Obama Continues to Ruin American Way of Life

[SeniorChief]

This is complete fucking insanity....

DETROIT (AP) - Some soccer moms will have to give up hulking SUVs. Carpenters will still haul materials around in pickup trucks, but they will cost more. Nearly everybody else will drive smaller cars, and more of them will run on electricity. The higher mileage and emissions standards set by the Obama administration on Tuesday, which begin to take effect in 2012 and are to be achieved by 2016, will transform the American car and truck fleet.

The new rules would bring new cars and trucks sold in the United States to an average of 35.5 miles per gallon, about 10 mpg more than today's standards. Passenger cars will be required to get 39 mpg, light trucks 30 mpg.

That means cars and trucks on American roads will have to become smaller, lighter and more efficient.

Eric Fedewa, vice president of global powertrain forecasting for the auto consulting firm CSM Worldwide in Northville, Mich., said the changes will make pickup trucks so much more expensive that they will be used almost exclusively for work.

And instead of a minivan or SUV, more parents will haul their families in much smaller vehicles with three rows of seats - something more like the Mazda 5 small van, he said. The Mazda 5 gets about 28 mpg on the highway.

"I think what you'll see is a lot more creativity in interior packaging," Fedewa said. "You'll get more rows of seats where you traditionally had cargo space."

Already on Tuesday, some drivers were skeptical. Dixie Bishop, who runs a plumbing business in San Antonio that uses vans, worries the new requirements will drive up her costs at a time when customers are cutting back on repairs.

"Are they going to take my horsepower down?" she asked. "I have to be able to carry old water heaters and toilets. It's not beneficial for me to haul one water heater at a time. We need the power to pull these heavy items."

The changes will start with smaller cars and trucks, and improvements to the internal combustion engine, Fedewa said. Automakers also already working on new technology, including direct fuel injection and high compression of the air-fuel mixture, that will make cars and trucks more efficient.

Car companies are rewiring vehicles so components such as air conditioners and power steering pumps are powered by electricity rather than by the engine, saving fuel.

And they're developing computer-controlled transmissions with six or more gears, adding efficiency, and rolling out more gas-electric hybrids - among the few cars sold today that meet the 2016 standards.

Of course, developing the technology will cost money - billions of dollars - and automakers will pass that on to their customers.

The Obama administration says the changes mean the average vehicle would cost about $1,300 more, although some private analysts say the increase will be much heftier. The administration says gas savings will make up the difference in about three years.

Automakers have said they need stable, relatively high gasoline prices to create a market for electric vehicles. General Motors fears rolling out its rechargeable Chevrolet Volt next year with gas at $2 per gallon.

American consumers have already shown their car-buying habits can change rapidly depending on gas prices. When fuel cost $4 a gallon last summer, people flocked to smaller cars. Gas is much cheaper now, and sales of hybrids have plummeted.

"The U.S. consumer has consistently chosen performance over fuel economy given the relatively low cost of fuel," David Leiker, senior automotive analyst for Robert W. Baird & Co. in Milwaukee, wrote in a note to investors.

The Volt is designed to run 40 miles on battery power when it is fully charged. After that, a small internal combustion engine kicks in to generate electricity and keep the car going. Other automakers are working on similar systems.

But the Volt is expected to sell for $35,000 to $40,000, and buyers may be unwilling to pay that much for a sedan, even if tax credits help ease the burden, unless gas prices soar.

Rechargeable electric vehicles, which under government calculations could get 100 mpg or more, will help automakers meet the standards and offset sales of larger, less-efficient models.

Under Obama's plan, the sale of of electric vehicles and plug-in hybrids could also generate "super credits" that would count as more than one vehicle when an automaker determines its average fuel economy and emissions figures.

The new rules cause manufacturers "to accelerate their technology plans, probably a little more aggressively than they originally thought," said Tony Posawatz, who heads development of the Volt's technology. "For us, we feel comfortable that we've got choices."

Just a few years ago, GM and other auto executives were doubtful they could meet even less stringent standards, but Posawatz said the technology has changed since then, especially with new lithium-ion batteries.

GM also is looking at electric trucks, which may bring them even closer to the goals, he said.

Earlier this year, Toyota said it planned to launch as many as 10 new hybrid models worldwide by early 2010, and it plans to bring a new version of the Prius to the U.S. in the coming weeks. Honda's new Insight hybrid is already on sale in the U.S. Mazda, meanwhile, has said it plans to focus less on hybrid vehicles and more on improvements to its basic internal combustion engine.

[Crist Ero]

wow. really? is it insane to sacrifice? to try to steer the country away from foreign oil. from arab oil. Shouldnt people sacrfice? This nation is becoming a country of pussies, who arent willing to sacrifice, for the better of the nation. People should look at this as an incentive to get rid of an oil industry and to start thinking of better, more efficient ways to solve our energy problems. that 35 mpg law is bullshit, it should be 45 mpg.

[SeniorChief]

wow. really? is it insane to sacrifice? to try to steer the country away from foreign oil. from arab oil. Shouldnt people sacrfice? This nation is becoming a country of pussies, who arent willing to sacrifice, for the better of the nation. People should look at this as an incentive to get rid of an oil industry and to start thinking of better, more efficient ways to solve our energy problems. that 35 mpg law is bullshit, it should be 45 mpg.

Sacrifice? What the fuck for? If I want to drive a 6.0L pick-up truck, what the fuck business is it of yours or anyone else for that matter. This is/was America, for Christ sakes. I have absolutely no desire to pull my boat with a fucking Yugo!

And get rid of the oil industry? Are you fucking nuts?? If anything, this STUPIDITY on the part of the Obama Admin is going to raise gas to $8 a gallon in 10 years.

[SimonDavid]

Sacrifice? What the fuck for? If I want to drive a 6.0L pick-up truck, what the fuck business is it of yours or anyone else for that matter. This is/was America, for Christ sakes. I have absolutely no desire to pull my boat with a fucking Yugo!

And get rid of the oil industry? Are you fucking nuts?? If anything, this STUPIDITY on the part of the Obama Admin is going to raise gas to $8 a gallon in 10 years.
Ah, so you like, nay insist on supplementing the incomes of Arab oil sheiks? Some complain about Obama bowing to the Saudis, while the likes of you enthusiastically bend over and present your rectums for a more thorough supplication.

[Crist Ero]

Sacrifice? What the fuck for? If I want to drive a 6.0L pick-up truck, what the fuck business is it of yours or anyone else for that matter. This is/was America, for Christ sakes. I have absolutely no desire to pull my boat with a fucking Yugo!

And get rid of the oil industry? Are you fucking nuts?? If anything, this STUPIDITY on the part of the Obama Admin is going to raise gas to $8 a gallon in 10 years.


America was built on sacrifice. Like I said, The pussification of America has begun, the unwillingness to sacrifice and become bitches to the arabs, well not me. Id rather pay more, than be arab oil's bitch. don't pull your boat, stay the same, no one is asking you to give up your 6.0.... keep it, it'll be a classic, of the good ol' days.. meanwhile everyone else moves on.

[Mr. Blue]

The American way of life regarding cars were going to come to end purely from the fact that we can't continue to base our economy off of a non-renewable source of energy. No matter how badly people want to drive around their gas guzzlers, there was going to come a point where the fuel for it just would be cost prohibitive.

At best our Presidents should have been moving towards alternate modes of energy since the 70's and even this step by Obama is probably too little too late, but certainly one that was bound to happen.

[mwillman]

SC wants us to be slaves to the middle east.

But first he wants us to kill as many of them as possible.

He really is a deluded violent loser but hey his vote doesn't count for much.

[SeniorChief]

America was built on sacrifice.

Correct. I sacrified, worked hard, and choose to drive a 6.0L pickup.

Glad you're OK with that.

And speaking of sacrifice - why don't you enlist?

[SeniorChief]

SC wants us to be slaves to the middle east.

But first he wants us to kill as many of them as possible.

He really is a deluded violent loser but hey his vote doesn't count for much.

Return your mouth to the anus of Henry Waxman.

[mwillman]

I cant yours is in the way.

