"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"Fred Dehl" wrote in message
...
"Doug Kanter" wrote in
:


"Fred Dehl" wrote in message
...
"Doug Kanter" wrote in
:

Obviously the solution is to increase the number of producers,
and have them under US control rather than beholden to the
instability and hostility of foreign regions. That means, at a
MINIMUM, offshore and ANWR.

ANWR would barely make a dent. Even the oil companies have stated
this.

If you prefer no dent at all to any dent, you're an envirofreak.

A dent is nice, but sometimes the cost is too high.

So you'd rather write your checks to the Bin Laden clan?

Let's see...you wrote this at 9:26 PM. Cocktails hadn't worn off yet?
What percentage of this country's electricity comes from oil-fueled
power plants?

Who's talking about electricity, nimrod? Check the ****ing TITLE of the
****ING thread.

Oh, and where are your answers to the questions from the other poster
about what YOU would to solve the global energy crisis? Still festering
in your middle back pocket, I'd reason.

I've already presented some workable ideas here in the past. You weren't
around. Briefly, my first move would be to strongarm the car makers. Most
(not all) people who buy an SUV do so for reasons related only to their
size & shape, not their power train. Mommies want the safety or roominess
of the boxy vehicle. They have no need for a power train that eats so
much fuel. They couldn't even describe the power train and how it's
different from that of a sedan. The product needs to be changed so it
meets two of the buyers' needs, without addressing the needs of buyers
who do not exist.

Guess what? Ford seems to be doing it.

That's not a plan it is at best a desire to control behavior and dictate
needs to others.

With the projected increase of automobiles, specifically the gas fueled
ones, around the entire world how will this reduce the CO2 and other bad
emissions form automobiles. Oh, accepting the Kyoto Protocols is not a
valid answer to the question becasue it is a wealth re-distribution plan
under the guise of a global energy "plan."

The people of this world are not going to take a giant technological or
convienece leap backwards. Your solutions have to solve the current and
forseeable future energy needs.



Ford's development of a hybrid SUV is an attempt to control behavior? Please
explain this conclusion. They'll still be selling the "regular" kind, for
people who actually need a truck-style power train, but sales of those will
be reduced to levels they were at 30 years ago, when they were mostly
purchased by people who needed the 4WD and the gear ratio.

Don't get mired in that paragraph. Explain your conclusion.