisle near me in the gorecry store or bookstore on their cell phone, asking the person on the other end "now what was the name of that thing?" I will die happy... They have made people lazy and stupid. Hikers go up the mountain in foul weather armed with nothing but a cell phone and expect the rangers to rescue them when the storm arrives and they are stranded; they are now being charged for these rescue services. But back to SUVs (strange how many people driving these things in the city do so with a cell phone in their hands as they try to navigate tose huge steeringwheels with one hand..) The majority of these vehicles on the road where I live are used for commuting to work, getting groceries, dirving home (drunk) fromt he bars at night, and taking the kids to soccer practice; all in nice nice nice weather...
|
|
20 May 01 - 11:54 AM (#466810) Subject: RE: BS: Gas prices From: Peter K (Fionn) My God, if it is insular, self-centred, selfish arguments like Kim C's that are driving the US administration, the world is fucked. Poor old Kim must really wonder how folk cope in some parts of the world. DougR, I'm in the uncomfortable position of agreeing with you quite a lot in this thread! Above all, I agree with whoever said high fuel prices are good for us - we might even learn to walk. And I agree with Robert Redford who said on BBC radio today that Washington is trading long-term issues for short=term gain. Doug, it is surely because the buffalo etc have gone that the Alaska refuge has become so precious. As Peg says, you've got whole eco-systems up there on the north slope, with species living in natural balance. Upset one element and the whole lot will collapse, as has happened everywhere else on earth outside the Arctic and Antartica. I've spent some time up on the north slope, and it is a priceless resource. (Peg, those other places you mention like the Colombian rainforest may have much to offer still, but I think you will find that only Alaska has an undisturbed eco-system extending across an entire drainage system.) Speaks volumes when Mousethief and co take pride in 20mpg! Even people as big as Kim C's husband can be perfectly comfortable in a car that does 40 or 50mpg. When I travelled around Alaska, by the way, I did it by public transport and mountain bike. |
|
21 May 01 - 07:56 PM (#467455) Subject: RE: BS: Gas prices From: Grab Kim, you seen the Renault Espace and co? And you say there's no room for a pair of big dogs in one? The problem is simply that people don't see it as a problem. Primarily this is Americans, but the SUV craze is biting somewhat over here in the UK too. "My V6 is fine, bcos I know someone who's got a V8 and you've not complained about them" is not a valid arguing position! ;-) US citizens are spoiled with petrol prices, there's no other way of saying it, and therefore don't consider inefficient vehicles to be an issue. In the UK, a car doing less than 30mpg is definitely a luxury item, and costs accordingly in petrol, insurance and road tax. I'm currently working in a car engine controller company - ground zero in this, you might say - and we're working on a hybrid SUV. With a bit of fancy tech, we're reckoning on V6 performance out of a 4-pot lump, with about 28mpg economy. All good stuff. It could do better, but the base design says explicitly that they think consumers are only prepared to pay quite a small amount to look "green". There's always a "but", though, and in this case it's a biggy. In 1986, American cars reached their most efficient ever, at an average of 28mpg. In 1986, fuel injection was still a rarity, turbo-diesels hadn't happened, and electronic engine control was in its infancy. 15 years later, and we get to 2001. This year, American cars are down to an average of 20mpg!!! And that's despite all our best efforts (and my personal best efforts!), computer-aided engine design, electronic everything, and all the rest of the bells and whistles. This is SUVs in action - sorry, but there's no other class of car has contributed to this. You may not see these figures printed exactly. The simple answer is tax credits - car companies get credits for investing in alternative technology (hybrid, electric, etc), this gets counted against the average, and then this adjusted average is what counts for their taxes. Of course, the adjusted average is what gets printed! It's a nice bit of a dance on the part of the car companies and the US government. I'm lucky in that all my friends have taste and haven't succumbed to imitation off-roaders. The only ppl who've owned off-roaders have had genuine ones (eg. a Jeep Cherokee) and these have been used for the stated purpose of hauling loads (eg. hang-gliders and pilots) up rough tracks to the tops of hills. As Peg says, using an SUV to go shopping is plain ridiculous unless you happen to live in the Outback! Oh, another note - some SUVs now (and increasing) actually aren't off-roaders. The US market has invented the 2-wheel-drive SUV, which satisfies no requirement except marketing! Graham. |
|
21 May 01 - 10:27 PM (#467554) Subject: RE: BS: Gas prices From: Gypsy OY! A TWO wheel drive SUV? What's the point? Does it gobble as much petrol as its four wheel brethren? |
|
21 May 01 - 11:25 PM (#467586) Subject: RE: BS: Gas prices From: CarolC Back in the 1970s, I used to haul a Great Pyrenees dog (as big as a Saint Bernard) and two German Shepherds (and a raccoon) around in a Datsun B210 fastback. For those who are not familiar with that kind of car, they are very, very small.
I traveled from the suburban Washington DC area to Quebec City and back with my 6' 2" boyfriend, the Great Pyreneese, and one of the German Shepherds (actually a collie/shepherd mix), and all of our camping gear and food for the whole trip in the same Datsun B210 fastback. The other vehicle we had to choose from at the time was my boyfriend's full sized van.