[Binky]

wow. really? is it insane to sacrifice? to try to steer the country away from foreign oil. from arab oil. Shouldnt people sacrfice? This nation is becoming a country of pussies, who arent willing to sacrifice, for the better of the nation. People should look at this as an incentive to get rid of an oil industry and to start thinking of better, more efficient ways to solve our energy problems. that 35 mpg law is bullshit, it should be 45 mpg.



It's too bad we didn't begin getting off the foreign oil tit, decades ago, rather than developing our own oil. Duh! The powers that be have sat with their tales between their legs, cowering, letting the environmental groups stomp all over them. These people have tied our hands so much that we can't get the knots out. They are more worried about a tree being ripped out of the ground or animals having to move their habitats elsewhere, than they are about making the lives of their fellow americans easier.

And the government is filled with assholes that have continued to let this happen, making us dependant on foreign oil. It's a damn shame that the government, hasn't found a way, after all these years to get us off that tit. Decade after decade, the time rolls right on by, and we still have that foreign oil tit dependancy. We are nuttier than a fruit cake.

[mwillman]

It's too bad we didn't begin getting off the foreign oil tit, decades ago, rather than developing our own oil. Duh! The powers that be have sat with their tales between their legs, cowering, letting the environmental groups stomp all over them. These people have tied our hands so much that we can't get the knots out. They are more worried about a tree being ripped out of the ground or animals having to move their habitats elsewhere, than they are about making the lives of their fellow americans easier.

And the government is filled with assholes that have continued to let this happen, making us dependant on foreign oil. It's a damn shame that the government, hasn't found a way, after all these years to get us off that tit. Decade after decade, the time rolls right on by, and we still have that foreign oil tit dependancy. We are nuttier than a fruit cake.


I agree Binky.

We should have been working on getting off oil since Carter but Reagen, Bush, Clinton and bush jr all did nothing to wean us off oil.

[Crist Ero]

It's too bad we didn't begin getting off the foreign oil tit, decades ago, rather than developing our own oil. Duh! The powers that be have sat with their tales between their legs, cowering, letting the environmental groups stomp all over them. These people have tied our hands so much that we can't get the knots out. They are more worried about a tree being ripped out of the ground or animals having to move their habitats elsewhere, than they are about making the lives of their fellow americans easier.

And the government is filled with assholes that have continued to let this happen, making us dependant on foreign oil. It's a damn shame that the government, hasn't found a way, after all these years to get us off that tit. Decade after decade, the time rolls right on by, and we still have that foreign oil tit dependancy. We are nuttier than a fruit cake.

i agree with some of what you say, im not environmentalist puss. but we have to also look at the consenquences that have a direct effect when a species is extinguished, or when irreplacable habitat is destroyed, because if we dont, americans wont have a future..... all it takes is one domino to fall, for the effect to start.

[mwillman]

I think its pretty basic really.

We are only the custodians of this planet and I think it is our responsibility to make sure our children don't have to live in domes.

[SimonDavid]

There should have been a massive alternative energy program launched with the first "oil shock" of 1973. Instead we have this situation today. Carter, apparently some kind of go-to punchline to the Peabrain Gallery, tried in a small way to wake the citizenry up to reality, but failed. Reagan, in an act of symbolism so asinine as to be among the top ten stupid acts of symbolism by any president, removed Carter's solar panels from the White House.
That is the mindset we have seen for thirty-six years, with the exception of Carter and, hopefully, now.

[Crist Ero]

There should have been a massive alternative energy program launched with the first "oil shock" of 1973. Instead we have this situation today. Carter, apparently some kind of go-to punchline to the Peabrain Gallery, tried in a small way to wake the citizenry up to reality, but failed. Reagan, in an act of symbolism so asinine as to be among the top ten stupid acts of symbolism by any president, removed Carter's solar panels from the White House.
That is the mindset we have seen for thirty-six years, with the exception of Carter and, hopefully, now.


you are absolutely right, but it would have been impossible, but the republicans have always been the arab oil industry's bitches... so therefore nullifying any such act.

[SimonDavid]

you are absolutely right, but it would have been impossible, but the republicans have always been the arab oil industry's bitches... so therefore nullifying any such act.
Exactly. And it is amazing to see the case of vapors spread throughout the Right because Obama "bowed" to a Saudi sheik; when the Republican Party, complicit, unfortunately, with politicians of every party, has symbolically done much more than that.

[Crist Ero]

Exactly. And it is amazing to see the case of vapors spread throughout the Right because Obama "bowed" to a Saudi sheik; when the Republican Party, complicit, unfortunately, with politicians of every party, has symbolically done much more than that.

shit, the Bushes kissed and held hands, and obama is the "infedel"

[Mason66]

Needing oil doesn't mean to always be beholden to the middle east if this administration would drill in the US.

Also if the people don't like the new cars, they won't buy them.

I sure won't be driving a tiny TATA

They always have the option of keeping their old car.

[doctordog]

SC wants us to be slaves to the middle east.

But first he wants us to kill as many of them as possible.

He really is a deluded violent loser but hey his vote doesn't count for much.

And you would rather us be slaves to this administration and his socialist ideas. We don't all want to lazy as wiggers like yourself.:mad:

[Dale escondido]

I wish we could burn all the oil up for real and move on.
Theres so much left, thats is the problem.
Scarsicty creates value,
We will continue on this course until we use all their oil up.
I am a fan of 8-10 dollar gas ,always have been.
Thats the solution to shutting down global drain of our jobs.
Then drive whatever you want.

[mwillman]

I dont want us to be slaves to anyone.

We as a society need rules and those rules should be for the good of the people of this nation and for future generations. Just becuase you want the freedom to destroy doesn't mean you're going to get it.

I would argue that you are the lazy ass that wants the freedom to trash this planet and enslave the working class. Fortunately you have no power.

[MintJulep]

I dont want us to be slaves to anyone.

We as a society need rules and those rules should be for the good of the people of this nation and for future generations. Just becuase you want the freedom to destroy doesn't mean you're going to get it.

I would argue that you are the lazy ass that wants the freedom to trash this planet and enslave the working class. Fortunately you have no power.Spoken like a true, braindead Obot.

[mwillman]

Nice, no response with valid arguments just lame ass name calling.

LL, you are an ignorant right wing puppet.

[MintJulep]

And you voted for a retarded teleprompter.

http://www.thepeoplescube.com/images/Obama_Bow_Saudi_Animated_20.gif

[Independent Harry]

Needing oil doesn't mean to always be beholden to the middle east if this administration would drill in the US.

Also if the people don't like the new cars, they won't buy them.

I sure won't be driving a tiny TATA

They always have the option of keeping their old car.

We have maybe 15 years of oil reerves in the US at current cosumption. Drilling in the US isn' tthe answer.

[Dale escondido]

We have maybe 15 years of oil reerves in the US at current cosumption. Drilling in the US isn' tthe answer.

If thats right why not take it and end this arguement about how much?
Maybe because its bullshit?
Everythings about dividing us on issues and the truth is irrevelent.

[Independent Harry]

If thats right why not take it and end this arguement about how much?
Maybe because its bullshit?
Everythings about dividing us on issues and the truth is irrevelent.

Because it would be a fairly stupid tactical move on our part to do that. If there is a resource war, or other wars and we need that oil to power our military to fight. And we used it on soccer moms and 6.0 liter pickup trucks. People like you and Senior Chief are going to feel pretty retarded...

[doctordog]

Because it would be a fairly stupid tactical move on our part to do that. If there is a resource war, or other wars and we need that oil to power our military to fight. And we used it on soccer moms and 6.0 liter pickup trucks. People like you and Senior Chief are going to feel pretty retarded...

Sounds like pure jealousy from someone that isn't willing to work hard enough to have nicer things so no one should have them.:thumbsup:

[SimonDavid]

Sounds like pure jealousy from someone that isn't willing to work hard enough to have nicer things so no one should have them.:thumbsup:
I am certainly not willing to work hard enough to find a point you have not missed.

[Independent Harry]

Sounds like pure jealousy from someone that isn't willing to work hard enough to have nicer things so no one should have them.:thumbsup:

I drive a nice car, I make 6 figures a year. don't tell me about hard work. I work and have more discipline in my life on a daily basis than the vast majority of people in this world.

