Peak Oil - counterargument
 

"RCE" wrote in message
...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
Here's another thought exercise for you. Don't debate each point which
begins with an asterisk. They're true. Wait for the question at the end.

* It requires energy to build everything, including cars.

* By nature of their design & manufacturing details, some cars are more
expendable than others. Therefore, their early demise and replacement
represents an earlier requirement for more energy use.

* Careful with this one: Regardless of the type of vehicle, some are made
more expendable due to the actions of the people who buy them.


This is the question: What could consumers do to reduce the tendency of
vehicles to be more quickly expendable?


I'll answer your question in the form of another truth asterisk:

* Not all, but some consumers purchase items, including cars, to use and
enjoy, not as investments in longevity.

I've forgotten ... do you currently own a boat? If so, do you enjoy it?
Is it really a necessity?

RCE


Now you're dancing. Humor me. What could consumers do to reduce the need to
manufacture so many vehicles?

Peak Oil - counterargument
 

* It requires energy to build everything, including cars.

* By nature of their design & manufacturing details, some cars are more
expendable than others. Therefore, their early demise and replacement
represents an earlier requirement for more energy use.

* Careful with this one: Regardless of the type of vehicle, some are made
more expendable due to the actions of the people who buy them.


This is the question: What could consumers do to reduce the tendency of
vehicles to be more quickly expendable?


Interesting, all this talk about the expendability and wastefulness of
certain types of cars. Odd, considering the nature of the group, that no
one has mentioned the expendability and wastefulness of pleasure boats and
the vehicles required to haul them around, assuming they're towable.
Heresy, or is it that goring an ox that lives a bit too close to home?

Let the stoning of the heretic begin.

Peak Oil - counterargument
 

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"RCE" wrote in message
...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...


So, in between an Escalade and a hybird, there are no in-between
solutions?


Yes, common sense. If hybrids and being politically correct floats
your boat, do so without preaching.

You are very defensive about all this. It's not absolutely NOTHING to do
with being politically correct. Nada. Zip.

Not defensive at all. I have nothing to be defensive about. I don't
have to burn up fuel in low MPG autos to still enjoy them.

If an Escalade floats your boat, do so, responsibly. The same applies
for everything in between.

Correct. It applies to everything in between. But, if your daily routine
(work, shopping) can't be altered, and sometimes it can't, there is a
floor - a minimum below which you cannot go, in terms of using a
vehicle.


I have a question for you. Do you believe that to an extent, the prices
of commodities are determined by demand?


Of course they are, as you say, "to an extent". But prices are also
determined by other factors as well, such as inflation, rising costs of
production, quality, etc.

RCE


If you personally have the ability to influence one of those factors, and
you are bothered by rising prices, do you think it makes no sense at all
to do your part to effect a change? I'm curious, because I'll bet you call
yourself patriotic.


LOL. It has nothing to do with being patriotic. It *does* have to do with
****ing against the wind.
At my stage in life, I pretty much accept things for what they are and can't
get too excited about joining crusades.


RCE

Peak Oil - counterargument
 

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"RCE" wrote in message
...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...


So, in between an Escalade and a hybird, there are no in-between
solutions?


Yes, common sense. If hybrids and being politically correct floats
your boat, do so without preaching.

You are very defensive about all this. It's not absolutely NOTHING to do
with being politically correct. Nada. Zip.

Not defensive at all. I have nothing to be defensive about. I don't
have to burn up fuel in low MPG autos to still enjoy them.

If an Escalade floats your boat, do so, responsibly. The same applies
for everything in between.

Correct. It applies to everything in between. But, if your daily routine
(work, shopping) can't be altered, and sometimes it can't, there is a
floor - a minimum below which you cannot go, in terms of using a
vehicle.


I have a question for you. Do you believe that to an extent, the prices
of commodities are determined by demand?


Of course they are, as you say, "to an extent". But prices are also
determined by other factors as well, such as inflation, rising costs of
production, quality, etc.

RCE


If you personally have the ability to influence one of those factors, and
you are bothered by rising prices, do you think it makes no sense at all
to do your part to effect a change? I'm curious, because I'll bet you call
yourself patriotic.


*Effect* a change?

You start. Sell your boat, cars and other equipment powered by gasoline
engines. Let us know when are done with that simple task.

Peak Oil - counterargument
 

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"RCE" wrote in message
...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
Here's another thought exercise for you. Don't debate each point which
begins with an asterisk. They're true. Wait for the question at the end.