The small car just didn't seem to present any problems for us except when we tried to get some sleep at a rest stop. Then it was a bit cramped. It's probably possible to get as many or maybe even more people into a minivan than the average SUV, and they do come in 4 wheel drive. And dogs can be hauled around in small SUVs. And most of the big SUVs I see these days are made too pretty for hauling anything as dirty as firewood. I can't help thinking that most of them are more vehicle than the owners need. |
|
22 May 01 - 01:01 AM (#467619) Subject: RE: BS: Gas prices From: DougR Fionn: sorry you are not comfortable agreeing with me on some points, but so be it. I am sympathetic with your concerns that the area in question in Alaska is among the last of the pristine areas of the U.S., perhaps in the world. I would argue, though, that if it does contain the supply of natural resources that a growing population requires, we should extract them. We can rant, rage, beg, and plead, but in the U.S., efforts to encourage conservation to the degree that is necessary, will not be successful. We are too used to instant gratification. It seems to me that we have limited choices at the moment because demand is exceeding supply. Why? The population (in the U.S.)growth over the past ten years, has exceed the supply on hand. We can either be content to pay foreign countries for the oil and gas they produce, or seek those resources within our own boundries. If the decision is made not to seek additional resources within our own country because of enviornmental concerns, then so be it. But then we have no logical reason to complain about high prices. Another point and then I will shield myself from the onslaught that will surely come. Preserving areas solely for the continued existence of wildlife makes little sense to me at all. If a tree falls in the forest will there be a sound? Who cares? Few people on this earth will ever see the wildlife preserve in question. If drilling is not allowed, there will be those who will take comfort from the fact that there will be a lot of happy Caribou. But we will still need the energy that that area could provide us. If, ultimately, the area is used to provide energy that we need, and some Caribou are displaced, that's too bad. I cannot believe, however, that a country that can put a man on the Moon, cannot extract the natural resources, so badly needed, without disturbing the environment. DougR |
|
22 May 01 - 01:52 AM (#467649) Subject: RE: BS: Gas prices From: SeanM Doug; This, I think, is really a case of (as so many have put it) the government wanting a fast short term gain that will make little to no distance even in the mid-term, let alone in the long term. Even the most optimistic estimates don't give the Alaskan reserve more than a 3-5 year yield without increasing our foreign purchasing. And even (to me) more importantly, by giving the temporary 'security blanket', it merely sets us up for more of a problem later. I'm a tree hugger, I admit it. Used to work for the Nature Conservancy, etc. etc. However, I'm not opposed to necessary exploitation, as long as it results in a greater good. Currently, the reasoning seems to be that we'll drill in Alaska and SOMETHING will come along and save us. What that something is, noone knows or seems to be willing to invest in to develop (unless it's nuclear or petroleum based energy). What I find interesting (and yes, this IS a swipe at the way Bush is handling things) is the inconsistent reasoning going on between departments. When it comes to anti-missle defense, it's perfectly OK to sink billions into an admittedly imperfect system, because it'll eventually hopefully provide dividends. However, when it comes to alternative energy systems, it's NOT OK to do the same. I'd feel a LOT better about Bush Jr's stance on energy if there were an acutal plan for future development beyond "we're doing fine, except for this crisis thing, and we can build more plants to burn more dwindling fuel, and everything will work out". As it stands, I get a sinking feeling he's angling to keep things afloat until the end of his administration and leave the likely Democratic successor to deal with the problem he's forestalled. Yes, it's a partisan view. But it's the one I got. M |
|
22 May 01 - 01:09 PM (#467965) Subject: RE: BS: Gas prices From: Blackcatter The good news about SUVs is that there has recently been a slump in their sales - especially the big ones. Partially this has to do with the increased gas prices, but also has to do with issues like the Firestone/Ford Explorer problems - industry experts have speculated that people see the danger in SUVs - not just that a tire can be ripped to shreds, because that could happen on any vehilcle - but few cars will flip-over when something like a tire coming apart. I had that happen at 65 mph on an interstate - my back tire separated and part of it fliped up and tore of part of my side trim and continued to forward, shattering not only the side mirror, but the mirror housing! The side window was open and part of the tire actually flew into my car and wedged itself up on the dashboard. I still have a dent on the dashboard. - On the other hand, since I drive a low to the ground & fairly squat car, it only fish-tailed a small bit and I was able to easily cross over a lane of traffic and slow it down on the median. I'd hate to think what would have happened in a SUV. The other reason is that like all "hot" things, the majority of the people who have been buying SUVs are despirately looking to be trendy and they will move on, sheep-like, to the next "cool" thing. pax yall |
|
22 May 01 - 01:39 PM (#467999) Subject: RE: BS: Gas prices From: DougR SeanM: I seems to me that Bush is drawing more criticism because he isn't offering an "instant" fix to the energy problem, particularly for California, than anything else. The Alaska Wildlife Preserve excepted, of course. I have heard conflicting reports on the amounts of oil and or gas that might be gleaned from the Alaska location. Could you direct me to non-partison site on the Internet that could provide that information? DougR |
|
22 May 01 - 01:50 PM (#468009) Subject: RE: BS: Gas prices From: mousethief DougR, help me here. What exactly would constitute a non-partisan site on this issue? |
|
22 May 01 - 02:19 PM (#468014) Subject: RE: BS: Gas prices From: DougR Good question, Alex. Perhaps an independent study financed by the oil companies? Greenpeace? The government? It would seem to me that if either side is going to use the argument that there is only a pittance of oil available, or there is ample oil to serve for many years, someone should attempt to find out which is correct. Es so? |
|
22 May 01 - 02:53 PM (#468028) Subject: RE: BS: Gas prices From: Peter K (Fionn) DougR. the so-called "need" for Alaskan oil is entirely down to crass greed by people who already consume ridiculous amounts of fossil fuels and still want to increase their consumption. Eventually all the fossil fuels (a finite resource) will be consumed, at whatever cost to the atmosphere (another finite resource). The wildlife will be gone, and if you have your way, there won't be much of a future for our children either. All because you're desperate to reduce miles per gallon, when the technology is there to increase it. (The same goes for aviation as for road transport - fuel consumption barely rates as a factor in aircraft design.) It is self-interest on this scale, so splemdidly exemplified by that crew of vested-interests now controlling the US president, that makes the USA the most widely hated nation on earth. No wonder Bush is being told to blow half the budget on some crazy defence system. Let's just hope they system they come up with doesn't work. |
|