It's called the collective good. You would have us squander our ability to protect ourselves from outside threats, to protect our freedoms. Which is it? You can't have it both ways. You can't suck every ounce of oil out of the ground fro pickup trucks and SUV's and still expect our coutnry to have the resources it needs in an emergency...so what do you choose. This choice will determine to the rest of us your inteligence level...

[Mr. Blue]

Sounds like pure jealousy from someone that isn't willing to work hard enough to have nicer things so no one should have them.:thumbsup:

Everyone in this thread bitching about what Obama's doing is basically ignoring the simple fact that oil is not renewable. The American way of life was heading towards a rude awaking from the simple fact that we're basing so much of our economy on a resource that can't be replenished. It wouldn't have matter who was in power, Rep, Dem, it's coming to a halt.

Now, I think we should drill the hell out of every reserve we can find. I think we should build plenty of Nuke plants and also explore other options including those fruity green options.

The point is that no matter what we do...we're going to eventually have to move off depending on gasoline, the types of vehicles we drive are going to be very different, and we can't just will oil to spout from the ground...not going to happen.

[GetAClue]

Everyone in this thread bitching about what Obama's doing is basically ignoring the simple fact that oil is not renewable. The American way of life was heading towards a rude awaking from the simple fact that we're basing so much of our economy on a resource that can't be replenished. It wouldn't have matter who was in power, Rep, Dem, it's coming to a halt.

Now, I think we should drill the hell out of every reserve we can find. I think we should build plenty of Nuke plants and also explore other options including those fruity green options.

The point is that no matter what we do...we're going to eventually have to move off depending on gasoline, the types of vehicles we drive are going to be very different, and we can't just will oil to spout from the ground...not going to happen.

Regardless of the fact that oil is not renewable, it is not the job of the government to dictate what we can or cannot drive. It is a market decision. You are correct in that we are headed for a rude awakening, but still that is our right. The word is out and if some choose to ignore it that is their right.

But if this administration was serious, they would not leave the most promising source of energy off of the table, that being nuclear power. The fact that it is not considered is evidence to me that they have a different agenda. I’m sorry, but solar panels and wind mills to only provide so much power.

The problem is that this falls in line with his Cap and Trade policy. That is yet more government control in our lives. This needs to be rejected out of hand in favor of a more inclusive and practical based energy policy.

[SimonDavid]

Regardless of the fact that oil is not renewable, it is not the job of the government to dictate what we can or cannot drive. It is a market decision. You are correct in that we are headed for a rude awakening, but still that is our right. The word is out and if some choose to ignore it that is their right.

But if this administration was serious, they would not leave the most promising source of energy off of the table, that being nuclear power. The fact that it is not considered is evidence to me that they have a different agenda. I’m sorry, but solar panels and wind mills to only provide so much power.

The problem is that this falls in line with his Cap and Trade policy. That is yet more government control in our lives. This needs to be rejected out of hand in favor of a more inclusive and practical based energy policy.
In fact, Obama has stated he is in favor of limited use of nuclear power, but realizes it is not an end-all on its own, any more than greener solutions. One major disadvantage with nuclear power, and should keep it in the "limited use" category, is the issue of waste. That is not a small, insignificant concern.

[Mr. Blue]

Regardless of the fact that oil is not renewable, it is not the job of the government to dictate what we can or cannot drive. It is a market decision. You are correct in that we are headed for a rude awakening, but still that is our right. The word is out and if some choose to ignore it that is their right.

But if this administration was serious, they would not leave the most promising source of energy off of the table, that being nuclear power. The fact that it is not considered is evidence to me that they have a different agenda. I’m sorry, but solar panels and wind mills to only provide so much power.

The problem is that this falls in line with his Cap and Trade policy. That is yet more government control in our lives. This needs to be rejected out of hand in favor of a more inclusive and practical based energy policy.

Government intervention on this topic can almost fall under the umbrella of national security. I mean during WWII how many things were rationed for the war effort?

It's my belief that the next 20 years is literally going to determine how civilization survives on Earth. We could literally be heading towards a complete collapse of what we know as Civilization. This proposal on mileage for cars is almost a joke, a too little too late, type thing from Washington. We should have been preparing for this since the Early 70's but we didn't.

I think we should aggressively pursue all energy sources. Nuclear is not off the table for me. Drilling is not off the table for me. Green solutions, again, not off the table. What we need now is such an aggressive push towards these other sources that it would shock people...instead we'll get a flaccid response from Washington.

Honestly, and I believe this to be the case, if we don't pursue an aggressive energy policy, a Mad Max type future is on the horizon. Civilized people only need around 72 hours without their creature comforts before they regress to their animal instincts.

[Smurf-Herder]

In fact, Obama has stated he is in favor of limited use of nuclear power, but realizes it is not an end-all on its own, any more than greener solutions. One major disadvantage with nuclear power, and should keep it in the "limited use" category, is the issue of waste. That is not a small, insignificant concern.

If he's serious, he should think about recycling it.

December 28, 2007

Recycling Nuclear Fuel: The French Do It, Why Can't Oui?
by Jack Spencer

What if the government allowed you to burn only 25 percent of every tank of gas? Or if Washington made you pour half of every gallon of milk down the drain?

What if lawmakers forced us to bury 95 percent of our energy resources?

That is exactly what Washington does when it comes to safe, affordable and CO2-free nuclear energy. Indeed, 95 percent of the used fuel from America's 104 power reactors, which provide about 20 percent of the nation's electricity, could be recycled for future use.

To create power, reactor fuel must contain 3-5 percent burnable uranium. Once the burnable uranium falls below that level, the fuel must be replaced. But this "spent" fuel generally retains about 95 percent of the uranium it started with, and that uranium can be recycled.

Over the past four decades, America's reactors have produced about 56,000 tons of used fuel. That "waste" contains roughly enough energy to power every U.S. household for 12 years. And it's just sitting there, piling up at power plant storage facilities. Talk about waste!

The sad thing is, the United States developed the technology to recapture that energy decades ago, then barred its commercial use in 1977. We have practiced a virtual moratorium ever since.

Other countries have not taken such a backward approach to nuclear power. France, whose 59 reactors generate 80 percent of its electricity, has safely recycled nuclear fuel for decades. They turned to nuclear power in the 1970s to limit their dependence on foreign energy. And, from the beginning, they made recycling used fuel central to their program.

Upon its removal from French reactors, used fuel is packed in containers and safely shipped via train and road to a facility in La Hague. There, the energy producing uranium and plutonium are removed and separated from the other waste and made into new fuel that can be used again. The entire process adds about 6 percent in costs for the French.

Anti-nuclear fear mongering has proved baseless. The French have recycled fuel like this for 30 years without incident: no terrorist attack, no bad guys stealing uranium, no contribution toward nuclear weapons proliferaton, and o accidental explosions.

France meets all of its recycling needs with one facility. Indeed, domestic French reprocessing only takes about half of La Hague's capacity. The other half is used to recycle other countries' spent nuclear fuel.

Since beginning operations, France's La Hague plant has safely processed over 23,000 tones of used fuel--enough to power France for fourteen years.

Their success has sparked plenty of interest abroad. The French company AREVA has already helped Japan with its reprocessing facility and is currently looking at the feasibility of building a similar plant in China.

The British, Japanese, Indians, and Russians all engage in some level of reprocessing.

Of course, there is still waste involved. But recycling produces much lower volumes of highly radioactive waste, and the French deal with it effectively--placing some waste in short-term, interim storage or preparing the rest for long-term storage in their version of Yucca Mountain.

All is not perfect in France. They are still working to open a permanent geologic storage facility. But the critical issue is that they have an organization to handle used nuclear fuel that allows their program to advance without being held hostage to the politics of geologic storage.

If the United States is serious about reducing CO2 and energy dependence, it must get serious about nuclear power and begin recycling used nuclear fuel.

A viable reprocessing capability not only would give the United States a valuable energy resource, it would reduce the amount of material going to Yucca Mountain. The U.S. has already produced enough waste to nearly fill Yucca's legal limit of 70,000 metric tons--subsequent studies estimate that its actual capacity is about double that amount and some believe that it is even greater.