* It requires energy to build everything, including cars.

* By nature of their design & manufacturing details, some cars are more
expendable than others. Therefore, their early demise and replacement
represents an earlier requirement for more energy use.

* Careful with this one: Regardless of the type of vehicle, some are
made more expendable due to the actions of the people who buy them.


This is the question: What could consumers do to reduce the tendency of
vehicles to be more quickly expendable?


I'll answer your question in the form of another truth asterisk:

* Not all, but some consumers purchase items, including cars, to use and
enjoy, not as investments in longevity.

I've forgotten ... do you currently own a boat? If so, do you enjoy it?
Is it really a necessity?

RCE


Now you're dancing. Humor me. What could consumers do to reduce the need
to manufacture so many vehicles?


Ok. I'll play along. The answer is, obviously, stop buying them. But then,
they stop being consumers as well.

RCE

Peak Oil - counterargument
 

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"RCE" wrote in message
...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
Here's another thought exercise for you. Don't debate each point which
begins with an asterisk. They're true. Wait for the question at the end.

* It requires energy to build everything, including cars.

* By nature of their design & manufacturing details, some cars are more
expendable than others. Therefore, their early demise and replacement
represents an earlier requirement for more energy use.

* Careful with this one: Regardless of the type of vehicle, some are
made more expendable due to the actions of the people who buy them.


This is the question: What could consumers do to reduce the tendency of
vehicles to be more quickly expendable?


I'll answer your question in the form of another truth asterisk:

* Not all, but some consumers purchase items, including cars, to use and
enjoy, not as investments in longevity.

I've forgotten ... do you currently own a boat? If so, do you enjoy it?
Is it really a necessity?

RCE


Now you're dancing. Humor me. What could consumers do to reduce the need
to manufacture so many vehicles?


Ride a bike or walk everywhere. You start. Sell your cars. Then sell your
boat. Then sell any other gasoline powered equipment you own.

Peak Oil - counterargument
 

" JimH" jimh_osudad@yahooDOT comREMOVETHIS wrote in message
. ..

If you personally have the ability to influence one of those factors, and
you are bothered by rising prices, do you think it makes no sense at all
to do your part to effect a change? I'm curious, because I'll bet you
call yourself patriotic.


*Effect* a change?

Yes. It's correct.



You start. Sell your boat, cars and other equipment powered by gasoline
engines. Let us know when are done with that simple task.


Another giant of a thinker. Where in this discussion do you think I
suggested that people get rid of their vehicles? Find the text and present
it as evidence of your conclusion.

Peak Oil - counterargument
 

"RG" wrote in message
...

* It requires energy to build everything, including cars.

* By nature of their design & manufacturing details, some cars are more
expendable than others. Therefore, their early demise and replacement
represents an earlier requirement for more energy use.

* Careful with this one: Regardless of the type of vehicle, some are made
more expendable due to the actions of the people who buy them.


This is the question: What could consumers do to reduce the tendency of
vehicles to be more quickly expendable?


Interesting, all this talk about the expendability and wastefulness of
certain types of cars. Odd, considering the nature of the group, that no
one has mentioned the expendability and wastefulness of pleasure boats and
the vehicles required to haul them around, assuming they're towable.
Heresy, or is it that goring an ox that lives a bit too close to home?

Let the stoning of the heretic begin.


All manufactured products fit this category. But to keep things simple,
we're sticking to cars at the moment.

Peak Oil - counterargument
 

" JimH" jimh_osudad@yahooDOT comREMOVETHIS wrote in message
. ..

Now you're dancing. Humor me. What could consumers do to reduce the need
to manufacture so many vehicles?


Ride a bike or walk everywhere. You start. Sell your cars. Then sell
your boat. Then sell any other gasoline powered equipment you own.


Stay quiet, and watch as RCE figures this out.

Peak Oil - counterargument
 

Now you're dancing. Humor me. What could consumers do to reduce the need
to manufacture so many vehicles?

Drive them less, maintain them better. In other words, make them last
longer.

Peak Oil - counterargument
 

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
" JimH" jimh_osudad@yahooDOT comREMOVETHIS wrote in message
...

If you personally have the ability to influence one of those factors,
and you are bothered by rising prices, do you think it makes no sense at
all to do your part to effect a change? I'm curious, because I'll bet
you call yourself patriotic.


*Effect* a change?

Yes. It's correct.

I did not say otherwise. I used the *'s for emphasis.




You start. Sell your boat, cars and other equipment powered by gasoline
engines. Let us know when are done with that simple task.