22 May 01 - 03:40 PM (#468059) Subject: RE: BS: Gas prices From: kendall Doug, the solution to our problem is not more drilling. It is in alternative fuels such as hydrogen (the oceans are full of it) You say so what if the north slope is ruined, it's only wildlife anyway? Have we not done enough damage to this earth? One small example, all the wolves in Yellowstone were wiped out because ranchers saw them as competition. What happened? The Elk herds population exploded to the point where they starve by the thousands in hard winters. When you kill off coyotes the rabbit population also explodes. Witness Australia and their rabbit population problem. You can not mess with one part of the environment without screwing up another part, and we never learn! Look, this country needs more and more oil, so, the hell with the spotted owls and caribou. Then it follows, the hell with Montana and Florida! There is oil in both places, but, Owls and Caribou dont vote! Would it do any good to raise the price to $5.00 a gallon? Of course not...we would all wind up driving those upholstered roller skates like they drive in the UK. Then, we would have a REAL reason to bitch wouldn't we? End of rant. |
|
22 May 01 - 05:25 PM (#468124) Subject: RE: BS: Gas prices From: DougR Fionn: Most of the time Mudcatters are able to post their views without attacking others whose views may be different. That is difficult for you, I guess. Kendall, I don't hate animals. I love animals. Caribou and wolves are among my favorites. I wish I owned one of each. I am not convinced, however, that mining the resources in the Alaskan wildnerness will do the harm to wildlife most of you are convinced it will. I heard a report recently that Environmentalists made the same dire predictions of doom regarding the Caribou herds on the North Slope when oil exploration began there. In the same report listeners were informed that the herds have doubled in size since. Perhaps some feel they should have tripled, or quadrupled? Was it a truthful report? I have no idea, but it sure sounded credible. I would assume that there are ongoing studies of alternate forms of energy, and how to develop them, including Nitrogen. If it is economically feasible, some enterprising person or group of people will develop them and make a lot of money. An alternate fuel program is in place here in Arizona. Propane evidently works very well in our vehicles. I don't see a vast number of people converting their vehicles, however. Electric cars are a reality now. I think I may have seen one or two since they were introduced to the market. My major concern is that the U. S. is entirely too dependent on importing the oil we need from countries that are not friendly to us (if one were to believe Fionn I guess our friends would be pretty hard to find anyway though). Someday, those unfriendly countries may decide to turn the spigot off unless we ...(whatever). Discussing environmental issues on the Mudcat has become almost as hazardous as discussing politics. It's a shame, in my opinion, but I guess it is not surprising. :>) DougR |
|
22 May 01 - 05:38 PM (#468130) Subject: RE: BS: Gas prices From: Shields Folk Are you lot still here? |
|
22 May 01 - 05:41 PM (#468138) Subject: RE: BS: Gas prices From: mousethief Herds doubling in size could be an indicator that their predators are doing badly. In an of itself it's a meaningless datum without knowing what's going on with the rest of the ecosystem. Alex |
|
22 May 01 - 05:56 PM (#468153) Subject: RE: BS: Gas prices From: DougR Well, Alex, what can be done to motivate the predators? We have to do something, don't we???!!! |
|
22 May 01 - 05:57 PM (#468156) Subject: RE: BS: Gas prices From: mousethief The question is not their motivation but their health and numbers, Doug. |
|
22 May 01 - 06:17 PM (#468172) Subject: RE: BS: Gas prices From: Jim the Bart As long as oil is a finite resource (and it is) we need to develop alternatives - whether we are forced to do it now or later does not alter that fact. Here's another fact - once the drilling rigs go in, that place will never be the same. What is the point of violating pristine wilderness for a few more years of dirt bikes, snowmobiles, luxury yachts, SUV's, and cheap disposable plastic crap? We have no way of knowing the damage that our oily footprint will leave in that refuge. As public land it belongs not only to us, but to our progeny;we have no right to alter it forever because we can't stomach the inconvenience of higher prices or developing alternative energy. To think that some men will continue to add to their wealth because we make this choice sickens me. The depth of their short-sightedness and greed is without measure. |
|
22 May 01 - 07:25 PM (#468206) Subject: RE: BS: Gas prices From: kendall Well said Bartholomew. A great Indian Chief once said, "When the last river is polluted, the last fish poisoned and the last tree cut down, only then will you realize that you can't eat money" |
|
22 May 01 - 11:48 PM (#468383) Subject: RE: BS: Gas prices From: Peg Kendall: this is my signature on my yahoo account:
Only after the last tree has been cut down, I am also fond of the idea expressed by the Hopi: that no decision should be made affecting the entire tribe (such as damming a river, culling a herd, felling a forest), until it has been determined how that action will affect the tribe *seven generations into the future.* Alex, good point on the predators: we decimated many of the predator populations years ago. That is exactly why deer populations have exploded in recent years: no pumas, no bobcats, no wolves to hunt them. The coyotes are starting to become more visible, but only because urban development is encroaching on their habitat. DougR: I find it very telling that you say you would wish to OWN a caribou or a wolf. Very telling indeed. Not to pick on you, personally, but this is the sort of attitude which has got our planet into the state it is in.
|
|
23 May 01 - 12:44 AM (#468426) Subject: RE: BS: Gas prices From: DougR Oh Peg, lighten up! I was just kidding Kendall. I didn't mean I'd REALLY like to own a Caribou or Wolf. What the heck would I do with a Caribou in Arizona? DougR |
|
23 May 01 - 12:57 AM (#468439) Subject: RE: BS: Gas prices From: Blackcatter To motivate predators - maybe we can let them have SUVs. |
|
23 May 01 - 06:28 AM (#468520) Subject: RE: BS: Gas prices From: kendall Doug, I knew you were kidding and I'm sure Peg knew also. I think you were just continuing to trivialize the beliefs of all we "tree huggers". Did anyone watch CNBC last night? Suspicions confirmed, there is no fuel shortage! It is a money grab, and with the oil companies in charge, it will only get worse. Now, the Vice President is holding fund raisers in the VP mansion! Exactly what they crucified Gore for doing, and at least he had the good sense to hold those fund raisers somewhere else! HYPOCRITES!! Three cheers for Senator Jeffords! at least one of them is developing some character. |
|
23 May 01 - 07:59 AM (#468552) Subject: RE: BS: Gas prices From: Shields Folk Anyway, there was this folk song............. |
|
23 May 01 - 11:14 AM (#468655) Subject: RE: BS: Gas prices From: mousethief Find cheap gasoline in your area (US only, I think) by clicking here: http://www.gaspricewatch.com/USGas_index.asp Pretty nifty. Alex |
|
23 May 01 - 11:47 AM (#468688) Subject: RE: BS: Gas prices From: kendall Thanks a lot Alex! this is a very valuable site. It's nice to know that the station I go to is one of the cheapest. |
|
23 May 01 - 11:52 AM (#468697) Subject: RE: BS: Gas prices From: Kim C I'm glad so many of you think you are so much better than me. I drive a Jeep. I have a cell phone. So screw me. I'm sorry I'm such a pebble in the planet's shoe. |
|
23 May 01 - 12:18 PM (#468720) Subject: RE: BS: Gas prices From: mousethief Me? Screw somebody who drives a Jeep? Not likely. Sheesh.