It would also put the United States back on the map as a leader in commercial nuclear technology, which today it is not.

Nuclear fuel reprocessing is a safe activity that should be part of America's nuclear energy program. It can be affordable and is technologically feasible. The French are proving that on a daily basis. The question is: Why can't oui?

http://www.heritage.org/press/commentary/ed010108d.cfm

[SimonDavid]

That is a promising solution. However, nuclear waste is not a problem which can tolerate mistakes or partial solutions.

[doctordog]

I drive a nice car, I make 6 figures a year. don't tell me about hard work. I work and have more discipline in my life on a daily basis than the vast majority of people in this world.

It's called the collective good. You would have us squander our ability to protect ourselves from outside threats, to protect our freedoms. Which is it? You can't have it both ways. You can't suck every ounce of oil out of the ground fro pickup trucks and SUV's and still expect our coutnry to have the resources it needs in an emergency...so what do you choose. This choice will determine to the rest of us your inteligence level...

Eliminating gasoline automobiles does not decrease our dependence on oil and in fact it is just the tip of the iceberg. All of our freight from coast to coast moves with petroleum based fuels. All commercial travel moves with petroleum based fuel. All personal care products are petroleum based. Most plastics are petroleum based. How far are you willing to go? Should we shut down all airlines immediately? Close all factories using petroleum based products and/or additives? So in fact there now reason to force everyone into Yugos or Civics as long as so many other uses are petroleum based.

[Independent Harry]

Eliminating gasoline automobiles does not decrease our dependence on oil and in fact it is just the tip of the iceberg. All of our freight from coast to coast moves with petroleum based fuels. All commercial travel moves with petroleum based fuel. All personal care products are petroleum based. Most plastics are petroleum based. How far are you willing to go? Should we shut down all airlines immediately? Close all factories using petroleum based products and/or additives? So in fact there now reason to force everyone into Yugos or Civics as long as so many other uses are petroleum based.

I'm simply saying we have to start somewhere. We have to start creating alternative fuel sources and using them. Because if we simply let the market dictate it, then the oil companies will squeeze till the last drop, make their massive dollars and will be too far behind to make the switch to an alternative source of energy.

[SeniorChief]

I'm simply saying we have to start somewhere. We have to start creating alternative fuel sources and using them.

Why?

We have PLENTY of oil on U.S. soil.

Drill baby drill.

And how many nuclear power plants do they have in France?

We should follow their example and build more of those as well.

[Mr. Blue]

Eliminating gasoline automobiles does not decrease our dependence on oil and in fact it is just the tip of the iceberg. All of our freight from coast to coast moves with petroleum based fuels. All commercial travel moves with petroleum based fuel. All personal care products are petroleum based. Most plastics are petroleum based. How far are you willing to go? Should we shut down all airlines immediately? Close all factories using petroleum based products and/or additives? So in fact there now reason to force everyone into Yugos or Civics as long as so many other uses are petroleum based.

You're almost getting it now. We're heading towards a big hurt. Basing our economy on petroleum has basically left us on the verge of destruction. This isn't a Republican or Democratic issue at the moment, it's about survival.

The Republicans in this thread want to drive what they want to drive and not think about it. The Liberals only want to embrace what they think is the "environmentally sound" option. Both are wrong.

Everyone should be thinking...OMG...we're heading towards deep shit if we don't fundamentally change a lot of things.

[doctordog]

Why?

We have PLENTY of oil on U.S. soil.

Drill baby drill.

And how many nuclear power plants do they have in France?

We should follow their example and build more of those as well.

There is a whole other market that will be destroyed if we move away from oil and that is used oil markets and re-refined oil. If I am not mistaken there are 5 re-refining plants now in the US and more slated to be built. Many coal fired plants use used oil as a fuel subsitute and nearly all your asphalt plants depend on used oil.

[GetAClue]

I'm simply saying we have to start somewhere. We have to start creating alternative fuel sources and using them. Because if we simply let the market dictate it, then the oil companies will squeeze till the last drop, make their massive dollars and will be too far behind to make the switch to an alternative source of energy.

So who should be the one's developing these alternative fuel sources? I would speculate that this is already happening in the private sector. However, due to the availability of oil and its relative cost effectiveness, these alternative fuels are not profitable at this point. But having the government step in and mandate these things will do nothing but promote inefficiency and drive out competition. The market always adjusts to supply and demand. When the time comes, private industry will be positioned to respond. Government mandates will only screw up the process.

[doctordog]

So who should be the one's developing these alternative fuel sources? I would speculate that this is already happening in the private sector. However, due to the availability of oil and its relative cost effectiveness, these alternative fuels are not profitable at this point. But having the government step in and mandate these things will do nothing but promote inefficiency and drive out competition. The market always adjusts to supply and demand. When the time comes, private industry will be positioned to respond. Government mandates will only screw up the process.

Agreed, Ethanol plants for instance are dropping like flies with bankruptcy filings and I would anticipate Bio-diesel to follow as you can buy that on the open market and less that operating cost.

[Independent Harry]

So who should be the one's developing these alternative fuel sources? I would speculate that this is already happening in the private sector. However, due to the availability of oil and its relative cost effectiveness, these alternative fuels are not profitable at this point. But having the government step in and mandate these things will do nothing but promote inefficiency and drive out competition. The market always adjusts to supply and demand. When the time comes, private industry will be positioned to respond. Government mandates will only screw up the process.

So you are in agreement that would should let capitalism rape the ground we stand on, regardless of national security? We need oil reserves for our military. And the military isn't going to be able to move to another type of fuel for a while due to the large capital overlay. Business and consumer will be able to make the switch much quicker.

What you don't get is that the market hasn't been dictating anything, supply and demadn when it comes to commodities does not exist. Since we have instituted futures trading, fake supply shortages get created, therefore hugely increasing price. Which is what we saw in the oil bubble. So at some point we need to mandate some things.

[GetAClue]

So you are in agreement that would should let capitalism rape the ground we stand on, regardless of national security? We need oil reserves for our military. And the military isn't going to be able to move to another type of fuel for a while due to the large capital overlay. Business and consumer will be able to make the switch much quicker.

What you don't get is that the market hasn't been dictating anything, supply and demadn when it comes to commodities does not exist. Since we have instituted futures trading, fake supply shortages get created, therefore hugely increasing price. Which is what we saw in the oil bubble. So at some point we need to mandate some things.

The private sector has been operating that way since this country was founded. It has worked up until now. What does NOT work is government intervention into the market. Let me give you an example. Chrysler and GM are basically bankrupt or on the verge. Now along comes Obama and the federal government to bail them out. Sounds good, right? I mean, they are too big to fail and think of all the workers that will be out of a job if they go belly up.

So, now the government begins pumping money into these companies. And just for the sake of argument, let’s say that somehow, this works and they become viable companies again. All is well right?

That is unless you work for Ford. Now Ford who did NOT accept federal money is still making cars and selling them. But the government has a vested interest in GM and Chrysler, they cannot fail. So when government agencies begin buying cars for their fleets again, who do you think they will buy from? Not Ford. There is no vested interest there. So now, the company that did the right thing and made it on their own will be penalized for it.

And it is not only the government deals. It is the whole principle of running the business correctly and having to compete with other companies that has the government money behind them.

How is this fare? Do we now have to go in and bail out Ford? Where does it end?

[Independent Harry]

The private sector has been operating that way since this country was founded. It has worked up until now. What does NOT work is government intervention into the market. Let me give you an example. Chrysler and GM are basically bankrupt or on the verge. Now along comes Obama and the federal government to bail them out. Sounds good, right? I mean, they are too big to fail and think of all the workers that will be out of a job if they go belly up.

So, now the government begins pumping money into these companies. And just for the sake of argument, let’s say that somehow, this works and they become viable companies again. All is well right?

That is unless you work for Ford. Now Ford who did NOT accept federal money is still making cars and selling them. But the government has a vested interest in GM and Chrysler, they cannot fail. So when government agencies begin buying cars for their fleets again, who do you think they will buy from? Not Ford. There is no vested interest there. So now, the company that did the right thing and made it on their own will be penalized for it.

