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


"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.

One SUV is going to save the world?

No wonder nobody takes you seriously.

Are you the same Fred Dehl who suggested that ANWR, a tiny incremental
step, would be better than nothing?

Where is the whine about reducing our reliance on foreign oil. Anyone that
states that we need to reduce our need for foreign oil and states that we
can't crack open ANWR, start drilling of the Calif. coast and sink more
wells in the Gulf of Mexico is an idiot.

What is your goal? To reduce consumption or the import of foreign oil?

And yes, one new vehicle could make a difference. Ford & GM didn't take
the idea of mini-vans seriously until Chrysler started selling them like
hotcakes. One highly efficient SUV that's successful will lead the
competition into the same market. Behind all of them will be advertising
which tells customers what they want.

The utility of the mini-van replaced the station wagon rather than becoming
a whole new class of vehicle it just got a little bigger with an extra seat
or two.

"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
. ..

One SUV is going to save the world?

No wonder nobody takes you seriously.

Are you the same Fred Dehl who suggested that ANWR, a tiny incremental
step, would be better than nothing?

Where is the whine about reducing our reliance on foreign oil. Anyone that
states that we need to reduce our need for foreign oil and states that we
can't crack open ANWR, start drilling of the Calif. coast and sink more
wells in the Gulf of Mexico is an idiot.

What is your goal? To reduce consumption or the import of foreign oil?

Reducing consumption will impact ALL oil useage, whether domestic or
foreign.



And yes, one new vehicle could make a difference. Ford & GM didn't take
the idea of mini-vans seriously until Chrysler started selling them like
hotcakes. One highly efficient SUV that's successful will lead the
competition into the same market. Behind all of them will be advertising
which tells customers what they want.

The utility of the mini-van replaced the station wagon rather than
becoming a whole new class of vehicle it just got a little bigger with an
extra seat or two.

True, but not relevant the the paragraph which preceded it.