Another giant of a thinker. Where in this discussion do you think I
suggested that people get rid of their vehicles? Find the text and
present it as evidence of your conclusion.


You made no such proposal. I made one to you however.

You want to effect a change. Go ahead and start by doing what I suggested.
;-)

Peak Oil - counterargument
 

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
" JimH" jimh_osudad@yahooDOT comREMOVETHIS wrote in message
...

Now you're dancing. Humor me. What could consumers do to reduce the need
to manufacture so many vehicles?


Ride a bike or walk everywhere. You start. Sell your cars. Then sell
your boat. Then sell any other gasoline powered equipment you own.


Stay quiet, and watch as RCE figures this out.


You are the one asking for folks to *effect* a change.

So why can't you start by doing what I suggested?

Or is it just everyone else but you who should try?

Peak Oil - counterargument
 

" JimH" jimh_osudad@yahooDOT comREMOVETHIS wrote in message
...




You made no such proposal. I made one to you however.

You want to effect a change. Go ahead and start by doing what I
suggested. ;-)


Jim, we are having a friendly, philosophical discussion here.
Please don't screw it up ....... yet.


Doug ... I am having a newserver hiccup. Not ignoring your question.

RCE

Peak Oil - counterargument
 

"RCE" wrote in message
...

" JimH" jimh_osudad@yahooDOT comREMOVETHIS wrote in message
...




You made no such proposal. I made one to you however.

You want to effect a change. Go ahead and start by doing what I
suggested. ;-)


Jim, we are having a friendly, philosophical discussion here.
Please don't screw it up ....... yet.



I did not know you owned this discussion Richard.

Peak Oil - counterargument
 

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...


As far as the 40 mpg hybrids you keep mentioning, you need to stop that.
According to two people I know who own them, Escalades get 12-14 mpg on a
good day. A Camry or an Impala get numbers in the high 20s - low 30s. I
wasn't a math whiz in high school, so please correct me if I'm wrong, but
I *think* that's about twice the gas mileage of an Escalade.




A 40 mpg hybrid, a Camry or an Impala are not suitable to tow a 5000 lb boat
to the launch site.
A F-350 diesel pickup that gets 16-18 mpg is, among many other uses.

RCE

Peak Oil - counterargument
 

RCE wrote:
Again, stolen from another NG, the following is a portion of an article
published in the "Economist".

It seems to refute some of the Peak Oil doom and gloom arguments.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

There was an article in the latest Economist about this. Here's
a little of it:

As oil production slows,
prices will rise up and down the futures curve, stimulating new
technology and conservation. We might be running low on $20 oil,
but for $60 we have adequate oil supplies for decades to come."


----------------

$60/bbl for "decades to come"? How far from the wastebasket does one
need to stand to score 3 points with a paper wad?

Peak Oil - counterargument
 

"RCE" wrote in message
...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"RCE" wrote in message
...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
Here's another thought exercise for you. Don't debate each point which
begins with an asterisk. They're true. Wait for the question at the
end.

* It requires energy to build everything, including cars.

* By nature of their design & manufacturing details, some cars are more
expendable than others. Therefore, their early demise and replacement
represents an earlier requirement for more energy use.

* Careful with this one: Regardless of the type of vehicle, some are
made more expendable due to the actions of the people who buy them.


This is the question: What could consumers do to reduce the tendency of
vehicles to be more quickly expendable?


I'll answer your question in the form of another truth asterisk:

* Not all, but some consumers purchase items, including cars, to use and
enjoy, not as investments in longevity.

I've forgotten ... do you currently own a boat? If so, do you enjoy it?
Is it really a necessity?

RCE


Now you're dancing. Humor me. What could consumers do to reduce the need
to manufacture so many vehicles?


Ok. I'll play along. The answer is, obviously, stop buying them. But
then, they stop being consumers as well.

RCE


That's an easy answer, but it's the wrong one. Keep thinking.

Peak Oil - counterargument
 

wrote in message
oups.com...

RCE wrote:
Again, stolen from another NG, the following is a portion of an article
published in the "Economist".

It seems to refute some of the Peak Oil doom and gloom arguments.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

There was an article in the latest Economist about this. Here's
a little of it:

As oil production slows,
prices will rise up and down the futures curve, stimulating new
technology and conservation. We might be running low on $20 oil,
but for $60 we have adequate oil supplies for decades to come."


----------------

$60/bbl for "decades to come"? How far from the wastebasket does one
need to stand to score 3 points with a paper wad?


According to his theory, $100/bbl will add a couple of more decades of
availability.

RCE

Peak Oil - counterargument
 

" JimH" jimh_osudad@yahooDOT comREMOVETHIS wrote in message
...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
" JimH" jimh_osudad@yahooDOT comREMOVETHIS wrote in message
m...

If you personally have the ability to influence one of those factors,
and you are bothered by rising prices, do you think it makes no sense
at all to do your part to effect a change? I'm curious, because I'll
bet you call yourself patriotic.


*Effect* a change?

Yes. It's correct.

I did not say otherwise. I used the *'s for emphasis.




You start. Sell your boat, cars and other equipment powered by gasoline
engines. Let us know when are done with that simple task.


Another giant of a thinker. Where in this discussion do you think I
suggested that people get rid of their vehicles? Find the text and
present it as evidence of your conclusion.


You made no such proposal. I made one to you however.

You want to effect a change. Go ahead and start by doing what I
suggested. ;-)


Since this country, for the most part, is in the dark ages in terms of city
design and transportation, it would obviously be impossible for us to get
rid of cars completely.

Peak Oil - counterargument
 

Doug Kanter wrote:
"RCE" wrote in message
...

Again, stolen from another NG, the following is a portion of an article
published in the "Economist".

It seems to refute some of the Peak Oil doom and gloom arguments.


The hell with "the peak". How about just doing our part to lower prices? Or,
are Americans too friggin' busy, lazy or stupid to make the effort?


From an outsiders point of view... a lot of Americaans seem to have a
fetish for size & power.
The Honda Civic has been the best selling car in Canada for 8 years
while the Toyota Camry has been the USA's top seller for 6 years
In the SUV catagory it's the Ford Escape...vs the Ford Explorer stateside.

Peak Oil - counterargument
 

"RG" wrote in message
.. .


Now you're dancing. Humor me. What could consumers do to reduce the need
to manufacture so many vehicles?

Drive them less, maintain them better. In other words, make them last
longer.


How about changing what they buy, and HOW they buy? Perhaps leasing should
be on the hit list, at least for non-business customers. That almost
guarantees that someone won't hang onto a car very long. Some cars are still
babies when they're two years old, so selling them used is easy. Others are
known to be middle aged at 2 years, and you can see them lined up at any
dealership, collecting dust. That's wasteful.

Peak Oil - counterargument
 

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

" JimH" jimh_osudad@yahooDOT comREMOVETHIS wrote in message
...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
" JimH" jimh_osudad@yahooDOT comREMOVETHIS wrote in message
om...

If you personally have the ability to influence one of those factors,
and you are bothered by rising prices, do you think it makes no sense
at all to do your part to effect a change? I'm curious, because I'll
bet you call yourself patriotic.


*Effect* a change?

Yes. It's correct.

I did not say otherwise. I used the *'s for emphasis.




You start. Sell your boat, cars and other equipment powered by
gasoline engines. Let us know when are done with that simple task.


Another giant of a thinker. Where in this discussion do you think I
suggested that people get rid of their vehicles? Find the text and
present it as evidence of your conclusion.


You made no such proposal. I made one to you however.

You want to effect a change. Go ahead and start by doing what I
suggested. ;-)


Since this country, for the most part, is in the dark ages in terms of
city design and transportation, it would obviously be impossible for us to
get rid of cars completely.


Perhaps, but then again we could also start riding horses again.

But as was asked earlier of you..........do you really need that boat and
lawn tractor? How about the snow blower?

Come on Doug, do you want to effect a change or not? You have to lead by
setting an example.

Peak Oil - counterargument
 

"RCE" wrote in message
...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...


As far as the 40 mpg hybrids you keep mentioning, you need to stop that.
According to two people I know who own them, Escalades get 12-14 mpg on a
good day. A Camry or an Impala get numbers in the high 20s - low 30s. I
wasn't a math whiz in high school, so please correct me if I'm wrong, but
I *think* that's about twice the gas mileage of an Escalade.




A 40 mpg hybrid, a Camry or an Impala are not suitable to tow a 5000 lb
boat to the launch site.
A F-350 diesel pickup that gets 16-18 mpg is, among many other uses.

RCE



I never suggested that someone who needs to tow should own anything but a
vehicle capable of doing it.