And it is not only the government deals. It is the whole principle of running the business correctly and having to compete with other companies that has the government money behind them.

How is this fare? Do we now have to go in and bail out Ford? Where does it end?

Chrysler is being bought by Fiat I believe, so it didn't work, and GM is about to file Bankruptcy I think.

As for the argument its a good one, but not the argument I was making. I think we need to fund the development of alternative energy. Not pump money into failing companies. For instance, if we had spent the bush years, and spent all that moeny on alternative energy research. We would have a viable product by now. And we could license it to the rest of the world and the damn terrorist camel jockeys could go suck on sand...

[SimonDavid]

Chrysler is being bought by Fiat I believe, so it didn't work, and GM is about to file Bankruptcy I think.

As for the argument its a good one, but not the argument I was making. I think we need to fund the development of alternative energy. Not pump money into failing companies. For instance, if we had spent the bush years, and spent all that moeny on alternative energy research. We would have a viable product by now. And we could license it to the rest of the world and the damn terrorist camel jockeys could go suck on sand...
Exactly.
If we had begun an alternative energy program in 1973, after the first oil shock "wake-up call" where would we be today?
Instead we sold out to the oil interests, and here we are today.

[Cat slave]

We need development of several different methods of producing energy.
And we have oil and just need to take out the dirt people who stand in the
way of getting to it.

Wind (plenty of that!), tidal, geothermal, solar and again, OUR oil. This
tired old song and dance of AlBores and his scheme that fattens his bottom line
(the one at the bank) is wearing thin. Its all the left can do to keep any
mention of it going, ie promos on tv....oh please!

And how smart was it to try to use a food crop for energy? Duh! Local
farmers couldnt even get seed corn last year to grow corn for their cattle.
But we got at least 10% in our gasoline which only lowered our MPH, ran
up feed prices, food prices and now they are figuring out, uh, maybe that
wasnt such a good idea......ya think?

We dont need "alternative", we need "additional", or "complimentary" or
sources of energy that make sense in different parts of the country.
Seattle wouldnt do so good with solar, they have clouds all the time.
Coastal cities could make good progress with tidal energy.
Think of the wind that blows across the plains all the time. One
size does not fit all, but we all need oil. Preferably OURS.

[GetAClue]

Chrysler is being bought by Fiat I believe, so it didn't work, and GM is about to file Bankruptcy I think.

As for the argument its a good one, but not the argument I was making. I think we need to fund the development of alternative energy. Not pump money into failing companies. For instance, if we had spent the bush years, and spent all that moeny on alternative energy research. We would have a viable product by now. And we could license it to the rest of the world and the damn terrorist camel jockeys could go suck on sand...

Again, I ask you to define who "we" is. The government? I don't think so. The government should not be in the business of developing anything. That is not in their charter otherwise known as the Constitution. My point is that the market will drive this innovation just as the market as driven every other innovation.

Do you think the government drove innovation to produce oil based products in the first place? Who developed oil products and why did they? Think about it for a minute. There became a market or a demand for these things and industries sprang up to fulfill the demand. Government had nothing to do with it. What about electricity? Do you think the government provided the emphasis for that?

All the government will do is prop up one industry or business at the expense of another usually the most inefficient one there is and drive the other out of business. The market will reward the business or industry that best fulfills the needs of the consumer. Who says that alternative fuels are not already being developed? Is it just because you have not seen them yet? I will submit that most of the oil companies have been researching alternative fuels for some time. If the supply is truly diminishing, they would need to do this to ensure the long term survival of the company. The reason you have not seen them yet is because a). There is not a demand for them yet or b). They are cost prohibitive.

Again the laws of supply and demand are playing a bigger role in this than you believe. When the demand outpaces the supply, the market will respond. Until then, you will be driving gasoline powered vehicles.

[Independent Harry]

Again, I ask you to define who "we" is. The government? I don't think so. The government should not be in the business of developing anything. That is not in their charter otherwise known as the Constitution. My point is that the market will drive this innovation just as the market as driven every other innovation.

Do you think the government drove innovation to produce oil based products in the first place? Who developed oil products and why did they? Think about it for a minute. There became a market or a demand for these things and industries sprang up to fulfill the demand. Government had nothing to do with it. What about electricity? Do you think the government provided the emphasis for that?

All the government will do is prop up one industry or business at the expense of another usually the most inefficient one there is and drive the other out of business. The market will reward the business or industry that best fulfills the needs of the consumer. Who says that alternative fuels are not already being developed? Is it just because you have not seen them yet? I will submit that most of the oil companies have been researching alternative fuels for some time. If the supply is truly diminishing, they would need to do this to ensure the long term survival of the company. The reason you have not seen them yet is because a). There is not a demand for them yet or b). They are cost prohibitive.

Again the laws of supply and demand are playing a bigger role in this than you believe. When the demand outpaces the supply, the market will respond.
Until then, you will be driving gasoline powered vehicles.

or C. the companies are getting rich off oil, and they don't feel the need to develop alternative fuel sources, because they are fattening the bottom line quite well as it is...

regardless, government funded war efforts has been the biggest provider of new technology. Not the private sector as you seem to think.

[GetAClue]

or C. the companies are getting rich off oil, and they don't feel the need to develop alternative fuel sources, because they are fattening the bottom line quite well as it is...

regardless, government funded war efforts has been the biggest provider of new technology. Not the private sector as you seem to think.
That statement shows that you know nothing about business or the economy. You are arguing from a position of blind political ideology with no basis in real world economics.

If there were a profit to be made in ANY form of energy, these companies would be taking advantage of it quicker that Bill Clinton on an intern. Fact is, oil is a very lucrative business and people are making money. The market works. When oil supplies begin to dry up, supply will dwindle and the price will go up making more expensive forms of alternative energy sources readily available. If you don’t believe these energy companies are not already investing into these sources, you are kidding yourself.

[GetAClue]

or C. the companies are getting rich off oil, and they don't feel the need to develop alternative fuel sources, because they are fattening the bottom line quite well as it is...

regardless, government funded war efforts has been the biggest provider of new technology. Not the private sector as you seem to think.
However, you still avoided answering the question. Who is the “we” you refer to that should be investing in alternatives forms of energy? I would really like to know your position on this.

[Independent Harry]

That statement shows that you know nothing about business or the economy. You are arguing from a position of blind political ideology with no basis in real world economics.

If there were a profit to be made in ANY form of energy, these companies would be taking advantage of it quicker that Bill Clinton on an intern. Fact is, oil is a very lucrative business and people are making money. The market works. When oil supplies begin to dry up, supply will dwindle and the price will go up making more expensive forms of alternative energy sources readily available. If you don’t believe these energy companies are not already investing into these sources, you are kidding yourself.

I understand business, supply and demand quite well. The idea of supply and demand on commodities is a myth with futures trading. Right now, the cost of oil and gas products are goign up, because of futures trading. They dn't have enough places to store the stuff. So futures trading creates a fake short supply.

What I am talking about is the government should be funding alternative energy research for military and civillian uses.

We should have been working on alternative energy 30 years ago. Because non-renewable sources are going to eventually run out. These companies are not going to hurt their bottom line with research when they don't have to. That's a fact.

[GetAClue]

I understand business, supply and demand quite well. The idea of supply and demand on commodities is a myth with futures trading. Right now, the cost of oil and gas products are goign up, because of futures trading. They dn't have enough places to store the stuff. So futures trading creates a fake short supply.

What does the futures market have to do with the idea that energy companies are or are not working to find viable sources of alternative energy? This is simply an attempt to derail the subject.


What I am talking about is the government should be funding alternative energy research for military and civillian uses.

We should have been working on alternative energy 30 years ago. Because non-renewable sources are going to eventually run out. These companies are not going to hurt their bottom line with research when they don't have to. That's a fact.

Please show me in the Constitution where the government is charged with this responsibility. I am curious as to how you believe it is the role of the government to do this. Did you not read my post? How did we ever arrive were we are now without the government coming up with new technologies to sustain the standard of living we now enjoy?

I guess over 200 years of the free market bringing us the highest standard of living that the world has ever known has been a failed experiment or just a freak accident. Now we must have the government, which by the way cannot effectively run the post office, the treasury, the IRS or the Veterans Administration to do the research to save us from the day when the world runs out of oil.