cell-phone owning liberal, |
|
23 May 01 - 01:29 PM (#468777) Subject: RE: BS: Gas prices From: DougR I'm in love with you, Kim C! DougR |
|
23 May 01 - 02:57 PM (#468847) Subject: RE: BS: Gas prices From: Blackcatter Kim I can assume you have reasons for the Jeep and the cell phone. I refuse to hate individuals who practice activities that are generally inappropriate. And like I said a long time ago on this thread - this planet is screwed anyhow. pax |
|
23 May 01 - 03:24 PM (#468874) Subject: RE: BS: Gas prices From: GUEST,UB Dan The issue of gas, oil, etc... keeps coming up with different approaches. Is the main concern: Cost? Depletion of resources? Environmental impact of obtaining it (i.e. drilling)? Environmental impact of exhaust from burning it? |
|
23 May 01 - 03:29 PM (#468885) Subject: RE: BS: Gas prices From: DougR All of the above, and a bunch you haven't mentioned. DougR |
|
23 May 01 - 03:35 PM (#468893) Subject: RE: BS: Gas prices From: GUEST,UB Dan No offense Doug, but that's sort of a short cut to thinking..."all that and more". It can't really be everything. If you are concerned about people burning gas you should be thrilled to see the price skyrocket...unless you are just upset at 'other' people using gas but want to have easy cheap access to it yourself...whast is your greatest concern and what are the bunch of other concerns I did not mention? |
|
23 May 01 - 03:47 PM (#468906) Subject: RE: BS: Gas prices From: Kim C UB, I think it depends on who you ask. Different people will have different things to say on the subject. I would be hard-pressed to put those in order. Right now I would have to say that it's the cost that affects most of us very directly, because that money's coming right out of our wallets. But someone who lives in a place where the landscape suffers from the effects of harvesting oil may not say that. All of those things are indeed valid concerns. But what do I know? I'm insular, self-centered and selfish and don't know how people cope in other parts of the world. |
|
23 May 01 - 04:12 PM (#468923) Subject: RE: BS: Gas prices From: GUEST,UB Dan Kim, That's kind of why I am asking the question...This started out being about the evil inherent in corporate gasoline retailers, then it became about the inherent evil in anyone who would drive an SUV...then on to cell phone users. Are gas prices high because cell phones are evil? I'm trying to figure out if there is actually a discussion going on or if everyone is just supposed to list some inanimate object as the new symbol of evil. You can be upset at prices alone or shortage alone or environment alone...you can even be upset about shortage and environment if your worry is the start of new drilling. But you can't be upset at price and shortage at the same time. The only reason to be upset at price is if there is not a shortage. You also can't be upset at depletion and price, because price will slow down depletion...you see what I'm saying. Everyone seems to be accepting that gasoline is evil...what I'm trying to figure out is why? The topic of why cell phones are in and of themselves evil should probably be saved for another thread. |
|
23 May 01 - 04:18 PM (#468929) Subject: RE: BS: Gas prices From: UB Ed C'mon Kim, I've seen your previous posts and know that's not true. You seem to be thoughtful and caring. Don't let the sanctimonious get you down. And I really want to know more about the tatoo. I just got back from Ocracoke with my 15 mpg Chevy. Both dogs had a great time on the beach and I even found a Don Milner CD in one of the shops. I think Dan's point is one he's attempted to make in many of these threads. Specifically, what are we concerned about and how do we suggest dealing with it? It's kinda funny to go through these discussions given the majority view that the world is coming to an end oh my and isn't it just awful? And then some poor guy pokes his head in and asks about the science or the plan. And then no one is able to respond objectively to the commentor's point. There are a lot of very thoughtful and intelligent folks around here. I propose we devote a little more objectivity to support our positions (and subsequently promote understanding) into these types of discussions. Next? Ed |
|
23 May 01 - 04:30 PM (#468936) Subject: RE: BS: Gas prices From: CarolC Kim, I hope you don't think that everyone who posted something about SUVs on this thread thinks you are the problem. I think most of us are in agreement that there are legitimate uses and needs for these vehicles.
I think what a lot of us are saying is that many (not all) people who drive large SUVs don't really need them and are doing so for reasons that are not environmentally friendly. Personally, I don't think a Jeep Cherokee is necessarily a large SUV. But you will have to determine for yourself whether or not your needs justify the vehicle you drive. And the reality is that you will also probably have to pay the cost at the pump for driving such a vehicle. |
|
23 May 01 - 04:49 PM (#468951) Subject: RE: BS: Gas prices From: kendall Kim, anyone who likes Granpa Jones cant be all bad. Jeeps are not SUV's |
|
23 May 01 - 04:55 PM (#468959) Subject: RE: BS: Gas prices From: GUEST,UB Dan So I guess some people can have SUV's and some people can't...I don't get it. Why is somebody wrong for having an SUV? Keep in mind that cars are expensive...for most people it is not practical to buy one zip around car in addition to the SUV which they may need...or good forbid want...occassionally. Some people like them just because they are big and bulky...such as my girlfriend who has been in two terrible accidents. Neither of us has one...yet, but do I need a special dispensation from some committee to get one. If the problem is that you think people get an SUV as just a status symbol than say that you object to status symbol vehicles, such as SUV's, Lincolns, Caddillacs, Jaguars...if gas mileage is the issue than none of these get great gas mileage either, neither do lots of older cars...but I get the feeling that this isn't the issue...just like cell phones aren't the issue. But if it is, for goodness sake say so...come up with some recognizable issue and lets stick with it. |
|
23 May 01 - 05:02 PM (#468967) Subject: RE: BS: Gas prices From: UB Ed Kendall, perfect example. Please, on what planet are V6 Jeep Cherokees not a sport utility vehicle? Don't we feel the least bit compelled to logically bound our positions? Ed |
|
23 May 01 - 05:16 PM (#468978) Subject: RE: BS: Gas prices From: CarolC GUEST,UB Dan, I don't know if you are addressing any one person specifically or not.
I don't own a car, so I'm not in a position to say what sort I would own if I did have one. I kind of like the Suzuki four wheel drive vehicles, myself. I don't know whether or not I would own one, though. For one thing, I don't know what sort of gas mileage they get. And I don't know when or if I will ever be in a financial position to buy another car. So maybe I'll never have to face that decision.
