riverman wrote:

"Tinkerntom" wrote:

I suspect that some of these companies would love to develope ANWR, and
maybe Watts would have allowed it, and now Bush and Norton contemplates
it. I also suspect that if they go up there, though they will probably
not be able to leave no trace, they will be required to leave as small
a footprint as possible. The cost of a highly advanced industrial
civilization.

If there is an alternative, I would love to hear it, and see it in
"black and white," not just platitudes and pie in the sky, and talk
about the noble savage. It is easy to whine, show me a plan that works,
and I would be more than glad to promote it to all my fundementalist
friends in high places.



OK. How about "CONSERVE"? And how about "its about time...."


Now there's a word you don't hear much anymore. I wonder how many
times it appears in Cheney's secret energy task force recommendations?
It has been made public that atomic energy (to use the old term) needs
to be revitalized, and will not result in production of greenhouse
gases. Which, the Bush administration has said with forked tongue, has
not been scientifically proven to be a cause of global warming.

Very recently, there have been public meetings for comment on a
proposal by the Virginia Department of Transportation to widen
Interstate 81 from four lanes to eight. A couple years ago these plans
were all but terminated in light of budget deficits. Negotiations are
now taking place between VDOT and STARS, a company owned by Cheney's
Halliburton.

I have a personal suspicion, unsupported by any collaborative
evidence, that the doubling of the width of I-81, with segregated
lanes for tractor-trailer traffic, is in preparation for
transportation of radioactive waste via interstate routes west to
Yucca Mountain, Nevada.

Another suspicion is that Halliburton may be planning to use state and
federal highway funds to subsidize the laying of pipelines parallel
to highway construction.






--
Burn the land and boil the sea
You can't take the sky from me

- From "Ballad of Serenity" by Joss Whedon

Frederick Burroughs wrote:
riverman wrote:

"Tinkerntom" wrote:

I suspect that some of these companies would love to develope ANWR,
and
maybe Watts would have allowed it, and now Bush and Norton
contemplates
it. I also suspect that if they go up there, though they will
probably
not be able to leave no trace, they will be required to leave as
small
a footprint as possible. The cost of a highly advanced industrial
civilization.

If there is an alternative, I would love to hear it, and see it in
"black and white," not just platitudes and pie in the sky, and talk
about the noble savage. It is easy to whine, show me a plan that
works,
and I would be more than glad to promote it to all my
fundementalist
friends in high places.



OK. How about "CONSERVE"? And how about "its about time...."


Now there's a word you don't hear much anymore. I wonder how many
times it appears in Cheney's secret energy task force
recommendations?
It has been made public that atomic energy (to use the old term)
needs
to be revitalized, and will not result in production of greenhouse
gases. Which, the Bush administration has said with forked tongue,
has
not been scientifically proven to be a cause of global warming.

Very recently, there have been public meetings for comment on a
proposal by the Virginia Department of Transportation to widen
Interstate 81 from four lanes to eight. A couple years ago these
plans
were all but terminated in light of budget deficits. Negotiations are

now taking place between VDOT and STARS, a company owned by Cheney's
Halliburton.

I have a personal suspicion, unsupported by any collaborative
evidence, that the doubling of the width of I-81, with segregated
lanes for tractor-trailer traffic, is in preparation for
transportation of radioactive waste via interstate routes west to
Yucca Mountain, Nevada.

Another suspicion is that Halliburton may be planning to use state
and
federal highway funds to subsidize the laying of pipelines parallel

to highway construction.






--
Burn the land and boil the sea
You can't take the sky from me

- From "Ballad of Serenity" by Joss Whedon

Since you mention the Interstate Highway system, They were originally
established as federal defense corridors during the cold war. They are
designed such that the feds could close them down and block them off,
and be used solely for federal purposes. I don't know if they could get
away with that now that a lot of us have got use to using them, but
that was the original plan, as confirmed by a retired federal emergency
preparedness planner.

So I am sure that to use them as you suggest, is certainly in the
sights of someone. But then the right of driving our car on the
interstate is not assured in the Constitution. Matter of fact I don't
recall Connie saying anything about cars or driving at all. Must have
been an oversight.

Of course that gets me to rivermans big word of "conserve". Maybe the
best way to conserve would be to just confiscate all the
"unconstitutional" cars and let us walk again. That would probably
solve the whole oil crisis, and at the same time solve the "fat nation"
problem. I think you could be on to something riverman, unless that is
not exactly what you had in mind. I suspect the latter!

Conserve is good. Alternative fuel sourse is good. Again do you have
any practical "black and white" suggestions. To do all this while we
have reserves to carry us through transition is wise, But who says we
are wise. Usually we wait until the situation is critical, and then
think that if we throw enough money at it we can fix anything. Maybe
when the price of oil gets high enough, we will be able to develope oil
shale, or coal.