[Independent Harry]

What does the futures market have to do with the idea that energy companies are or are not working to find viable sources of alternative energy? This is simply an attempt to derail the subject.



Please show me in the Constitution where the government is charged with this responsibility. I am curious as to how you believe it is the role of the government to do this. Did you not read my post? How did we ever arrive were we are now without the government coming up with new technologies to sustain the standard of living we now enjoy?

I guess over 200 years of the free market bringing us the highest standard of living that the world has ever known has been a failed experiment or just a freak accident. Now we must have the government, which by the way cannot effectively run the post office, the treasury, the IRS or the Veterans Administration to do the research to save us from the day when the world runs out of oil.

You must have missed the point, the government has funded all major breakthroughs in technology for most of the past 200 years for wartime efforts. Most notably the internet, nuclear fission and fusion, ect...

As for trying to derail the subject, you brought up supply and demand. When you can create fake demand, like futures trading does. It jacks up the price, when that happens, companies and people make uncommon profits without increase in operating cost. They are not going to sacrifice a cash cow like that to come up with clean alternatives.

[ROdger Right]

War creates new technology, not the government. The government is wise to realize this and has kept us in hot and cold wars for the past 70 years.

There is no reason to switch to alternatives as there none that are capable of carrying the load oil does.

Im against drug companies coming up with a cheap pill then make a slightly better one a few years later and charge 10 times what they did. Seems pretty fake to me. Buisness will find ways to screw over something weather renewable or no.

Until more powerful alternatives are found for our milatary id consider letting the milatary use ANWR as its sole provider of oil. Global demand would decrease seeing how the number one client found a new watering hole which would serve consumers well.

[GetAClue]

You must have missed the point, the government has funded all major breakthroughs in technology for most of the past 200 years for wartime efforts. Most notably the internet, nuclear fission and fusion, ect...

As for trying to derail the subject, you brought up supply and demand. When you can create fake demand, like futures trading does. It jacks up the price, when that happens, companies and people make uncommon profits without increase in operating cost. They are not going to sacrifice a cash cow like that to come up with clean alternatives.
I beg to differ. While it is true that government has funded a lot of programs to support some of the wars, it is not the government that creates the new technologies. It is private industry. And I would guess that for every innovation sponsored by our government, the private sector has come up with 20 more, it not a higher proportion.

For instance, did the government fund the Wright Brothers and their airplane? No, but after it became available, they got into the game. The Wright Brothers, Henry Ford, John Rockefeller and others were businessmen who were driven to produce products that were marketable to the consumers. The government got on board with some of their products and services after the fact.

Go look at a company like Dow. Sure, they have some government research backing, but it was not until they had already made a name for themselves thru private investment and research. And there are many other examples. General Electric was founded by Thomas Edison and his inventions. I would argue that General Electric has produced as many if not more innovations privately that the government ever funded. Some of those innovations were marketed to the government, but not funded by the government.

My point is that private enterprises are best suited to research and develop alternative energy sources when they become necessary. And just because we are not aware of it, they most likely are already doing this. For an example, go to the internet and Google Bio Diesel. You would be surprised at the possibilities that are being researched now. They may not be to market yet, but when the market can sustain them, they will be.

[SimonDavid]

The government can, and does, through tax policy, across many different fields of business endeavor, promote and encourage businesses to move in directions which, as in this case, improve more than just the companies' bottom line. Profit-driven industries have no incentive to pursue technologies which do not pay off in the short term, particularly those with shareholders understandably demanding profits. Government, again through tax policy, can help make such a transition more palatable. No company is going to be willing to lose money in the short term for the sake of potential profit later.

[Independent Harry]

I beg to differ. While it is true that government has funded a lot of programs to support some of the wars, it is not the government that creates the new technologies. It is private industry. And I would guess that for every innovation sponsored by our government, the private sector has come up with 20 more, it not a higher proportion.

For instance, did the government fund the Wright Brothers and their airplane? No, but after it became available, they got into the game. The Wright Brothers, Henry Ford, John Rockefeller and others were businessmen who were driven to produce products that were marketable to the consumers. The government got on board with some of their products and services after the fact.

Go look at a company like Dow. Sure, they have some government research backing, but it was not until they had already made a name for themselves thru private investment and research. And there are many other examples. General Electric was founded by Thomas Edison and his inventions. I would argue that General Electric has produced as many if not more innovations privately that the government ever funded. Some of those innovations were marketed to the government, but not funded by the government.

My point is that private enterprises are best suited to research and develop alternative energy sources when they become necessary. And just because we are not aware of it, they most likely are already doing this. For an example, go to the internet and Google Bio Diesel. You would be surprised at the possibilities that are being researched now. They may not be to market yet, but when the market can sustain them, they will be.

The balance is what is lacking though. Many oil companies will squash other forms of fuel until they absolutely have to use them. Simply because it will cut into their profits. Not because its not economically sound.

[Independent Harry]

The government can, and does, through tax policy, across many different fields of business endeavor, promote and encourage businesses to move in directions which, as in this case, improve more than just the companies' bottom line. Profit-driven industries have no incentive to pursue technologies which do not pay off in the short term, particularly those with shareholders understandably demanding profits. Government, again through tax policy, can help make such a transition more palatable. No company is going to be willing to lose money in the short term for the sake of potential profit later.

I agree, but companies will put money into R&D seeing a short term loss for a long term gain. What they will not do, is make a change that endagers shareholder value. Unless they have some kind of backing. And by the time that happens, we'll be paying $5 or $6+ a gallon for gas...

[GetAClue]

The government can, and does, through tax policy, across many different fields of business endeavor, promote and encourage businesses to move in directions which, as in this case, improve more than just the companies' bottom line. Profit-driven industries have no incentive to pursue technologies which do not pay off in the short term, particularly those with shareholders understandably demanding profits. Government, again through tax policy, can help make such a transition more palatable. No company is going to be willing to lose money in the short term for the sake of potential profit later.
Yes they do and I am saying that they should not. When the government begins doing this, they tend to favor one group or company over another which begins to negatively affect the free market or what’s left of the free market.

A good example of this is the governments attempt to subsidize ethanol production. If the market were in control, ethanol would not be sold. It costs well over $4 a gallon to produce, but at that price, it would not be competitive. So the government offsets its costs with our tax dollars. While environmentalist wacko’s may see this as a win-win, real world economists see this as stealing from me to pay for the fuel that those environmentalists use.

The other negative side effect of government controlling consumer choice thru tax incentives is that if forces companies to line up politically with the party in power. If you don’t see the danger in that, I can point to 1930’s Germany. That is the beginning of Fascism.

As has been demonstrated over last 200 years, the free market is the ONLY mechanism capable of ensuring our economic prosperity. The fact that we are in a down turn in the economy now is a testament to what happens when the government begins to insert itself into the market.

[GetAClue]

The balance is what is lacking though. Many oil companies will squash other forms of fuel until they absolutely have to use them. Simply because it will cut into their profits. Not because its not economically sound.
Well, you may believe that, but do some research. If there is a buck to be made, the oil companies will go after it. After all, given the relatively small profit margin that they enjoy, they need to diversify to satisfy the shareholders. Instead of listening to the pundits, research the profit margins of the oil companies. It is not near as high as you think it is. 7% to 8% is pretty much the ceiling. Most large companies in the country operate at substantially higher margins than that.

[GetAClue]

I agree, but companies will put money into R&D seeing a short term loss for a long term gain. What they will not do, is make a change that endagers shareholder value. Unless they have some kind of backing. And by the time that happens, we'll be paying $5 or $6+ a gallon for gas...
Again, the market or in this case, the consumer will drive this. When gas gets to those prices, other alternative fuels suddenly become more affordable and the market will develop. Part of the problem with some of the alternative fuels is their cost to manufacture and distribute. Due to the economy of scale based on the low demand, the cost per unit is considerably higher for these alternatives at the moment.

However, when gasoline begins to reach unaffordable prices, there will be a market incentive to begin to develop the production facilities and distribution infrastructures to support the widespread use of some of these alternatives.

