Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
A place where liberal politics and yachting collided
Right, but the vast majority of our use of oil is for cars. Remember,
we have lots of oil in the US. We could be self-sufficient if we wanted to. I suggest raising gas prices to $5/gallon. Give the automakers lots of incentives to increase fuel efficiency and create alternative cars. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com "thunder" wrote in message news On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 10:05:36 -0700, Jonathan Ganz wrote: This implies that we won't find viable alternatives between now and then. There will probably be some severe problems in high population 3rd world countries, but they already have these problems. The 1st world will be much less affected. I'm not so sure. Alternatives? As an energy source, perhaps, but for plastics, medicines, fertilizers, perhaps not. Also, as peak oil is now, time is running out. A little factoid, the US population consumes its entire weight in oil . . . every week. http://www.oilcrisis.com/debate/oilcalcs.htm |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
A place where liberal politics and yachting collided
On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 15:07:35 -0700, Jonathan Ganz wrote:
Right, but the vast majority of our use of oil is for cars. Remember, we have lots of oil in the US. We could be self-sufficient if we wanted to. I suggest raising gas prices to $5/gallon. Give the automakers lots of incentives to increase fuel efficiency and create alternative cars. 65% of the America's oil has already been burned. We could have been self-sufficient, but now? Unless there is a massive and comprehensive energy policy installed immediately, *we* may have oil, but our children will have to live without. http://www.faultline.org/news/2001/1...ependence.html |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
A place where liberal politics and yachting collided
Actually I first read the same statement about 30 years ago almost word for
word. The only difference was gas was supposed to rise to a cost $2 a gallon. You will however see $5 a gallon gas talked about and like the early seventies it may even rise to that but not for purposes of conserving energy. Rather for purposes of raising funds to pay off the, created by both political partys, national debt. You can't tax $1.50 on $2.00 a gallon gasoline just as back then you couldn't tax 65 cents on 35 cent a gallon gas. But give the great unwashed a taste of five at the pump then back it off to $3.00 they will be so happy they will forget it used to cost $2. Just like they did in the early seventies. Call it raising funds to pay bills or call it devaluing the value of the debt or both . . .it worked then and it will work again IF the resultingincome is used to reduce the debt load and not 'spent' as some sort ofmythical windfall like the so called peace dividend or the so called balanced budget with a surplus that never existed (reference the Dep't of the Treasury balance sheet for those years). IF by chance some conservational benefit isderived that would also be nice . ... in fact it might even be used as a supporting reason BUT it won't be the main reason in realpolitik. However I'm now getting near AARP years old so my main concern is, like with most seniors, me. Grandparents and parents didn't care about me and my generation when they could have done something . .. .why should I pay the price? As the Brit's use to say, and may still do so, "I'm all right Jack, Whats yours is mine and what's mine's me own." And that's the true legacy of the USA. M. PS don't brag about those energy conserving sails so much. Remember it was Red Ron Dellums of California that proposed a tax on sail boats because they didn't pay their fair share. Shhhhhhhh......... "thunder" wrote in message news On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 15:07:35 -0700, Jonathan Ganz wrote: Right, but the vast majority of our use of oil is for cars. Remember, we have lots of oil in the US. We could be self-sufficient if we wanted to. I suggest raising gas prices to $5/gallon. Give the automakers lots of incentives to increase fuel efficiency and create alternative cars. 65% of the America's oil has already been burned. We could have been self-sufficient, but now? Unless there is a massive and comprehensive energy policy installed immediately, *we* may have oil, but our children will have to live without. http://www.faultline.org/news/2001/1...ependence.html |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
A place where liberal politics and yachting collided
On Fri, 16 Jul 2004 22:25:26 -0400, "Michael"
wrote this crap: Actually I first read the same statement about 30 years ago almost word for word. The only difference was gas was supposed to rise to a cost $2 a gallon. You will however see $5 a gallon gas talked about and like the early seventies it may even rise to that but not for purposes of conserving energy. Rather for purposes of raising funds to pay off the, created by both political partys, national debt. You can't tax $1.50 on $2.00 a gallon gasoline just as back then you couldn't tax 65 cents on 35 cent a gallon I wanted a tax on stupid people, but I found out we already have one. It's called a "lottery." Now why don't we have a tax on lottery tickets? Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now! |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
A place where liberal politics and yachting collided
I think that would be great. It would force you to sell your
crapola Hunter. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com "Horvath" wrote in message ... On Fri, 16 Jul 2004 22:25:26 -0400, "Michael" wrote this crap: Actually I first read the same statement about 30 years ago almost word for word. The only difference was gas was supposed to rise to a cost $2 a gallon. You will however see $5 a gallon gas talked about and like the early seventies it may even rise to that but not for purposes of conserving energy. Rather for purposes of raising funds to pay off the, created by both political partys, national debt. You can't tax $1.50 on $2.00 a gallon gasoline just as back then you couldn't tax 65 cents on 35 cent a gallon I wanted a tax on stupid people, but I found out we already have one. Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now! |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
A place where liberal politics and yachting collided
Well, assuming that was true, we still have a vast supply left.
If we don't use it for cars, we should have plenty of time to develop alternatives even for medicines, etc. It's easy to say the sky is falling, but people have been saying that for years... -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com "thunder" wrote in message news On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 15:07:35 -0700, Jonathan Ganz wrote: Right, but the vast majority of our use of oil is for cars. Remember, we have lots of oil in the US. We could be self-sufficient if we wanted to. I suggest raising gas prices to $5/gallon. Give the automakers lots of incentives to increase fuel efficiency and create alternative cars. 65% of the America's oil has already been burned. We could have been self-sufficient, but now? Unless there is a massive and comprehensive energy policy installed immediately, *we* may have oil, but our children will have to live without. http://www.faultline.org/news/2001/1...ependence.html |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
A place where liberal politics and yachting collided
On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 19:46:55 -0700, Jonathan Ganz wrote:
Well, assuming that was true, we still have a vast supply left. If we don't use it for cars, we should have plenty of time to develop alternatives even for medicines, etc. It's easy to say the sky is falling, but people have been saying that for years... I'm not saying we don't have time, I'm saying that the time we have is getting short and we still don't have a comprehensive energy policy. Upthread, you asked about a recession. As our economy is now based on cheap oil, when oil is not cheap there will be, at a minimum, economic consequences. You are right, people have been saying the sky is falling for years, but one thing is absolutely certain, oil is a *finite* gift. One day, the sky will be falling. I'm saying that day is sooner rather than later. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
A place where liberal politics and yachting collided
Damn, and we ran out of dinasours... I wish we could get
moving. I'm seriously thinking about buying a hybrid, but they're just not quite what I need. The Ford Escape is pretty close. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com "thunder" wrote in message news On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 19:46:55 -0700, Jonathan Ganz wrote: Well, assuming that was true, we still have a vast supply left. If we don't use it for cars, we should have plenty of time to develop alternatives even for medicines, etc. It's easy to say the sky is falling, but people have been saying that for years... I'm not saying we don't have time, I'm saying that the time we have is getting short and we still don't have a comprehensive energy policy. Upthread, you asked about a recession. As our economy is now based on cheap oil, when oil is not cheap there will be, at a minimum, economic consequences. You are right, people have been saying the sky is falling for years, but one thing is absolutely certain, oil is a *finite* gift. One day, the sky will be falling. I'm saying that day is sooner rather than later. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
A place where liberal politics and yachting collided
Ya know, I have 20 years of Mother Earth News magazines. The 'experts'
used to say exactly the same thing. Back in the 1970's. PDW In article , thunder wrote: On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 19:46:55 -0700, Jonathan Ganz wrote: Well, assuming that was true, we still have a vast supply left. If we don't use it for cars, we should have plenty of time to develop alternatives even for medicines, etc. It's easy to say the sky is falling, but people have been saying that for years... I'm not saying we don't have time, I'm saying that the time we have is getting short and we still don't have a comprehensive energy policy. Upthread, you asked about a recession. As our economy is now based on cheap oil, when oil is not cheap there will be, at a minimum, economic consequences. You are right, people have been saying the sky is falling for years, but one thing is absolutely certain, oil is a *finite* gift. One day, the sky will be falling. I'm saying that day is sooner rather than later. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
A place where liberal politics and yachting collided
On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 22:48:57 +1000, Peter Wiley wrote:
Ya know, I have 20 years of Mother Earth News magazines. The 'experts' used to say exactly the same thing. Back in the 1970's. And that makes them wrong? Hubbert predicted, in 1956, that US production would peak in 1970. He was scoffed at then, but looking back, that is when US oil production peaked. Since 1984, new oil discoveries have failed to replace oil production. Demand is constantly increasing, especially in Third World countries such as China and India. And, this country still does not have a comprehensive energy policy. You may think oil supplies are infinite, but they are not. Peak oil will be sooner, not later. |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|