Maybe we should check here and see what we both believe, based on our own
observations. I'll use the word "truck" here to mean actual trucks, SUVs,
Humjobs, etc. Now: For every 100 trucks you see, what percentage do you
think actually tow anything, or, for that matter, to do ANYTHING that only a
truck can do? To assist with the answer, think about two things. First,
think about how trucks are sold in commercials - how they portray the
customers, and the activities shown. Second, think back to the 1960s -
1970s. Do you have any memory of how many trucks you'd see in parking lots,
compared to what you see now? I'm not talking about the parking lot of a
hunting lodge - I'm talking about places which represent a more average
selection of drivers.

Peak Oil - counterargument
 

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"RG" wrote in message
.. .


Now you're dancing. Humor me. What could consumers do to reduce the need
to manufacture so many vehicles?

Drive them less, maintain them better. In other words, make them last
longer.


How about changing what they buy, and HOW they buy? Perhaps leasing
should be on the hit list, at least for non-business customers. That
almost guarantees that someone won't hang onto a car very long. Some cars
are still babies when they're two years old, so selling them used is easy.
Others are known to be middle aged at 2 years, and you can see them lined
up at any dealership, collecting dust. That's wasteful.


But aren't the people buying used cars reducing the amount of new cars to be
manufactured?

(this is fun)

RCE

Peak Oil - counterargument
 

" JimH" jimh_osudad@yahooDOT comREMOVETHIS wrote in message
. ..


Come on Doug, do you want to effect a change or not? You have to lead by
setting an example.





Go play stupid with someone else. Maybe your stapler is interested.

Peak Oil - counterargument
 

How about changing what they buy, and HOW they buy? Perhaps leasing
should be on the hit list, at least for non-business customers. That
almost guarantees that someone won't hang onto a car very long. Some cars
are still babies when they're two years old, so selling them used is easy.
Others are known to be middle aged at 2 years, and you can see them lined
up at any dealership, collecting dust. That's wasteful.

The changing of what they buy is happening right now, this very minute.
Trust me, dealerships across the nation will be having brisk business this
week from people trading in high fuel consuming vehicles for more economical
ones. The motivator? None other than high fuel prices. The machinery of a
free market system in perfect motion.

Leasing has provisions to deal with the issue as well. Leasing companies
right now are no doubt lowering the expected residual factors on high fuel
consumption cars and trucks. This will increase the monthly payments to new
lessees, thereby reducing demand. As a side note, the car that I owned the
longest of any was a car that I originally leased and then bought at the end
of the lease term. Total of seven years, which is a very long time for me.

Peak Oil - counterargument
 

"RCE" wrote in message
...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"RG" wrote in message
.. .


Now you're dancing. Humor me. What could consumers do to reduce the
need to manufacture so many vehicles?

Drive them less, maintain them better. In other words, make them last
longer.


How about changing what they buy, and HOW they buy? Perhaps leasing
should be on the hit list, at least for non-business customers. That
almost guarantees that someone won't hang onto a car very long. Some cars
are still babies when they're two years old, so selling them used is
easy. Others are known to be middle aged at 2 years, and you can see them
lined up at any dealership, collecting dust. That's wasteful.


But aren't the people buying used cars reducing the amount of new cars to
be manufactured?

(this is fun)

RCE


It *should* reduce waste, assuming the manufacturers don't keep pumping out
so many new ones that they also sit on the lots for a year at a time.
Unfortunately, they do.

More gas on gas
 

JohnH wrote:
On Mon, 24 Apr 2006 02:13:10 GMT, Don White wrote:


tillius wrote:



Don't worry. Enough folks already know what Harry and the rest of you
socialist Demoncraps are trying to do.

Till


Like maybe.. save your country and your sorry *ss for you?


Don, if the US had a severe shortage of gas, would Canada not be affected?
--
'Til next time,

John H


Yes. Even though we should be able to provide enough for our own needs,
the provinces producing same expect to receive the 'world price' ...not
a made in Canada price. Your shortages drive up our prices.
As a matter of fact, our only refinery in Nova Scotia gets it's oil from
Venezuela
http://tinyurl.com/f9q3t

Peak Oil - counterargument
 

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
" JimH" jimh_osudad@yahooDOT comREMOVETHIS wrote in message
...


Come on Doug, do you want to effect a change or not? You have to lead
by setting an example.





Go play stupid with someone else. Maybe your stapler is interested.


Personal attacks and insults only show you have nothing left to argue with.

Now I could call you a bleeding heart hypocrite who wants everyone else but
himself to change...........but I won't. ;-)

Peak Oil - counterargument
 

"RG" wrote in message
. ..

How about changing what they buy, and HOW they buy? Perhaps leasing
should be on the hit list, at least for non-business customers. That
almost guarantees that someone won't hang onto a car very long. Some cars
are still babies when they're two years old, so selling them used is
easy. Others are known to be middle aged at 2 years, and you can see them
lined up at any dealership, collecting dust. That's wasteful.

The changing of what they buy is happening right now, this very minute.
Trust me, dealerships across the nation will be having brisk business this
week from people trading in high fuel consuming vehicles for more
economical ones. The motivator? None other than high fuel prices. The
machinery of a free market system in perfect motion.

Yep. My brother in law sells new cars....Fords. He is selling Focus's and
Fusion's like crazy while the pickup trucks and SUV's on the lot collect
dust.

Peak Oil - counterargument
 

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"RCE" wrote in message
...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...


As far as the 40 mpg hybrids you keep mentioning, you need to stop that.
According to two people I know who own them, Escalades get 12-14 mpg on
a good day. A Camry or an Impala get numbers in the high 20s - low 30s.
I wasn't a math whiz in high school, so please correct me if I'm wrong,
but I *think* that's about twice the gas mileage of an Escalade.




A 40 mpg hybrid, a Camry or an Impala are not suitable to tow a 5000 lb
boat to the launch site.
A F-350 diesel pickup that gets 16-18 mpg is, among many other uses.

RCE



I never suggested that someone who needs to tow should own anything but a
vehicle capable of doing it.

Maybe we should check here and see what we both believe, based on our own
observations. I'll use the word "truck" here to mean actual trucks, SUVs,
Humjobs, etc. Now: For every 100 trucks you see, what percentage do you
think actually tow anything, or, for that matter, to do ANYTHING that only
a truck can do? To assist with the answer, think about two things. First,
think about how trucks are sold in commercials - how they portray the
customers, and the activities shown. Second, think back to the 1960s -
1970s. Do you have any memory of how many trucks you'd see in parking
lots, compared to what you see now? I'm not talking about the parking lot
of a hunting lodge - I'm talking about places which represent a more
average selection of drivers.


Few trucks, but lots of big cars with huge, sweeping fins.
That's what consumers liked .... that's what they got.

I understand your position and the points you are making, Doug. I just
don't think you are going to change a nation's 100 year old mindset
overnight or anytime soon for that matter. You are correct in everything
you say, if you subscribe to that type of thinking. Most don't. Nobody is
going to give up suburbia and move back to the cities anytime soon.
Incentives have been forced down our throats to no avail .... HOV lanes that
are 10% utilized, gas guzzler taxes, even high fuel prices. Americans want
their big cars and trucks, whatever the cost.

RCE

Peak Oil - counterargument
 

"RG" wrote in message
. ..

How about changing what they buy, and HOW they buy? Perhaps leasing
should be on the hit list, at least for non-business customers. That
almost guarantees that someone won't hang onto a car very long. Some cars
are still babies when they're two years old, so selling them used is
easy. Others are known to be middle aged at 2 years, and you can see them
lined up at any dealership, collecting dust. That's wasteful.

The changing of what they buy is happening right now, this very minute.
Trust me, dealerships across the nation will be having brisk business this
week from people trading in high fuel consuming vehicles for more
economical ones. The motivator? None other than high fuel prices. The
machinery of a free market system in perfect motion.

Leasing has provisions to deal with the issue as well. Leasing companies
right now are no doubt lowering the expected residual factors on high fuel
consumption cars and trucks. This will increase the monthly payments to
new lessees, thereby reducing demand. As a side note, the car that I
owned the longest of any was a car that I originally leased and then
bought at the end of the lease term. Total of seven years, which is a
very long time for me.


Good! :)

Peak Oil - counterargument
 

" JimH" jimh_osudad@yahooDOT comREMOVETHIS wrote in message
. ..

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
" JimH" jimh_osudad@yahooDOT comREMOVETHIS wrote in message
m...


Come on Doug, do you want to effect a change or not? You have to lead
by setting an example.





Go play stupid with someone else. Maybe your stapler is interested.


Personal attacks and insults only show you have nothing left to argue
with.

Now I could call you a bleeding heart hypocrite who wants everyone else
but himself to change...........but I won't. ;-)


What makes you think I haven't? Oh...wait. I forgot. You're asking the
impossible: Everyone should get rid of their cars. But, it was already
explained to you that because of the nature of our society, that would be
impossible, except in cities where people are already accustomed to using
mass transportation. So, never mind. This is too tricky a concept for you.

Peak Oil - counterargument
 

I never suggested that someone who needs to tow should own anything but a
vehicle capable of doing it.

Maybe we should check here and see what we both believe, based on our own
observations. I'll use the word "truck" here to mean actual trucks, SUVs,
Humjobs, etc. Now: For every 100 trucks you see, what percentage do you
think actually tow anything, or, for that matter, to do ANYTHING that only
a truck can do? To assist with the answer, think about two things. First,
think about how trucks are sold in commercials - how they portray the
customers, and the activities shown. Second, think back to the 1960s -
1970s. Do you have any memory of how many trucks you'd see in parking
lots, compared to what you see now? I'm not talking about the parking lot
of a hunting lodge - I'm talking about places which represent a more
average selection of drivers.


All you are talking about Doug, is consumer preferences. People buy what
they want to own, depending on their preferences. The best way to change
what they buy is to change their preferences. If you are expecting
consumers to make those changes on their own, without a big-time motivator,
dream on. The is no more effective way to change consumer preferences
toward automobiles than with the price of gas. The process is underway.
Expect to see many less "trucks" in the supermarket parking lot in five
years. Seriously. This method of changing preferences is far more natural
and will be far more effective than any governmental mandated changes, and
will happen much more quickly than waiting for it to happen due to a rising
social consciousness.

The bonus of higher gas prices besides changing what people buy, is that it
makes the economic viability of, and therefore the research into alternative
energy technology more of a reality.

Peak Oil - counterargument
 

It *should* reduce waste, assuming the manufacturers don't keep pumping
out so many new ones that they also sit on the lots for a year at a time.
Unfortunately, they do.

Not for long. Apparently you haven't been paying attention to what's going
on in Detroit these days. Excess capacity is being sold off and shut down
as quickly as possible. It would be happening much, much faster if not for
the formidable obstacle of the UAW. But it is happening. The survival of
the domestic auto industry depends on it.

You really need to develop at least a modicum of faith in free markets. It
is not a false religion.

Peak Oil - counterargument
 

"RG" wrote in message
. ..

I never suggested that someone who needs to tow should own anything but a
vehicle capable of doing it.

Maybe we should check here and see what we both believe, based on our own
observations. I'll use the word "truck" here to mean actual trucks, SUVs,
Humjobs, etc. Now: For every 100 trucks you see, what percentage do you
think actually tow anything, or, for that matter, to do ANYTHING that
only a truck can do? To assist with the answer, think about two things.
First, think about how trucks are sold in commercials - how they portray
the customers, and the activities shown. Second, think back to the
1960s - 1970s. Do you have any memory of how many trucks you'd see in
parking lots, compared to what you see now? I'm not talking about the
parking lot of a hunting lodge - I'm talking about places which represent
a more average selection of drivers.


All you are talking about Doug, is consumer preferences. People buy what
they want to own, depending on their preferences. The best way to change
what they buy is to change their preferences. If you are expecting
consumers to make those changes on their own, without a big-time
motivator, dream on. The is no more effective way to change consumer
preferences toward automobiles than with the price of gas. The process is
underway. Expect to see many less "trucks" in the supermarket parking lot
in five years. Seriously. This method of changing preferences is far
more natural and will be far more effective than any governmental mandated
changes, and will happen much more quickly than waiting for it to happen
due to a rising social consciousness.

The bonus of higher gas prices besides changing what people buy, is that
it makes the economic viability of, and therefore the research into
alternative energy technology more of a reality.


The thing is, I'm not suggesting government mandated anything. What I *am*
suggesting is that the government might be able to lose its unwillingness to
offend the auto industry, and present the public with information would help
them change their preferences. Why not? It's no different than the
advertising which makes people buy things, right? People don't just buy
based on their own preferences. They also do so because humans are
"clubby" - they want to be members of a group, no matter how stupid the
group may be. Sometimes they choose the wrong group, sometimes not. But,
effect one customer, and he/she may effect others. Actually, that's a
virtual certainty.

Peak Oil - counterargument
 

"RG" wrote in message
. ..

It *should* reduce waste, assuming the manufacturers don't keep pumping
out so many new ones that they also sit on the lots for a year at a time.
Unfortunately, they do.

Not for long. Apparently you haven't been paying attention to what's
going on in Detroit these days. Excess capacity is being sold off and
shut down as quickly as possible. It would be happening much, much faster
if not for the formidable obstacle of the UAW. But it is happening. The
survival of the domestic auto industry depends on it.

You really need to develop at least a modicum of faith in free markets.
It is not a false religion.



I'm paying very close attention, and I see the process at work. However,
this will not completely change those who don't understand the difference
between having the right to buy anything they want, and the concept of
whether their decisions are good ones for the country as a whole.

Peak Oil - counterargument
 

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

" JimH" jimh_osudad@yahooDOT comREMOVETHIS wrote in message
. ..

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
" JimH" jimh_osudad@yahooDOT comREMOVETHIS wrote in message
om...


Come on Doug, do you want to effect a change or not? You have to lead
by setting an example.





Go play stupid with someone else. Maybe your stapler is interested.


Personal attacks and insults only show you have nothing left to argue
with.

Now I could call you a bleeding heart hypocrite who wants everyone else
but himself to change...........but I won't. ;-)


What makes you think I haven't?


So did you sell your boat to lead by example?

BTW: What do you drive? What does your wife drive?

Peak Oil - counterargument
 

The thing is, I'm not suggesting government mandated anything. What I *am*
suggesting is that the government might be able to lose its unwillingness
to offend the auto industry, and present the public with information would
help them change their preferences. Why not? It's no different than the
advertising which makes people buy things, right? People don't just buy
based on their own preferences. They also do so because humans are
"clubby" - they want to be members of a group, no matter how stupid the
group may be. Sometimes they choose the wrong group, sometimes not. But,
effect one customer, and he/she may effect others. Actually, that's a
virtual certainty.

Wanting to belong is nothing more than a facet of personal preference. The
government can disseminate all the information it wants to, but it is
unlikely that it is telling anything to anyone that they don't already know.
Not terribly effective.

A good parallel here is the Surgeon's General warning on every pack of
cigarettes. Is there an American alive today that doesn't already know the
health risks of smoking? And yet it continues. But in reduced numbers.
However, I think the reduced numbers have much more to do with the financial
cost of a pack of cigs, versus any governmental educational program. If you
want to get an American's attention, speak to him through his wallet.

Peak Oil - counterargument
 

"RCE" wrote in message
...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"RCE" wrote in message
...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...


As far as the 40 mpg hybrids you keep mentioning, you need to stop
that. According to two people I know who own them, Escalades get 12-14
mpg on a good day. A Camry or an Impala get numbers in the high 20s -
low 30s. I wasn't a math whiz in high school, so please correct me if
I'm wrong, but I *think* that's about twice the gas mileage of an
Escalade.




A 40 mpg hybrid, a Camry or an Impala are not suitable to tow a 5000 lb
boat to the launch site.
A F-350 diesel pickup that gets 16-18 mpg is, among many other uses.

RCE



I never suggested that someone who needs to tow should own anything but a
vehicle capable of doing it.

Maybe we should check here and see what we both believe, based on our own
observations. I'll use the word "truck" here to mean actual trucks, SUVs,
Humjobs, etc. Now: For every 100 trucks you see, what percentage do you
think actually tow anything, or, for that matter, to do ANYTHING that
only a truck can do? To assist with the answer, think about two things.
First, think about how trucks are sold in commercials - how they portray
the customers, and the activities shown. Second, think back to the
1960s - 1970s. Do you have any memory of how many trucks you'd see in
parking lots, compared to what you see now? I'm not talking about the
parking lot of a hunting lodge - I'm talking about places which represent
a more average selection of drivers.


Few trucks, but lots of big cars with huge, sweeping fins.
That's what consumers liked .... that's what they got.

I understand your position and the points you are making, Doug. I just
don't think you are going to change a nation's 100 year old mindset
overnight or anytime soon for that matter. You are correct in everything
you say, if you subscribe to that type of thinking. Most don't. Nobody
is going to give up suburbia and move back to the cities anytime soon.
Incentives have been forced down our throats to no avail .... HOV lanes
that are 10% utilized, gas guzzler taxes, even high fuel prices. Americans
want their big cars and trucks, whatever the cost.

RCE

Part of the problem is that absolutely nobody is suggesting that people
change.* And, let's face it: Some people need to be reminded. I see no
reason why a president could not reason with people. Hell...we're told not
to question the war, and a big chunk of the population happily obeys.

* Bert and Fred should come along here sometime soon and say that I'm trying
to "control peoples' behavior". I'd be interested in seeing what these
numbskulls would do if they were diagnosed with precancerous moles, and
their doctors suggested that they should be more careful about exposure to
the sun. "Look, doctor boy - don't try and control MY behavior!"