[SimonDavid]

Yes, we can wait until the price of oil is near the bankrupting stage for those who must use it (and since they must use it, but cannot afford it, what happens to the economy then?), then wait for private industry to do what it should have been doing all along. It will not have done what it needed to do all along because industry only acts when there is a profit involved. If there is no profit, no action is taken. Incentives from the government, the only entity which can provide incentives for long term thinking, are one way to encourage industry to look up from its balance sheets and see the potential in proceeding in a direction not only good for it, but for its customer base.
Here is an analogy, which I do not expect you to accept, nor do I care, so I will present it anyway. Suppose all the public wanted was candy. There was no market for fruits and vegetables because no one wanted them, only candy. Now when, at some point in the future, candy begins to destroy the health of the consumers, they may wake up and say,
"Hold it, we need something more than candy on which to live, where is it? Where are the fruits and vegetables we need?"
To which your version of private industry can only say,
"But you showed no interest in buying fruits and vegetables, and we are strictly driven by what the market wants, so we didn't grow any...it will take years for us to develop and grow fruits and vegetables".
Suppose someone with long term thinking, unlike consumers and most industry, gave incentives to industry to introduce fruits and vegetables into the market before the crisis hit.
Radical thinking, I suppose, but the point is we apparently should not expect either the consumer nor industry to know what is best for the long term. Clearly neither has done so thus far, particularly regarding energy policy.

[Independent Harry]

Again, the market or in this case, the consumer will drive this. When gas gets to those prices, other alternative fuels suddenly become more affordable and the market will develop. Part of the problem with some of the alternative fuels is their cost to manufacture and distribute. Due to the economy of scale based on the low demand, the cost per unit is considerably higher for these alternatives at the moment.

However, when gasoline begins to reach unaffordable prices, there will be a market incentive to begin to develop the production facilities and distribution infrastructures to support the widespread use of some of these alternatives.

except by that time, if no action has been taken, it will cause a huge economic downturn, since as you stated every industry relies on this product. So everythiing from fruits and vegetables, to the cost of mattresses and plastics will sky rocket through the roof. And because we aren't prepared it will take years to replace the infrastructure. Will we be able to afford it with our current issues now? I doubt it, so what you are suggesting could possible destroy the economy and this country.

[SimonDavid]

except by that time, if no action has been taken, it will cause a huge economic downturn, since as you stated every industry relies on this product. So everythiing from fruits and vegetables, to the cost of mattresses and plastics will sky rocket through the roof. And because we aren't prepared it will take years to replace the infrastructure. Will we be able to afford it with our current issues now? I doubt it, so what you are suggesting could possible destroy the economy and this country.
That is exactly my point. The "GetAClues" among us prefer to let the "market" economy implode, no matter what the level of suffering, supposedly to rise again as a phoenix...except those, of course are mythological creatures.

[ROdger Right]

That is exactly my point. The "GetAClues" among us prefer to let the "market" economy implode, no matter what the level of suffering, supposedly to rise again as a phoenix...except those, of course are mythological creatures.

Thats right the only way to fix anything is for the government to take control and push their agenda.:lmao2:

[doctordog]

That is exactly my point. The "GetAClues" among us prefer to let the "market" economy implode, no matter what the level of suffering, supposedly to rise again as a phoenix...except those, of course are mythological creatures.

And the "DavidSimons" think they know what direction the whole country needs to take based on the view of their party so they should use force if necessary to make it happen no matter what lives are destroyed in the process. It is amazing how close liberal ideas sound like Nazi Germany!

[SimonDavid]

And the "DavidSimons" think they know what direction the whole country needs to take based on the view of their party so they should use force if necessary to make it happen no matter what lives are destroyed in the process. It is amazing how close liberal ideas sound like Nazi Germany!
What "lives are going to be destroyed" in the process of introducing alternatives to oil as an energy resource? It seems to me lives will more likely be saved due to the lack of necessity for oil wars.
It has been obvious since 1973 that the country needs to remove itself from the oil teat, but there has been one primary obstacle to that clear bit of progress; that would be the "conservatives".

[SimonDavid]

Thats right the only way to fix anything is for the government to take control and push their agenda.:lmao2:
No, in this case offer tax and other incentives in order to encourage industry to do what it apparently will not do, given its allegiance first and foremost to the almighty dollar.

[Independent Harry]

No, in this case offer tax and other incentives in order to encourage industry to do what it apparently will not do, given its allegiance first and foremost to the almighty dollar.

These people don't get that pure capitalism leads to the complete subjugation of the working class, while socialism leads to complete apathy and the death of original thought and ingenuity. Like most things in life the answer lies in the balance between the two extremes...

[GetAClue]

No, in this case offer tax and other incentives in order to encourage industry to do what it apparently will not do, given its allegiance first and foremost to the almighty dollar.
Please provide me with evidence that energy companies or any other private industry is NOT developing these alternative fuel sources.

Again, getting the government to provide "tax incentives" or any other incentive to the industry or product of their choice is akin to the government dictating their preferences to us.

If you honestly believe that the country will go bankrupt waiting for private industry to develop these alternative fuels, please give me some examples of this. There should be plenty to choose from. After all, this and every other free market country must have gone bankrupt numerous times in the past waiting on private industry to develop products that its citizens needed. After all, in free market economies, the government keeps their nose out of the market.

So, I will wait for these examples. Make sure you choose those countries with capitalist leanings. Let’s not look at the Soviet Union, Cuba, North Korea or any of the former Soviet Bloc countries. That would not be fair; after all they all practiced what you propose. But weren’t they the ones that went bankrupt?

Hmmm. Go figure.

[doctordog]

Please provide me with evidence that energy companies or any other private industry is NOT developing these alternative fuel sources.

Again, getting the government to provide "tax incentives" or any other incentive to the industry or product of their choice is akin to the government dictating their preferences to us.

If you honestly believe that the country will go bankrupt waiting for private industry to develop these alternative fuels, please give me some examples of this. There should be plenty to choose from. After all, this and every other free market country must have gone bankrupt numerous times in the past waiting on private industry to develop products that its citizens needed. After all, in free market economies, the government keeps their nose out of the market.

So, I will wait for these examples. Make sure you choose those countries with capitalist leanings. Let’s not look at the Soviet Union, Cuba, North Korea or any of the former Soviet Bloc countries. That would not be fair; after all they all practiced what you propose. But weren’t they the ones that went bankrupt?

Hmmm. Go figure.

He can go to ADM's website and see one that is. There are many others.

[Independent Harry]

Please provide me with evidence that energy companies or any other private industry is NOT developing these alternative fuel sources.

Again, getting the government to provide "tax incentives" or any other incentive to the industry or product of their choice is akin to the government dictating their preferences to us.

If you honestly believe that the country will go bankrupt waiting for private industry to develop these alternative fuels, please give me some examples of this. There should be plenty to choose from. After all, this and every other free market country must have gone bankrupt numerous times in the past waiting on private industry to develop products that its citizens needed. After all, in free market economies, the government keeps their nose out of the market.

So, I will wait for these examples. Make sure you choose those countries with capitalist leanings. Let’s not look at the Soviet Union, Cuba, North Korea or any of the former Soviet Bloc countries. That would not be fair; after all they all practiced what you propose. But weren’t they the ones that went bankrupt?

Hmmm. Go figure.

There are no practical examples, name one other time in history a countries economy has been almost entirely based on the availability of one natural non-renweable resource...

[SimonDavid]

Please provide me with evidence that energy companies or any other private industry is NOT developing these alternative fuel sources.

Again, getting the government to provide "tax incentives" or any other incentive to the industry or product of their choice is akin to the government dictating their preferences to us.

If you honestly believe that the country will go bankrupt waiting for private industry to develop these alternative fuels, please give me some examples of this. There should be plenty to choose from. After all, this and every other free market country must have gone bankrupt numerous times in the past waiting on private industry to develop products that its citizens needed. After all, in free market economies, the government keeps their nose out of the market.

So, I will wait for these examples. Make sure you choose those countries with capitalist leanings. Let’s not look at the Soviet Union, Cuba, North Korea or any of the former Soviet Bloc countries. That would not be fair; after all they all practiced what you propose. But weren’t they the ones that went bankrupt?