But I do know one thing. I live in a body that is extremely sensitive to environmental toxins. Sometimes it feels like not living at all would feel better than living in my body the way it is. So I know that I have a vested interest in doing whatever I can to keep the amount of pollution to which I contribute to a minimum. And I also know that the numbers of people who suffer from the same thing I do are increasing. So for the sake of my son and any grandchildren I may have in the future, I want to leave the world as clean as I possibly can. |
|
23 May 01 - 05:36 PM (#468992) Subject: RE: BS: Gas prices From: Kim C Ed and Carol and Kendall, thank you very much. :-) (it's a violin on my backside, which is why Spaw sometimes refers to me as Fiddlebum) Gadgets are not in and of themselves evil. It's what we do with them. Sure, cell phones are annoying to a lot of people. I know that. Some abuse them and some don't. Why punish everyone because of a few idiots? Before I started camping, or owning more than one large dog, I had a small car. It was a nice car. I liked it very much. But things changed. We have been on trips where the back of that Jeep was FULL even without the dogs. (yes I have a luggage rack, it's where the tent poles go) Also a Mazda 323 isn't very good for hauling firewood when a woodstove is your primary source of heat in the winter. (yes it is and I don't have any air conditioning either) And even with the seat in that car ALL THE WAY BACK, Mister's knees were still up under his chin. He can't help it that his legs are long and he'd like to drive something comfortable. Is that wrong? Should he feel guilty for wanting to drive something he can SIT in for longer than 30 minutes? Should I feel guilty because I don't want to drive something that makes me feel like I'm sitting on the ground? Everybody has their own reason for making their lifestyle choices. Criticizing those choices of people you don't know well is unproductive and divisive. Personally I would like to see a big push toward alternative fuels- things that cost less to produce and cause less damage to the landscape. If someone could come up with an engine that would run on decaying vegetable matter, it would be a great boon. |
|
23 May 01 - 07:50 PM (#469078) Subject: RE: BS: Gas prices From: DougR Kim C, woman that I adore, why in the world do you feel compelled to explain to anybody why you drive any kind of vehicle? See what would happen if we allowed the extremists to run the world? Next thing you know they will be dictating what kind of guitar you can play, who can sing and who can not (some folks have bad breath and that could be considered pollution I suppose), etc. etc. The sky ain't falling, folks! Gasoline prices are just up, that's all. They'll come down. I think you live in the US of A, Kim, and the last time I heard, you are free to drive any kind of vehicle you can afford to buy and, and the gasoline to put into it. Objectivity? Somebody wants objectivity? I'm afraid you've come to the wrong place for that, my friend. :>) And just how, Kim C, does Spaw know what you've got painted on your fanny? DougR |
|
23 May 01 - 08:10 PM (#469087) Subject: RE: BS: Gas prices From: kendall My daughter and son-in-law both have Jeep Cherokees. They both have six cylinder engines, and are not hard on fuel. They are no where near as big as the giant Explorer suv. Doug, this is a free country, sure, we have liberties that most other nations lack, but, with that liberty comes responsibility. My neighbor wants to start a pig farm. Thank God the zoning laws forbid it. Get the picture? No man is an island.We are all in the same boat, and, most of us would appreciate it if no one pees in it. |
|
23 May 01 - 08:13 PM (#469089) Subject: RE: BS: Gas prices From: kendall By the way, I saw Ford's ad in National Geographic today for their new car which will run on hydrogen and oxygen. Its' only emmission is water. Now, will the oil companies kill it? |
|
23 May 01 - 08:41 PM (#469112) Subject: RE: BS: Gas prices From: DougR Ah ha, Kendall, that will be interesting to watch. You don't like pigs? The O'Reilly Factor on the Fox News Network is originating in Scottsdale, Arizona, today and at the moment Bill O'Reilly and another automotive "expert" are debating the advantages and disadvantages of the SUV as it affects the country and as it relates to the energy shortage. |
|
23 May 01 - 08:54 PM (#469120) Subject: RE: BS: Gas prices From: CarolC "The sky ain't falling, folks!"
--DougR
DougR, I know you don't mean to sound callous. And I know that in this free country, you needn't be concerned with my misfortunes. But having a severely limited use of my body is a bit like the sky falling. So I hope you can appreciate why I might be a little less than objective when issues relating to the environment and to my health are being considered. I hope you never have to experience the kind of health problems I do. But don't be at all surprised if it does happen to you or to someone you care about. It can happen to anyone. And it is happening in increasing numbers. And that's why it's important for us to make these decisions carefully, being mindful of what's best for everyone. |
|
23 May 01 - 09:47 PM (#469138) Subject: RE: BS: Gas prices From: DougR No, Carol, I do not intend to be callous, and I am sorry that you have health problems. Unless, however, a law is passed mandating that all vehicles manufactured must be able to operate at 20+ miles per gallon, or no more vehicles that burn gasoline can be manufactured, I don't think things will change much. And I seriously doubt such a law would pass. Do you think it would? In the ideal world, people would take into account that the gas guzzlers do harm to some people, and they voluntarily would not buy them, but ... DougR |
|
23 May 01 - 09:57 PM (#469144) Subject: RE: BS: Gas prices From: CarolC My point is that we all are impacted by the decisions that are made with regard to the environment. The technologies exist for cars to get better gas mileage, and even for petroleum to become a thing of the past. But there are people who have a vested interest in promoting the use of fossil fuels over other alternatives. We have a choice now. We can either let these people set the adjenda, or we can set it ourselves. We, as a society need to start thinking in terms of moving beyond the age of fossil fuels. President Bush is in a position to help us move forward in a direction that would be more healthy for the planet as well as for each of us a individuals. Will he do it? It looks to me like he wants to move us in the opposite direction. |
|
23 May 01 - 10:43 PM (#469190) Subject: RE: BS: Gas prices From: DougR Carol: I'm sure you would agree that the agenda you suggest is one that requires longrange implementation. I doubt it could be done within the next 60 days. Do we know for certain that there will not be a push for developing non-fossil fuel using vehicles? I don't think so. I would ask you this, Carol; this problem did not originate when George Bush moved into the White House, correct? What did the Democrats, who have held the congress, and the White House, much longer than Republicans do about the problem? There are those that would argue that instead of helping, they hindered, by passing laws that so restrict energy providers the cost of producing fuel increased tremendously. All of those increased costs are not going to be absorbed by the producers. A major portion will be passed along to consumers via higher purchasing costs. I realize that your argument is based less on cost and more on health issues, but again, the other party didn't do a great deal to improve the situation either. DougR |
|
23 May 01 - 10:51 PM (#469194) Subject: RE: BS: Gas prices From: kendall And what did the Nixon administration do? they created the original gas shortage by selling war materials to Iran and allowing them to pay in oil. In order to get the price up, they conspired to create a shortage. Before that, the Eisenhower administration did nothing, and before that the republican controlled congress under Truman did nothing either. That was when the original warning came out, and, it has been ignored ever since. There is plenty of blame to go around, lets not fight over it Doug! :-) |
|
23 May 01 - 11:18 PM (#469210) Subject: RE: BS: Gas prices From: CarolC No, DougR, cost is a big factor in my thought process. I'm all for keeping the cost of gas high enough to keep people from taking the amount of gas they consume, with its resulting polution, for granted. In fact, I think that one of the reasons this was not a front burner issue while President Clinton was in office is because prices have been so low. Even now, if we adjust for inflation, gas prices are lower today than they were in the 1960s
And if people have to pay higher prices, maybe they will agitate for speeding up the development of non-poluting alternatives. Unless they are being misled about what the real problems are. Which is what I think is happening right now. I think the cost question exists for one reason only. To make people think that what we need is more fossil fuel production and use.
What I know about President Clinton's approach to the environment is that he attempted to protect the environment and jobs at the same time. That's a very tricky balance to try to strike. Unfortunately, just like the blacksmith at the end of the horse and buggy days, some people are going to need to find another way to make a living. But would you have chosen to not move into the automotive age because some jobs would be lost because of it? I don't think so. And if we want to, we can look at non-poluting renewable energy sources as a great economic opportunity if we want. In fact, some business people are already doing that, but the fossil fuel, nuclear power, and coal industries have powerfull, well established lobbies. The new technologies are scrambling to try to catch up to the older, more established industrial giants. If they got a bit of a leg up from the government, rather than having that part of the budget slashed, which is what President Bush has in mind, they might be able to do this a little faster. |
|
23 May 01 - 11:45 PM (#469225) Subject: RE: BS: Gas prices From: DougR Carol, Kendall: perhaps you're right. DougR |
|
24 May 01 - 02:12 AM (#469288) Subject: RE: BS: Gas prices From: Peg ...for everyone bitching about my bringing up cell phones: yes, I think there is a connection between the indiscriminate use of cell phones and the indiscriminate use of SUVs. The indiscriminate (unnecessary, gratuitous) use of cell phones and SUVs (or both at the same time) is generally practiced by people who, it seems to me, are so self-absorbed that they don't CARE that they are adding to the environmental problem, or the continuing insularity and narcissism of our culture, or risking their lives and the lives of others with unsafe driving practices (that's for the ones driving the SUVs while talking on their cell phones). I did not use the word EVIL. (That was another thread I believe). But do feel free to interpret my words any way you will. Cell phones don't annoy people; people with cell phones annoy people.
|
|
24 May 01 - 08:26 AM (#469398) Subject: RE: BS: Gas prices From: kendall Use your cell phone all you want, just dont try it in Judge Bradfords' court. He'll have your guts for a necktie! |
|
24 May 01 - 09:30 AM (#469431) Subject: RE: BS: Gas prices From: GUEST,UB Dan Yes Peg...I thought maybe it was people who annoyed you CarolC, I really respect your argument. It is consistent and thought out. Your point of view is that gas prices should be high and hopefully this will spark interest in alternate energy . I agree with you completely on this point. Alternate fuels can be made more cost-effective either by lowering their cost or raising the cost of our current prefered choice...gasoline. The reason you dislike the use of gasoline is because of air pollutants. This means that the alternate fuel you desire must have less air pollutants than gasoline. What if the pollutants from gas powered engines could be lowered, would this be acceptable? Because there is much work being done in this area...especially in California. Also it might be desirable to get more contries to require emmissions controls. Catalytic converters, as far as I know, are still only required in the U.S.A and are not included in vehicles sold outside of the U.S. because it lowers the power of the engine (and I think the mpg are also reduced) ebven though the pollutants are greatly reduced.
Kendall, Saying that a Cherokee is alright, but anything bigger is wrong is just silly. I drive a 4 cylinder light pick up, you use more gas than me...does that make you wrong. Maybe I should be the yardstick by which the whole world is judged instead of you. |
|
24 May 01 - 09:50 AM (#469440) Subject: RE: BS: Gas prices From: Peg UB Dan; as for people who annoy me, you are one of the worst offenders I can think of at the moment.
|
|
24 May 01 - 10:04 AM (#469444) Subject: RE: BS: Gas prices From: GUEST,UB Dan Peg, I may be the worst, but I'm sure I'm not the only one...I'm sure most people annoy you. (by the way, I'm impressed that your dialectic skills have advanced beyond "fuck you UB Dan") |
|
24 May 01 - 10:12 AM (#469449) Subject: RE: BS: Gas prices From: Peg No, actually, "most" people do not annoy me. I am actually a very open-minded, compassionate person with a great love of humanity. It is self-rightous, arrogant, condescending blowhards like you that really annoy me...
|
|
24 May 01 - 10:13 AM (#469451) Subject: RE: BS: Gas prices From: Kim C If we all drove cars that ran on water... well, I think it's a splendid idea... but haven't we already had water shortage problems in some places? I still think fermented vegetable matter is a good one... lots of fruits and vegetables that are not pretty enough to go to market (i.e., undersized, misshapen, bruised, etc.) are simply discarded. Talk about waste! There are plenty of new hands-free gadgets that allow a person to talk on the phone and drive at the same time with both hands still on the wheel. The new phones now have voice-activated dialing, and headsets are widely available, for those who feel like they need such. Phones are not the only driving danger. Eating, drinking, smoking, fiddling with the radio, and disciplining unruly children all take a driver's attention away from the road. And what about this OnStar system that some of the luxury cars have now? It's almost just like talking to someone on the phone. Like I said before, some people are going to be responsible and some people are going to be idiots. It's too bad the responsible get punished because of the idiots. Now.... Doug, you are a sweetheart! I am very proud of my tattoo and I like to talk about it. However... Mister doesn't let me show it around, for obvious reasons. ;-) Cheers---- Kim |
|
24 May 01 - 10:31 AM (#469457) Subject: RE: BS: Gas prices From: GUEST,UB Dan Peg, in my own self righteous way, I'm going to suggest that you start a new thread to discuss how good and special you are and how jerks like me don't seem to recognize it. This thread is about gasoline...oh and cell phones...and maybe tattoos. But I think my condescention deserves its own thread. |
|
24 May 01 - 10:38 AM (#469460) Subject: RE: BS: Gas prices From: IanC Peg, Dan Why'nt you both continue this in PMs. Better than a public shouting match. |
|
24 May 01 - 11:23 AM (#469485) Subject: RE: BS: Gas prices From: Kim C All right then. I'm going to go start a thread about tattoos. :-) |
|
24 May 01 - 11:39 AM (#469495) Subject: RE: BS: Gas prices From: UB Ed And with that, she did:
|
|
24 May 01 - 12:01 PM (#469514) Subject: RE: BS: Gas prices From: KingBrilliant Is this a comedy thread? Kris |
|
24 May 01 - 12:15 PM (#469519) Subject: RE: BS: Gas prices From: kendall Guest UB DAN, I suggest you go back and read my note again. Nowhere did I say that Jeeps are ok and anything bigger is not. It does not do your case any good when you twist other peoples' words. I dont own an SUV. I drive a van with an underpowered 6 cylinder engine. Nothing that runs on fossil fuel is "ok" but, for the time being, we are stuck with them. Some idiot from Ford was on the news last night claiming he gets over 18 mpg with his monster suv. BOLLOX!! |
|
24 May 01 - 12:22 PM (#469529) Subject: RE: BS: Gas prices From: UB Ed Lost on a rainy night, a nun stumbles across a monastery and requests shelter there. Fortunately, she's just in time for dinner and was treated to the best fish and chips she's ever had. After dinner, she goes into the kitchen to thank the chefs. She is met by two brothers, "Hello, I'm Brother Michael, and this is Brother Charles." "I'm very pleased to meet you. I just wanted to thank you for a wonderful dinner. The fish and chips were the best I've ever tasted. Out of curiosity, who cooked what?" Brother Charles replied, "Well, I'm the fish friar." She turns the other brother and says, "Then you must be...?" "Yes, I'm afraid I'm the chip monk." |
|
24 May 01 - 12:31 PM (#469539) Subject: RE: BS: Gas prices From: Grab Back on the thread about cars... There's already hydrogen-powered cars. The niftiest thing I've seen was a car run on compressed-air - a true zero-tailpipe-emissions car! And everyone knows about battery-powered cars and hybrid-electrics. But all of these need some kind of intervention from fossil fuels. Let's forget about the plastics and paints that go into them, and just go for the fuel. To produce hydrogen, you need to split water molecules. This takes energy, which must be supplied by a power plant - and until we get nuclear fusion going, most of these will be run by fossil fuels. Compressed-gas (air, LPG, etc) - you need a motor of some kind to do the compressing. Batteries - power station again. So the deal is just to try and get the most efficiency out of the energy. Zero-tailpipe-emissions cars are fine for going around places like LA where local emissions are a real problem, but in general the issue is quantity of fuel per distance. And burning the fuel locally (ie. in the car) is usually more efficient than burning it a long way away in a power station and shipping it over on power lines - this does depend on the engine though. Engine size. The heavier the car, the more engine you need to get it off the line. My 1.4l Peugeot goes quite acceptably, and my 2l Montego (a few years back now) was stonkingly quick in a straight line (best not mention corners ;-). These aren't particularly small cars - I've a friend who's still driving a Montego from preference, and he's 6 foot 2. Is the average height in the US more than 6 foot 2? If not, why do their cars need to be bigger than a Montego? SUVs. Three things: engine size, front aspect and tyres. They're heavier, so they need bigger engines, but this is mostly due to the size - a minivan isn't going to be significantly heavier. Front aspect is different - a minivan has a smooth body which makes it more aerodynamically efficient, whereas SUVs are deliberately styled to be slab-sided and so suck much more petrol at cruising speeds. Lastly, tyres - the bigger tyres make a big difference to the rolling resistance. If you're not going off-road, you just don't need big tyres on a car. I have no arguments with ppl owning SUVs or cars with large engines (such as Kendall's gas-guzzling V6 Jeep - don't try to pretend that's an economy car! :-). But I do have to argue with the belief that they are necessities and there are no other options. In the vast majority of cases, there are plenty of other options - if you want to shift lots of stuff then look at a minivan, or if you're too big for one car's driving position then look at another car. If you face the fact that your nice shiny SUV is a LUXURY, then you have no argument against paying top dollar to drive it. One minor point - the woman who thinks she's safer in an SUV has been conned by the image. The size and weight of an SUV makes it more difficult to make them rigid, which makes them less safe in an accident - the roof's more likely to collapse if they're rolled, for instance. Buy a Volvo instead. Graham. |
|
24 May 01 - 12:33 PM (#469540) Subject: RE: BS: Gas prices From: GUEST ED, If the chip monk was more concerned with enviromentally friendly renewable fuel sources, maybe the nun couldv'e driven her oversized SUV to the tatoo parlor as she originally intended and gotten the save the alaskan wildlife tatoo she always wanted before UB Dan critized her for not doing so....hypothetically... I think. Provided she wasn't to busy reading a save the world or at least a buck group rant at the mudcat cafe. |
|
24 May 01 - 01:14 PM (#469570) Subject: RE: BS: Gas prices From: DougR Mebbe so, Kim, but Spaw has seen it! Uh oh, mebbe that was before Mister (sorry!) DougR |
|
24 May 01 - 01:51 PM (#469601) Subject: RE: BS: Gas prices From: CarolC GUEST, UB Dan, The reason you dislike the use of gasoline is because of air pollutants. Not necessarily. I also dislike them because of the pollution that extracting and refining them adds to the environment. Just last night on the news, they were talking about an oil spill off the coast of South America (I believe) that happened recently. The ladies nearby are knitting sweaters for members of a species of small penguin who will freeze to death without them because of damage that exposure to the oil has done to their own natural protection from cold. And the hydrocarbons from oil spills do eventually get around to people like you and me. And they poison our environment. This means that the alternate fuel you desire must have less air pollutants than gasoline. What if the pollutants from gas powered engines could be lowered, would this be acceptable? Only in the short term. We posess the technology to eliminate the use of fossil fuels entirely. And it is possible to use non-poluting, renewable energy sources to do it. What is needed is for the market to catch up with the need and the demand. But all of these need some kind of intervention from fossil fuels. I don't agree. Let's forget about the plastics and paints that go into them, and just go for the fuel. I'd just like to touch on the plastics and paints for just a minute. The plastics can be produced from hemp. The paints can be produced from soy beans. These things already exist. To produce hydrogen, you need to split water molecules. This takes energy, which must be supplied by a power plant - and until we get nuclear fusion going, most of these will be run by fossil fuels. Once again, I disagree. The power to split water molecules can be produced by wind and solar technology (and other non-poluting, renewable energy technologies). These technologies are already with us, and have been proven to be effective. Again, it's a matter of bringing the market up to date with the existing technology, and with the need. And the existing technologies will need to continue to be developed. But we can do it with what we have now, if we create a market place environment that is less hostile to these things. And the market place is only hostile to them because existing energy industries are so powerful. |
|
24 May 01 - 01:55 PM (#469604) Subject: RE: BS: Gas prices From: GUEST,Rambam99 Carol- are you sure you want to offer such a cogent and well thought out rebuttle? It has little place in this emotion packed gripe fest |
|
24 May 01 - 01:59 PM (#469608) Subject: RE: BS: Gas prices From: CarolC Oops. I forgot to attribute the part of my post that was addressed to Grab, beginning with the line... Let's forget about the plastics and paints that go into them, and just go for the fuel. |
|
24 May 01 - 02:03 PM (#469612) Subject: RE: BS: Gas prices From: GUEST,UB Dan Kendall - I'm sorry I attributed the Jeeps to you instead of to you daughter and son-in-law. My point, though remains. Why is that where you draw the line. Cherokees and vans are okay but anything bigger is just wrong? Maybe this wasn't what you meant but I got the impression that this was what you were saying when you wrote: "My daughter and son-in-law both have Jeep Cherokees. They both have six cylinder engines, and are not hard on fuel. They are no where near as big as the giant Explorer suv. " Grab - You make some very excellent points especially regarding how alternately fueled vehicles may still ultimately be powered by the consumption of gasoline or oil somewhere. I also agree with you about the safety of the SUVs, I think that they are less stable than a regular car... GUEST - maybe I can carpool with the nun over to the tattoo parlour. |
|
24 May 01 - 02:13 PM (#469626) Subject: RE: BS: Gas prices From: GUEST,UB Dan Carol, sorry I didn't see your post before. Once again, I think you make great coherent salient points. Is hemp being used to create plastic outside of the US or is soy being used for paints outside of the US. Mostly I'm interested in the plastics because several people criticize the illegality of hemp in the US because it has industrial uses. Also, I don't think that consumers are hostile to alternate energy, but I can see a point being made that some industry suppresses it for fear of impact on their current practices. Do you think its the industry or the consumers who are hostile? And if its industry, is it just oil and auto or are other industries hostile? Are solar and wind power more costly to produce short-term (I understand that long-range it is better) or is it just a refusal to use it. |
|
24 May 01 - 02:39 PM (#469657) Subject: RE: BS: Gas prices From: CarolC Is hemp being used to create plastic outside of the US or is soy being used for paints outside of the US. My understanding is that the technology for making plastic out of hemp was developed in the first half of the 20th century. I don't know if it is being done today. If we could do it then, I don't see any reason why we can't do it today. Except that hemp is illegal in the U.S. Some hemp products are being produced outside of the U.S. and imported here. Maybe someone will do that with plastics made from hemp if they think there's a market for it. Mostly I'm interested in the plastics because several people criticize the illegality of hemp in the US because it has industrial uses. I am one who would criticize the illegality of industrial grade hemp. The whole question of whether or not marijuana should be legal is irrelevent to the discussion of industrial grade hemp. It would be pretty difficult to get high from industrial grade hemp. Also, I don't think that consumers are hostile to alternate energy, but I can see a point being made that some industry suppresses it for fear of impact on their current practices. I would tend to agree with that. Do you think its the industry or the consumers who are hostile? I think it's industry. As far as the consumers are concerned, I think they just don't know about this stuff. This thread seems to demonstrate that fact. And if its industry, is it just oil and auto or are other industries hostile? I think the coal, natural gas, and nuclear industries are also hostile. Are solar and wind power more costly to produce short-term (I understand that long-range it is better) or is it just a refusal to use it. I think that with the technology we have available today, solar and wind power are probably not more costly to produce in the short-term. I heard recently that in California, solar power producers (it might have been wind, I'm not sure) were trying to sell power to electrical utility companies in California, and were being confronted with policies that are contrary to free market practices. And it was these policies that made selling power to the utilities in question unprofitable. |
|
24 May 01 - 03:27 PM (#469685) Subject: RE: BS: Gas prices From: Kim C No, no, the only man besides Mister who has ever actually seen the Royal Tattoo is the artist himself. :-) Mister is 6'3" and mostly legs. And while I don't know what the AVERAGE is, I know plenty of people taller than him. I wanted a Volvo wagon! I couldn't afford even a used one. So I should go into more debt so I can get a little better gas mileage? Maybe this would be a less screwed planet if we'd all quit telling each other what to do. |
|
24 May 01 - 03:50 PM (#469702) Subject: RE: BS: Gas prices From: DougR Happy you cleared that up, Kim C., and I wish I could afford a Volvo too. DougR |
|
24 May 01 - 03:52 PM (#469705) Subject: RE: BS: Gas prices From: Jon Freeman Kim, I get the impression that the only thing you are being asked to do is accept that the vehicles you are choosing are probably not the most practical or economical vehicles for your needs. As for debt, perhaps Carol is right and fuel prices in the US need to rise further to make people think... Let's say the Citroen I mentioned before averages 50mpg (probably does a little better over the year - I gave a worse case before) and we average 10,000 miles a year. For convenience, lets say petrol is £3.00 per gallon. That gives fuel costs of £700 per year, a 20mpg guzzler would cost £1750 for the same mileage. Jon |
|
24 May 01 - 04:15 PM (#469730) Subject: RE: BS: Gas prices From: UB Ed Jon, the only thing I'm asking you to do is stop telling others what they're supposed to do. Kim is driving the vehicle that is most practical and economical for her needs. For you to say its not is not very respectful of the postions she has set forth. Mister is freakin 6 foot 3 tall! I'm sure they perceive a level of value for his ability to walk after a long car ride. I suggest we all retire to the tatoo parlor. |
|
24 May 01 - 04:18 PM (#469734) Subject: RE: BS: Gas prices From: Kim C Okay. Y'all come live with me for a month and then tell me what you think. ;-) |
|
24 May 01 - 04:33 PM (#469750) Subject: RE: BS: Gas prices From: Jon Freeman Here you go Ed tall people need SUV's do they? Jon |
|
24 May 01 - 04:41 PM (#469764) Subject: RE: BS: Gas prices From: UB Ed LOL! Jon, where did you find that? |
|
24 May 01 - 04:49 PM (#469773) Subject: RE: BS: Gas prices From: GUEST,UB Dan Jon, the citroen you are talking about is not available in the U.S. because it will not meet the stricter U.S. emmission and safety standards. Grab pointed out that cars that run on alternate energy (wind and solar excluded) will not decrease the amount of oil consumed unless the source of the power generation is also changed i.e. the electricity plants. Carol suggested some real viable solutions such as the substitution of soy or industrial grade hemp for some products made from oil...and also the exploration of wind and solar energy. After she made her post I went to CNN to find an article on the situation she was talking about in California. I was unable to find it, but I did find an interesting article on how several European contries are trying to replace their current nuclear power plants with alternate renewable energy sources...(such as off shore wind farms) There was also a cool article about the possibility of harvesting solar energy in space and beaming it back to earth...very much in the future but neat to read about. Generally, would you prefer fossil fuel energy plants or nuclear energy plants. (Carol, I'd love to hear your opinion...you keep giving such wonderful explanations)
|
|
24 May 01 - 05:00 PM (#469787) Subject: RE: BS: Gas prices From: GUEST can anyone make a part II thread |
|
24 May 01 - 05:12 PM (#469795) Subject: RE: BS: Gas prices From: UB Ed Part II Thread
|
|
24 May 01 - 05:15 PM (#469799) Subject: RE: BS: Gas prices From: CarolC GUEST, UB Dan,
My source for the information about California was a panel speaker on a Public Television (U.S.) news program.
As for your question about whether or not I would prefer fossil fuel energy plants or nuclear energy, I would have to say that I would prefer natural gas energy plants over nuclear energy. Oil and coal are bad for the health of the planet in different ways than nuclear, but I think they are both bad to the same degree. Natural gas is cleaner to use, but it is a finite resource. Kim C, as far as not telling people what to do is concerned, would you extend that statement to include the government not telling people they can't grow and use industrial grade hemp? |
|
24 May 01 - 05:17 PM (#469801) Subject: RE: BS: Gas prices From: Jon Freeman Dan I think the ZX is no longer made anyway, pretty sure it was replaced by a Xsara. As for emmission laws, I wonder if Grab or someone can explain them to me. When we've had cars go in for MOT, I see a %CO or something like that quoted. Am I right in thinking that once car (pulling imaginary figures out of my head) could emit 1.5% and pass and another could emit 1.6% and fail but the car that passed could atually consume 1/2 the fuel of the other one and would effectively still be putting more muck into the atmosphere? Jon |