So the real question comes down to how much are you willing to pay for
a gallon of gas, in order to keep driving. Maybe the feds won't have to
close the highway, they will be the only ones that can afford the gas
to drive their nuke waste trucks on the highway that runs through
Sherwood Forest! But then conservation and the environment will not be
the hot issue, but how we have enough fire wood to cook our beans and
stay warm, without cutting down the whole forest! TnT

"Tinkerntom" wrote in message
oups.com...


Conserve is good. Alternative fuel sourse is good. Again do you have
any practical "black and white" suggestions.

Well. considering that *every single nation in the world* seems to be able
to conserve more than we do, its a simple task to look at them and get some
"black and white" suggestions from their examples. I owned an SUV in Latvia
that got 30 mpg. The same model and make in the US gets 16. Whats wrong with
this picture? Almost every major city in Europe has an effective and
efficient mass transit system. Why not put more effort into that? Many
countries place a high sales surcharge on vehicles that get poor mileage, or
do not sell them at all. Danes have electric cars. The French ride bicycyles
a lot. The Norwegians like to ski to work. The Dutch recycle their own
glassware to buy milk and products wholesale, saving on manufacturing fuels.
There are only about a trillion "black and white" suggestions all over the
world....everywhere except the US. And all those countries I mentioned pay
over $5 a gallon for fuel, and barely any of their citizens complain about
it because they don't use so much for personal consumption.

Oh, but if your meaning is "give me some black and white suggestions that
don't actually involve me changing my lifestyle at all", then you may be out
of luck. Buy one of the electric gizmos that help you lose weight while you
eat pizza and watch TV. Let me know how it goes.

To do all this while we
have reserves to carry us through transition is wise, But who says we
are wise. Usually we wait until the situation is critical, and then
think that if we throw enough money at it we can fix anything. Maybe
when the price of oil gets high enough, we will be able to develope oil
shale, or coal.

How high is too high of a price? We are already debating drilling in
pristine areas that we used to feel were deserving of protection. And just
to get a supply of oil that will temporarily lessen our dependancy on
foreign imports by 4%, based on today's consumption. There is more to the
cost of oil than the price at the pump. With the current attitude of "I
never go there, lets drill in it", we have already passed the limit that I'm
willing to pay.

So the real question comes down to how much are you willing to pay for
a gallon of gas, in order to keep driving.

No it doesn't. It comes down to how much are you willing to sacrifice in
order to avoid doing something that you are going to have to stop doing
eventually anyway. The reserves won't last forever....even if the money
does. If we want to keep driving, its not a matter of coming up with more
money....its a matter of doing what everyone else is doing. Conserve,
diversify, get a little less stupid about it. Maybe get out of the US a bit
and see how easy everyone else makes it look. And then gaze back over the
big pond and notice that you suddenly don't feel so entitled to a gas
guzzler, and driving the 2 blocks to the store for a coke, or heating your
entire factory day and night, or selling 'muscle cars', or having a highway
full of cars with one person in them, or being 'too bothered' to take the
bus. Or a million other "black and white" things.

There's none so blind as those who refuse to see.

--riverman

Tinkerntom wrote:


Since you mention the Interstate Highway system, They were originally
established as federal defense corridors during the cold war. They are
designed such that the feds could close them down and block them off,
and be used solely for federal purposes. I don't know if they could get
away with that now that a lot of us have got use to using them, but
that was the original plan, as confirmed by a retired federal emergency
preparedness planner.

So I am sure that to use them as you suggest, is certainly in the
sights of someone. But then the right of driving our car on the
interstate is not assured in the Constitution. Matter of fact I don't
recall Connie saying anything about cars or driving at all. Must have
been an oversight.


Interstate commerce is a Constitutional right. The federal highway
system is part and parcel to interstate commerce. Our right to utilize
roads comes in large part from our being taxed, through fuel and
vehicle taxes, to pay for highway construction and maintenance.

The US Department of Transportation's Federal Highway Administration
has an exhaustive history of highways; See:
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/infrastructure/history.htm


Of course that gets me to rivermans big word of "conserve". Maybe the
best way to conserve would be to just confiscate all the
"unconstitutional" cars and let us walk again. That would probably
solve the whole oil crisis, and at the same time solve the "fat nation"
problem. I think you could be on to something riverman, unless that is
not exactly what you had in mind. I suspect the latter!

Conserve is good. Alternative fuel sourse is good. Again do you have
any practical "black and white" suggestions. To do all this while we
have reserves to carry us through transition is wise, But who says we
are wise. Usually we wait until the situation is critical, and then
think that if we throw enough money at it we can fix anything. Maybe
when the price of oil gets high enough, we will be able to develope oil
shale, or coal.


I'm extremely suspicious of "alternative" fuels, especially hydrogen.
Hydrogen burns clean, but the production of hydrogen from natural gas
and coal can generate considerable greenhouse carbon dioxide.
Interestingly, the largest US reserves of natural gas and coal are in
Texas and Wyoming.


So the real question comes down to how much are you willing to pay for
a gallon of gas, in order to keep driving. Maybe the feds won't have to
close the highway, they will be the only ones that can afford the gas
to drive their nuke waste trucks on the highway that runs through
Sherwood Forest! But then conservation and the environment will not be
the hot issue, but how we have enough fire wood to cook our beans and
stay warm, without cutting down the whole forest!


The real question must be asked by everyone of himself. How much of
the earth's resources does it take to make and run and stock each one
of our homes, and cars and places of work? Think of all the drilling
and mining and manufacturing and energy required to do all of that.
Then, look at all your neighbor has, and his neighbor... We have dug
ourselves into a karmic and spiritual and environmental debt that is
impossible to reconcile. But, the reconciliation begins with the
development of an environmental consciousness, and continues into an
expansion of that consciousness.





--
Burn the land and boil the sea
You can't take the sky from me

- From "Ballad of Serenity" by Joss Whedon

Frederick Burroughs wrote:
Tinkerntom wrote:


Since you mention the Interstate Highway system, They were
originally
established as federal defense corridors during the cold war. They
are
designed such that the feds could close them down and block them
off,
and be used solely for federal purposes. I don't know if they could
get
away with that now that a lot of us have got use to using them, but
that was the original plan, as confirmed by a retired federal
emergency
preparedness planner.

So I am sure that to use them as you suggest, is certainly in the
sights of someone. But then the right of driving our car on the
interstate is not assured in the Constitution. Matter of fact I
don't
recall Connie saying anything about cars or driving at all. Must
have
been an oversight.


Interstate commerce is a Constitutional right. The federal highway
system is part and parcel to interstate commerce. Our right to
utilize
roads comes in large part from our being taxed, through fuel and
vehicle taxes, to pay for highway construction and maintenance.

The US Department of Transportation's Federal Highway Administration
has an exhaustive history of highways; See:
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/infrastructure/history.htm


Of course that gets me to rivermans big word of "conserve". Maybe
the
best way to conserve would be to just confiscate all the
"unconstitutional" cars and let us walk again. That would probably
solve the whole oil crisis, and at the same time solve the "fat
nation"
problem. I think you could be on to something riverman, unless that
is
not exactly what you had in mind. I suspect the latter!

Conserve is good. Alternative fuel sourse is good. Again do you
have
any practical "black and white" suggestions. To do all this while
we
have reserves to carry us through transition is wise, But who says
we
are wise. Usually we wait until the situation is critical, and then
think that if we throw enough money at it we can fix anything.
Maybe
when the price of oil gets high enough, we will be able to develope
oil
shale, or coal.


I'm extremely suspicious of "alternative" fuels, especially hydrogen.

Hydrogen burns clean, but the production of hydrogen from natural gas

and coal can generate considerable greenhouse carbon dioxide.
Interestingly, the largest US reserves of natural gas and coal are in

Texas and Wyoming.


So the real question comes down to how much are you willing to pay
for
a gallon of gas, in order to keep driving. Maybe the feds won't
have to
close the highway, they will be the only ones that can afford the
gas
to drive their nuke waste trucks on the highway that runs through
Sherwood Forest! But then conservation and the environment will not
be
the hot issue, but how we have enough fire wood to cook our beans
and
stay warm, without cutting down the whole forest!


The real question must be asked by everyone of himself. How much of
the earth's resources does it take to make and run and stock each one

of our homes, and cars and places of work? Think of all the drilling
and mining and manufacturing and energy required to do all of that.
Then, look at all your neighbor has, and his neighbor... We have dug
ourselves into a karmic and spiritual and environmental debt that is
impossible to reconcile. But, the reconciliation begins with the
development of an environmental consciousness, and continues into an
expansion of that consciousness.


There in lies the problem. We each develope our environmental
consciousness at different thresholds of awareness. Who is in the
drivers seat saying we all have to have a certain level of awareness at
a particular time. Usually the only point we have in common is when we
hit crisis level, and then it may be to late. Maybe already if it is
already impossible to reconcile.

I was thinking of the little prairie dogs I saw setting by the side of
the road earlier today. They sat there and watched the buffalo
disappear, and the coming of horses and wagons and now cars. They may
even watch the airplanes fly over. We have learned to coexist with
them, and they to a greater extent, them with us. I see one every once
in awhile run over on the road, and I hear of attempts to relocate
colonies. But when all is said and done, and cars are a distant memory,
and planes no longer fly because fuel cost to much. The little prairie
dogs will still be setting out there eating grass seeds and enjoying
the good life. TnT




--
Burn the land and boil the sea
You can't take the sky from me

- From "Ballad of Serenity" by Joss Whedon