Hmmm. Go figure.
Read what I wrote, instead of what you wanted me to write.
I referred to individuals who must use oil based transportation going bankrupt, not the country.
Also, I did not say (look up the word "apparently") certain companies were not pursuing alternative sources (British Petroleum is one, albeit with some timidity, since oil is still the primary energy source and BP wishes to retain its primary market share). I said they had thirty years to do so and did not partly because they had no incentive to do so. The government, when one remembers that government in the US is us, unlike Nazi Germany, the Soviet bloc countries or any other straw scarecrows you might prop up, can provide industry with incentives other than immediate profit to do what is best for the world, if not for the random Hummer driver.

[SimonDavid]

These people don't get that pure capitalism leads to the complete subjugation of the working class, while socialism leads to complete apathy and the death of original thought and ingenuity. Like most things in life the answer lies in the balance between the two extremes...
Yes.............

[GetAClue]

There are no practical examples, name one other time in history a countries economy has been almost entirely based on the availability of one natural non-renweable resource...
Of course there are no examples. That is the point. Liberals seem to believe we are all doomed unless we make the switch to alternative fuels yesterday. You guys act like this is the only time in history when a resource started to become scarce and no one knew what to do next.

Take a stab at what one of the first uses for petroleum was. It was used as lamp oil. Why did they start using it? Because prior to that, the primary source of lamp oil was from whales. The problem though, was that whaling was starting to decline due to the over-hunting of whales. Whale oil was becoming scarce. Then some private entrepreneur discovered that petroleum worked just as well if not better. Imagine that, the government had NOTHING to do with it.

[GetAClue]

Read what I wrote, instead of what you wanted me to write.
I referred to individuals who must use oil based transportation going bankrupt, not the country.
And who do you think makes up the country? I read what you wrote and I understand completely what you are saying. When oil prices become high enough long enough to negatively affect consumers, there will be incentive to develop the infrastructure to deliver these new alternative fuels.


Also, I did not say (look up the word "apparently") certain companies were not pursuing alternative sources (British Petroleum is one, albeit with some timidity, since oil is still the primary energy source and BP wishes to retain its primary market share). I said they had thirty years to do so and did not partly because they had no incentive to do so.
So you do understand. Yes, for thirty years and I will add for a hundred prior to that they did nothing. So? Are we out of oil now? The last time I pulled into a gas station, they still sold gas. There is still no immediate incentive. However, they see the writing on the wall and are starting to develop these alternatives.


The government, when one remembers that government in the US is us, unlike Nazi Germany, the Soviet bloc countries or any other straw scarecrows you might prop up, can provide industry with incentives other than immediate profit to do what is best for the world, if not for the random Hummer driver.
And once again, you have not refuted my original point. That is, when the government begins providing incentives, they begin to favor one group or product over another like they somehow know the best way to proceed. Why would they favor one product over another? Could it be the lobbyists that donate to “governments” reelections?

When government stays out, the most efficient and affordable solutions are generally the ones that make it past the drawing board.

[GetAClue]

These people don't get that pure capitalism leads to the complete subjugation of the working class, while socialism leads to complete apathy and the death of original thought and ingenuity. Like most things in life the answer lies in the balance between the two extremes...
Or capitalism leads to those with ambition and a better mouse trap competing fairly in an open market were generally the most cost effective and efficient product tends to be favored by the consumer without government picking the winners and losers based on political contributions.

[SimonDavid]

And who do you think makes up the country? I read what you wrote and I understand completely what you are saying. When oil prices become high enough long enough to negatively affect consumers, there will be incentive to develop the infrastructure to deliver these new alternative fuels.


So you do understand. Yes, for thirty years and I will add for a hundred prior to that they did nothing. So? Are we out of oil now? The last time I pulled into a gas station, they still sold gas. There is still no immediate incentive. However, they see the writing on the wall and are starting to develop these alternatives.


And once again, you have not refuted my original point. That is, when the government begins providing incentives, they begin to favor one group or product over another like they somehow know the best way to proceed. Why would they favor one product over another? Could it be the lobbyists that donate to “governments” reelections?

When government stays out, the most efficient and affordable solutions are generally the ones that make it past the drawing board.
"When government stays out" there may be someone stepping up to provide an alternative...or there may not. You make my point; we have wasted thirty years and untold lives at the mercy of countries without our best interests at heart, because they control the most oil; why have we done so? Because profit driven industry has had no incentive to do anything else.
Your "Gooollleeee, they still sell gas" example is beyond childish. They will sell gas until there is no more, as long as it is profitable. The problem needs to be solved before it is any more of a crisis than it is now.
If industry is unwilling to do that, again out of concern more for the dollar than the future, then government can possibly help by providing incentives. Possibly. As I have pointed out over and over, relying on the market to decide it wants or needs something on its own gets us nowhere fast.

[Dale escondido]

These people don't get that pure capitalism leads to the complete subjugation of the working class, while socialism leads to complete apathy and the death of original thought and ingenuity. Like most things in life the answer lies in the balance between the two extremes...


When business and government werent both in the business of making money this worked and the back and forth between partys was a healthy thing.
Now they have evolved into one and we believe chosing sides will improve things.

[Independent Harry]

Of course there are no examples. That is the point. Liberals seem to believe we are all doomed unless we make the switch to alternative fuels yesterday. You guys act like this is the only time in history when a resource started to become scarce and no one knew what to do next.

Take a stab at what one of the first uses for petroleum was. It was used as lamp oil. Why did they start using it? Because prior to that, the primary source of lamp oil was from whales. The problem though, was that whaling was starting to decline due to the over-hunting of whales. Whale oil was becoming scarce. Then some private entrepreneur discovered that petroleum worked just as well if not better. Imagine that, the government had NOTHING to do with it.

I get that, but there were other readily available sources of light, for example candles, that could have still fullfilled that need in the market place.

And did we need to rebuild a whole infrastructure around shipping, and dispending the lamp oil? No, just had to find a new way to refine it.

This is the problem, there is trillions of dollars in infrastructure upgrades that need to be done. If we don't tackle the problem before it becomes a problem, then we could easily screw ourselves...

[Binky]

You're almost getting it now. We're heading towards a big hurt. Basing our economy on petroleum has basically left us on the verge of destruction. This isn't a Republican or Democratic issue at the moment, it's about survival.

The Republicans in this thread want to drive what they want to drive and not think about it. The Liberals only want to embrace what they think is the "environmentally sound" option. Both are wrong.

Everyone should be thinking...OMG...we're heading towards deep shit if we don't fundamentally change a lot of things.



Kind of what I've been thinking. It's amazing that a country such as America has based its livelihood, so to speak, and put all its eggs into one basket, rather than utilizing other avenues. DUH! How fuckin' smart was that? Guess we aren't as smart as we pretend to be. :banghead:

[Binky]

We need development of several different methods of producing energy.
And we have oil and just need to take out the dirt people who stand in the
way of getting to it.

Wind (plenty of that!), tidal, geothermal, solar and again, OUR oil. This
tired old song and dance of AlBores and his scheme that fattens his bottom line
(the one at the bank) is wearing thin. Its all the left can do to keep any
mention of it going, ie promos on tv....oh please!

And how smart was it to try to use a food crop for energy? Duh! Local
farmers couldnt even get seed corn last year to grow corn for their cattle.
But we got at least 10% in our gasoline which only lowered our MPH, ran
up feed prices, food prices and now they are figuring out, uh, maybe that
wasnt such a good idea......ya think?

We dont need "alternative", we need "additional", or "complimentary" or
sources of energy that make sense in different parts of the country.
Seattle wouldnt do so good with solar, they have clouds all the time.
Coastal cities could make good progress with tidal energy.
Think of the wind that blows across the plains all the time. One
size does not fit all, but we all need oil. Preferably OURS.



You've spoken like someone whose head isn't shoved up her ass. Thank goodness there's someone out there that can still think, rather than being a blowhard. I agree with all you've said, Cat. And we are utterly stupid and arrogant for not doing all of these ions ago. What a bunch of butt wipes we've had in office that have sat on their carcusses and done nothing about it. As one poster said, "we are in a world of hurt." And the screws are tightening around us. :banghead: