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

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

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!

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!

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

I don't think oil supplies are infinite at all. I merely think that
we'll use something else when it becomes important to do so. Fuel cells
for one example.

Notice how wireless comms is making copper based phone systems less
important? We used to wonder how the 3rd World could build a comms
infrastructure. Simple now.

Point is that doomsayers like you always cry like Chicken Little but
the date is always some time in the future. When that date comes
around, quiet reigns - and another prediction is made for some future
time.

Frankly your record sucks.

PDW

In article , thunder
wrote:

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.