Ship of Fools
by George Ochenski
Where the price of gas comes home to roost
Anybody out there noticing anything odd about what happens when you head down to the gas station these days? You know, that sudden feeling of lightness that comes about after you look at the unbelievable prices on the pump and realize your wallet has just been lightened by about twice what it used to cost to fill the same tank only a year ago. Instead of perceiving the ways in which skyrocketing energy prices will significantly and negatively affect our society, our so-called leaders seem intent on “staying the course”-straight into the maw of the coming disaster.
Just this week, for instance, front-page articles in Montana’s local newspapers are lamenting what the cost of fuel is doing to school budgets. The obvious rise in diesel has thrown school busing costs right off the charts. And in Montana, busing kids to school from ever farther distances as sprawl fills our valleys is a reality no one can deny. Where will the new tax revenue to make up for the sudden price gap between budgeted costs and the unexpectedly high prices come from?
Lurking only a few short months down the line is what will happen this winter, when prices for natural gas are predicted to follow a meteoric rise similar to what we are now experiencing with petroleum. Considering that natural gas is used to heat most of our schools, what happens then?
Traditionally, schools turn to “emergency” tax levies to fill such budget gaps. But this time the budget gap is not a school-specific problem-it’s an across-the-board societal nightmare for which we are almost totally unprepared.
As anyone will readily tell you, getting around in Montana takes some driving. We think almost nothing-or at least, we used to think almost nothing-of driving several hundred miles to see relatives or friends, spend a weekend off hunting, camping, fishing, skiing-or just to look around at the wonder and splendor of our huge, beautiful state.
But now things are a little different, aren’t they? If you want to jump in that pickup or SUV and toodle off for several hundred miles in each direction, you’d best be stocking up on the moola, because it’s going to cost you plenty just to keep the cylinders firing. Toss on the fifth wheeler, hitch up the boat or fire up the old RV, and the mileage goes down and down while the costs go up and up.
Meanwhile, back at the old homestead, the rumors from the energy arena say natural gas is jumping upward toward $10 a decatherm-about twice what it used to cost-and may go higher come winter’s demand. So, Montanans, take a look at last winter’s utility bill and do the math. I guarantee you, it won’t be pretty.
Nor do energy costs exist in a vacuum. Every time you spend twice what it used to cost to fill your rig, that’s money you don’t have to spend on other things-be they necessities or luxuries. When you take two twenties (or three or four) out of the old wallet at the gas pump, that means you won’t be spending those twenties anywhere else. Not for medicine, not for movies, not for eating out or partying on. That money is gone to the bottomless pit of the energy corporations that are running this country under the corrupt leadership of George W. Bush, and it ain’t coming back.
Unfortunately, the ripple effect will go outward through all the societal sectors. Even more unfortunate is the effect on Montanans, thanks to our geographic isolation and long, harsh winters. Anything that comes into our state, from food to manufactured goods to fertilizer, will have to make up for inflated transportation costs at the check-out stand. Anything that goes out of our state will likewise wind up costing Montanans more to ship, creating a competitive disadvantage because of our distance from major markets.
As an added reality, we can expect that Montana’s distance from the tourists who flood the state during the summer will also be a factor in our future economy. Given the sticker shock for filling up at the pump these days, driving a big RV across the Great Plains for a couple days just to get to Montana for a week’s vacation begins to look less than attractive, if not downright foolish.
Now, let’s factor in that ever-present reality: Montana’s incredibly low per-capita income. Just last week there was an article on what a great place Montana is to do business, because people will work for so little here. But what happens when you try to stretch those scarce dollars to cover the rising cost of everything you need just to survive? The sad truth is that for far too many Montanans, our minimal incomes will simply not be able to keep up with the demands being placed upon us. Many will have to make the choice between heating and eating, between taking the kids to the doctor or paying the utility bill-let alone voting for new school levies.
Which brings us right back to “staying the course.” The grim truth is that many, if not most, of the problems brought on by skyrocketing fuel prices are firmly rooted in George W. Bush’s wars of aggression throughout the petroleum-producing countries of the world. He has destabilized world energy markets through his blundering foreign policy, and while that’s been great for his cronies in the energy business, it’s crippling for nearly everyone else.
Sooner rather than later, our politicians are going to have to start leading by rejecting Bush’s foolish, consumption-heavy policies, and demanding an immediate reduction in our insane level of international aggression and defense spending.
But so far, realistic political leadership is as rare as $1.19/gal. gas. Our ship of fools blunders on blindly through the fog-and the reef lies just ahead.
Gas prices :: Montana
Moderators: rtb, kmax, SonomaCat
-
iaafan
- Golden Bobcat
- Posts: 7666
- Joined: Mon May 03, 2004 12:44 pm
Summer of Our Discontent
For the last few months there has been a running debate about the U.S. economy, more or less like this:
American families: "We're not doing very well."
Washington officials: "You're wrong - you're doing great. Here, look at these statistics!"
The administration and some political commentators seem genuinely puzzled by polls showing that Americans are unhappy about the economy. After all, they point out, numbers like the growth rate of G.D.P. look pretty good. So why aren't people cheering?
Some blame the negative halo effect of the Iraq debacle. Others complain that the news media aren't properly reporting good economic news. But when your numbers tell you that people should be feeling good, but they aren't, that means you're looking at the wrong numbers.
American families don't care about G.D.P. They care about whether jobs are available, how much those jobs pay and how that pay compares with the cost of living. And recent G.D.P. growth has failed to produce exceptional gains in employment, while wages for most workers haven't kept up with inflation.
About employment: it's true that the economy finally started adding jobs two years ago. But although many people say "four million jobs in the last two years" reverently, as if it were an amazing achievement, it's actually a rise of about 3 percent, not much faster than the growth of the working-age population over the same period. And recent job growth would have been considered subpar in the past: employment grew more slowly during the best two years of the Bush administration than in any two years during the Clinton administration.
It's also true that the unemployment rate looks fairly low by historical standards. But other measures of the job situation, like the average of weekly hours worked (which remains low), and the average duration of unemployment (which remains high), suggest that the demand for labor is still weak compared with the supply.
Employers certainly aren't having trouble finding workers. When Wal-Mart announced that it was hiring at a new store in Northern California, where the unemployment rate is close to the national average, about 11,000 people showed up to apply for 400 jobs.
Because employers don't have to raise wages to get workers, wages are lagging behind the cost of living. According to Labor Department statistics, the purchasing power of an average nonsupervisory worker's wage has fallen about 1.5 percent since the summer of 2003. And this may understate the pressure on many families: the cost of living has risen sharply for those whose work or family situation requires buying a lot of gasoline.
Some commentators dismiss concerns about gasoline prices, because those prices are still below previous peaks when you adjust for inflation. But that misses the point: Americans bought cars and made decisions about where to live when gas was $1.50 or less per gallon, and now suddenly find themselves paying $2.60 or more. That's a rude shock, which I estimate raises the typical family's expenses by more than $900 a year.
You may ask where economic growth is going, if it isn't showing up in wages. That's easy to answer: it's going to corporate profits, to rising health care costs and to a surge in the salaries and other compensation of executives. (Forbes reports that the combined compensation of the chief executives of America's 500 largest companies rose 54 percent last year.)
The bottom line, then, is that most Americans have good reason to feel unhappy about the economy, whatever Washington's favorite statistics may say. This is an economic expansion that hasn't trickled down; many people are worse off than they were a year ago. And it will take more than a revamped administration sales pitch to make people feel better.
Corrections: In my column last Friday <http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/19/opini ... ugman.html>, I cited an inaccurate number (given by the Conyers report) for turnout in Ohio's Miami County last year: 98.5 percent. I should have checked the official state site, which reports a reasonable 72.2 percent. Also, the public editor says, rightly, that I should acknowledge initially misstating the results of the 2000 Florida election <http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/22/opini ... ugman.html> study by a media consortium led by The Miami Herald. Unlike a more definitive study by a larger consortium that included The New York Times, an analysis that showed Al Gore winning all statewide manual recounts, the earlier study showed him winning two out of three.
For the last few months there has been a running debate about the U.S. economy, more or less like this:
American families: "We're not doing very well."
Washington officials: "You're wrong - you're doing great. Here, look at these statistics!"
The administration and some political commentators seem genuinely puzzled by polls showing that Americans are unhappy about the economy. After all, they point out, numbers like the growth rate of G.D.P. look pretty good. So why aren't people cheering?
Some blame the negative halo effect of the Iraq debacle. Others complain that the news media aren't properly reporting good economic news. But when your numbers tell you that people should be feeling good, but they aren't, that means you're looking at the wrong numbers.
American families don't care about G.D.P. They care about whether jobs are available, how much those jobs pay and how that pay compares with the cost of living. And recent G.D.P. growth has failed to produce exceptional gains in employment, while wages for most workers haven't kept up with inflation.
About employment: it's true that the economy finally started adding jobs two years ago. But although many people say "four million jobs in the last two years" reverently, as if it were an amazing achievement, it's actually a rise of about 3 percent, not much faster than the growth of the working-age population over the same period. And recent job growth would have been considered subpar in the past: employment grew more slowly during the best two years of the Bush administration than in any two years during the Clinton administration.
It's also true that the unemployment rate looks fairly low by historical standards. But other measures of the job situation, like the average of weekly hours worked (which remains low), and the average duration of unemployment (which remains high), suggest that the demand for labor is still weak compared with the supply.
Employers certainly aren't having trouble finding workers. When Wal-Mart announced that it was hiring at a new store in Northern California, where the unemployment rate is close to the national average, about 11,000 people showed up to apply for 400 jobs.
Because employers don't have to raise wages to get workers, wages are lagging behind the cost of living. According to Labor Department statistics, the purchasing power of an average nonsupervisory worker's wage has fallen about 1.5 percent since the summer of 2003. And this may understate the pressure on many families: the cost of living has risen sharply for those whose work or family situation requires buying a lot of gasoline.
Some commentators dismiss concerns about gasoline prices, because those prices are still below previous peaks when you adjust for inflation. But that misses the point: Americans bought cars and made decisions about where to live when gas was $1.50 or less per gallon, and now suddenly find themselves paying $2.60 or more. That's a rude shock, which I estimate raises the typical family's expenses by more than $900 a year.
You may ask where economic growth is going, if it isn't showing up in wages. That's easy to answer: it's going to corporate profits, to rising health care costs and to a surge in the salaries and other compensation of executives. (Forbes reports that the combined compensation of the chief executives of America's 500 largest companies rose 54 percent last year.)
The bottom line, then, is that most Americans have good reason to feel unhappy about the economy, whatever Washington's favorite statistics may say. This is an economic expansion that hasn't trickled down; many people are worse off than they were a year ago. And it will take more than a revamped administration sales pitch to make people feel better.
Corrections: In my column last Friday <http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/19/opini ... ugman.html>, I cited an inaccurate number (given by the Conyers report) for turnout in Ohio's Miami County last year: 98.5 percent. I should have checked the official state site, which reports a reasonable 72.2 percent. Also, the public editor says, rightly, that I should acknowledge initially misstating the results of the 2000 Florida election <http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/22/opini ... ugman.html> study by a media consortium led by The Miami Herald. Unlike a more definitive study by a larger consortium that included The New York Times, an analysis that showed Al Gore winning all statewide manual recounts, the earlier study showed him winning two out of three.
-
'93HonoluluCat
- BobcatNation Team Captain
- Posts: 433
- Joined: Tue Sep 14, 2004 3:12 am
- Location: Honolulu, HI
-
'93HonoluluCat
- BobcatNation Team Captain
- Posts: 433
- Joined: Tue Sep 14, 2004 3:12 am
- Location: Honolulu, HI
-
Cat Grad
- Golden Bobcat
- Posts: 7463
- Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2004 11:05 am
...in 78, 79, 80 and the first part of 81 I paid $1.31 per gallon from the p.x. station in Ft. Stewart. Off base gas was over $1.50. Adjust that for inflation and consider what the Chinese usage is doing to the demand while you're at it. At least some of our wells are being uncapped in Eastern Montana finally. Perhaps our stae legislature can manage to meet and adjust the tax on a barrel of oil--nah 
-
Bleedinbluengold
- BobcatNation Hall of Famer
- Posts: 3427
- Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2004 10:24 am
- Location: Belly of the Beast
Let me simplify iaa's articles:
Ochenski (he writes a weekly crack-me-up piece in the Independent) is a bleeding heart liberal and despises Bush, corporations and especially oil corporations. He doesn't like high gas prices, and he blames all of the above. In fact, anything bad that happens, he blames on the above.
Not sure who wrote the next article: When the data doesn't back up your political beliefs, spends hours mining other data that does, and then try to convince someone that you're right - but really, you end up just preaching to the choir.
In summary: Gas prices are high - and NEWSFLASH! they are going to top out at about $3/gal. The sooner you make peace with that "reality" the sooner you can adjust the way you live.
The sooner our federal gov't spends billions on alternative energy projects, rather than stupid Homeland Spending things, the better.
Ochenski (he writes a weekly crack-me-up piece in the Independent) is a bleeding heart liberal and despises Bush, corporations and especially oil corporations. He doesn't like high gas prices, and he blames all of the above. In fact, anything bad that happens, he blames on the above.
Not sure who wrote the next article: When the data doesn't back up your political beliefs, spends hours mining other data that does, and then try to convince someone that you're right - but really, you end up just preaching to the choir.
In summary: Gas prices are high - and NEWSFLASH! they are going to top out at about $3/gal. The sooner you make peace with that "reality" the sooner you can adjust the way you live.
The sooner our federal gov't spends billions on alternative energy projects, rather than stupid Homeland Spending things, the better.
Montana State IS what "they" think Montana is.
-
iaafan
- Golden Bobcat
- Posts: 7666
- Joined: Mon May 03, 2004 12:44 pm
BleedingHeartLiberal and BleedinBluenGold.
Actually I'd "kind of" like to see gas prices soar. That may force people to quit driving single occupant vehicles for the daily commutes and force auto manuf. to start putting more hybrid vehicles in the show room.
I placed these articles in because they are about all I found on the subject matter. The conservatives sites are avoiding the subject or I don't know where to look. Please 'spin' onto this thread. Nothing's stopping you.
Actually I'd "kind of" like to see gas prices soar. That may force people to quit driving single occupant vehicles for the daily commutes and force auto manuf. to start putting more hybrid vehicles in the show room.
I placed these articles in because they are about all I found on the subject matter. The conservatives sites are avoiding the subject or I don't know where to look. Please 'spin' onto this thread. Nothing's stopping you.
-
'93HonoluluCat
- BobcatNation Team Captain
- Posts: 433
- Joined: Tue Sep 14, 2004 3:12 am
- Location: Honolulu, HI
Here's my spin. Not that many would care, but 1AA Fan kind of opened the door for me.
I'm not concerned about fossil fuels for the typical "green" reasons. The only reason I would be interested in a hybrid vehicle is for purely economical reasons. The hybrids that are out there, though, are not efficient enough to justify the extra cost.
I'm not concerned about fossil fuels for the typical "green" reasons. The only reason I would be interested in a hybrid vehicle is for purely economical reasons. The hybrids that are out there, though, are not efficient enough to justify the extra cost.
-
SonomaCat
- Moderator
- Posts: 24000
- Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 7:56 pm
- Location: Sonoma County, CA
- Contact:
That's an interesting statement. I can understand people saying that, although they would rather pollute less than more, they simply can't afford to pollute less (need a big vehicle, believe they need a tank to keep little Billy safe in the back seat, etc.). When you say you're not concerned for green reasons, does that mean that you don't think that burning fossil fuels has any negative impact on our environment at all?'93HonoluluCat wrote:Here's my spin. Not that many would care, but 1AA Fan kind of opened the door for me.
I'm not concerned about fossil fuels for the typical "green" reasons. The only reason I would be interested in a hybrid vehicle is for purely economical reasons. The hybrids that are out there, though, are not efficient enough to justify the extra cost.
I'm only asking as I've never heard anybody word it quite that way before, and I suspect that you might have a unique take on the subject.
-
'93HonoluluCat
- BobcatNation Team Captain
- Posts: 433
- Joined: Tue Sep 14, 2004 3:12 am
- Location: Honolulu, HI
It doesn't damage the environment any more than other things--somewhere I've read that general aviation is a bad pollution source--and I think the large vehicles are just a convenient target for Greenpeace, Sierra Club, et al, to go after.Bay Area Cat wrote:That's an interesting statement. I can understand people saying that, although they would rather pollute less than more, they simply can't afford to pollute less (need a big vehicle, believe they need a tank to keep little Billy safe in the back seat, etc.). When you say you're not concerned for green reasons, does that mean that you don't think that burning fossil fuels has any negative impact on our environment at all?'93HonoluluCat wrote:Here's my spin. Not that many would care, but 1AA Fan kind of opened the door for me.
I'm not concerned about fossil fuels for the typical "green" reasons. The only reason I would be interested in a hybrid vehicle is for purely economical reasons. The hybrids that are out there, though, are not efficient enough to justify the extra cost.
I'm only asking as I've never heard anybody word it quite that way before, and I suspect that you might have a unique take on the subject.
Let me caveat this by saying that I do not dispute the poor quality of air and water in some parts of the planet. I also do not dispute littering is terrible, selfish, lazy, and disrespectful to others.
Most of my belief comes from a statement by NOAA in 1998 that there has been no temperature increase on a global climatological scale since 1898.
To make sure this isn't just "one of 93HC's hare-brained thoughts," I've provided a couple of links:
http://www.totse.com/en/politics/green_ ... rming.html
http://www.rense.com/politics6/mythmnmade.htm
No doubt anyone could visit Google and find more of the same (Google counts 12.6 million pages when asked about "global warming")--and could even find lots of sites that debunk what is said in the two links above. The number of information on the internet on both sides of the global warming debate leads me to think we don't really know what we think we know. A lot more debate, and less enviro-proselytizing, needs to happen before we accuse others of "killing trees" or "melting the polar ice caps."
-
iaafan
- Golden Bobcat
- Posts: 7666
- Joined: Mon May 03, 2004 12:44 pm
The argument about hybrids goes many ways. Some will argue that if we all had hybrids, we'd just drive that much more. Maybe. But I really have no desire to just drive for the sake of driving, driving is somewhat dangerous and the experience isn't always great.
Others argue that the cost of the Honda Civic hybrid is so much more than the regular Civic that the money you save on gas doesn't displace the Civic sticker cost. Maybe. Depends on how miles you get out of it.
But I'd think the if the manufactures would commit to building mostly hybrids the cost per unit would come down to a point that makes it decidely more efficient and economical.
There are other issues. The point, and the real issue, is decreasing American dependence on oil. Whether you drive a hybrid or car pool or bike or ride transit. The day will come when these decisions will weigh heavily on our minds.
Others argue that the cost of the Honda Civic hybrid is so much more than the regular Civic that the money you save on gas doesn't displace the Civic sticker cost. Maybe. Depends on how miles you get out of it.
But I'd think the if the manufactures would commit to building mostly hybrids the cost per unit would come down to a point that makes it decidely more efficient and economical.
There are other issues. The point, and the real issue, is decreasing American dependence on oil. Whether you drive a hybrid or car pool or bike or ride transit. The day will come when these decisions will weigh heavily on our minds.
-
'93HonoluluCat
- BobcatNation Team Captain
- Posts: 433
- Joined: Tue Sep 14, 2004 3:12 am
- Location: Honolulu, HI
-
BobCatFan
- 2nd Team All-BobcatNation
- Posts: 1389
- Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2004 8:28 pm
- Contact:
For all the true believers that think mankind is the only reason why we are experiencing global warming, I have some thoughts to ponder.'93HonoluluCat wrote:Bay Area Cat wrote:That's an interesting statement. I can understand people saying that, although they would rather pollute less than more, they simply can't afford to pollute less (need a big vehicle, believe they need a tank to keep little Billy safe in the back seat, etc.). When you say you're not concerned for green reasons, does that mean that you don't think that burning fossil fuels has any negative impact on our environment at all?'93HonoluluCat wrote:
I'm only asking as I've never heard anybody word it quite that way before, and I suspect that you might have a unique take on the subject.
Most of my belief comes from a statement by NOAA in 1998 that there has been no temperature increase on a global climatological scale since 1898.
To make sure this isn't just "one of 93HC's hare-brained thoughts," I've provided a couple of links:
http://www.totse.com/en/politics/green_ ... rming.html
http://www.rense.com/politics6/mythmnmade.htm
No doubt anyone could visit Google and find more of the same (Google counts 12.6 million pages when asked about "global warming")--and could even find lots of sites that debunk what is said in the two links above. The number of information on the internet on both sides of the global warming debate leads me to think we don't really know what we think we know. A lot more debate, and less enviro-proselytizing, needs to happen before we accuse others of "killing trees" or "melting the polar ice caps."
1. Satellite data does not show any warming. The only warming that is found is with ground-based sites. Why? Could it be that cities produce heat?
2. The ice age ended in 20 years. How did mankind end the ice age?
3. Through out Earth's history, global temperatures have changed. If you are a believer, that mankind is the only reason why the climate changes, how can you explain past history.
4. I believe the true cause of global warming is the change of energy being released from the sun and the change in earth's orbit around the sun. Currently the sun spot activity is peaking and for the next 10-20 years, the sun spot activity will decrease. Thus, the energy being released from the sun will decrease. Secondly, The earth's orbit is not a perfect circle around the sun. The closer we get to the sun the more energy the earth receives. The earth’s orbit is oblong in a 26,000-year cycle. Currently we are nearest to the sun that we get in the Earth’s oblong orbit.
5. What is wrong with a warmer and wetter climate anyway?
-
gtapp
- Golden Bobcat
- Posts: 4981
- Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2004 2:09 pm
- Location: Minneapolis, MN
Most of us who live in northern climates would appreciate a warmer winter. I am not so sure about a warmer summer though. Can we pollute just enough to increase winter temps but not summer temps?
Even if data proved that vehicle emissions was the sole direct cause of global warming I would still want to drive a suburban with an 800 cu-in motor with twin turbo's.
Even if data proved that vehicle emissions was the sole direct cause of global warming I would still want to drive a suburban with an 800 cu-in motor with twin turbo's.
Gary Tapp
Graduated MSU 1981
Hamilton High School
Minneapolis, MN
Graduated MSU 1981
Hamilton High School
Minneapolis, MN
-
SonomaCat
- Moderator
- Posts: 24000
- Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 7:56 pm
- Location: Sonoma County, CA
- Contact:
I'm not convinced either way about global warming. There does definitely appear to be a slight warming trend over the last 100 years. It could be natural and it could be due to us. If it is due to us, and the pace of the warming continues, we're f**** if we don't do something. It's not so much about a linear increase in temperatures -- I could handle a few degrees of warmer temperature. The scary part is that if the oceans warm up (which are the mechanism for all weather and serve as a natural radiator of sorts) and the ice caps melt, the world's currents change, which could lead to catostrophic changes in the climate. It wouldn't necessarily just be warmer and wetter -- it could likely be the creation of deserts in places that are fertile now, and a massive loss of habitable land.
So in terms of erring on the safe side, I would hope that we would go under the assumption that we are the cause and act accordingly as opposed to assuming the opposite. The downside of us doing nothing about emissions and being wrong is much larger than if we as proactively tryied to cut back on our emmissions and later realized that they had nothing to do with global warming.
Besides, at the end of the day, if we have a choice between polluting (as internal combustion cars obviously do), or not polluting, even without the threat of global warming, the choice is obvious for so many other reasons. So even if global warming is a total myth, striving to increase the fuel efficiency (or changing to alternative energy fuel sources) is clearly where we want to be going. Even if one's vision of a perfect planet is a smog covered desert, then we can still point to national security and a desire to no longer depend on foreign oil as a trump card reason (aka the Republican way to state the obvious fact that we need to cut back on oil consumption without pissing off the Republican benefactors that own oil companies).
So in terms of erring on the safe side, I would hope that we would go under the assumption that we are the cause and act accordingly as opposed to assuming the opposite. The downside of us doing nothing about emissions and being wrong is much larger than if we as proactively tryied to cut back on our emmissions and later realized that they had nothing to do with global warming.
Besides, at the end of the day, if we have a choice between polluting (as internal combustion cars obviously do), or not polluting, even without the threat of global warming, the choice is obvious for so many other reasons. So even if global warming is a total myth, striving to increase the fuel efficiency (or changing to alternative energy fuel sources) is clearly where we want to be going. Even if one's vision of a perfect planet is a smog covered desert, then we can still point to national security and a desire to no longer depend on foreign oil as a trump card reason (aka the Republican way to state the obvious fact that we need to cut back on oil consumption without pissing off the Republican benefactors that own oil companies).
-
'93HonoluluCat
- BobcatNation Team Captain
- Posts: 433
- Joined: Tue Sep 14, 2004 3:12 am
- Location: Honolulu, HI
Absolutely agree. But on a personal economic point-of-view, the cost savings just isn't there yet. On a "homeland security" note, we could help ourselves out a lot by opening ANWR, and uncapping wells that are currently capped.Bay Area Cat wrote: So even if global warming is a total myth, striving to increase the fuel efficiency (or changing to alternative energy fuel sources) is clearly where we want to be going. Even if one's vision of a perfect planet is a smog covered desert, then we can still point to national security and a desire to no longer depend on foreign oil as a trump card reason (aka the Republican way to state the obvious fact that we need to cut back on oil consumption without pissing off the Republican benefactors that own oil companies).
Regardless, the folks in the Middle East don't like us because we buy their oil. They wouldn't like us any more if we didn't buy their oil. They just don't like us.
-
SonomaCat
- Moderator
- Posts: 24000
- Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 7:56 pm
- Location: Sonoma County, CA
- Contact:
We wouldn't have to care whether they liked us if we didn't need their oil, though. Sans oil, there's no reason why we can't just let them live in the stone age (as without oil, they have no wealth) and car bomb each other into oblivion without getting us involved. Outside of our need for their oil, the Western world would have no interest whatsoever with the Middle East, and I think most everyone (them and us) would be perfectly content with that solution.
I agree with drilling in ANWR. I think the suggestions of ecological catastrophe from those making them are quite disingenuous for the most part. It could certainly be done without harming wildlife or any other aspect of the environmnet in any material way.
I think both extremes are partially right and partially wrong on the energy issue. I think we should drill in the U.S. where we can (as long as it can be done without harming the environment, which I think we are capable to doing) -- we need to oil in the near term. However, I also think we should be actively developing technologies to bring us to a point where we can eventually wean ourselves off of oil completely (or in large part).
I agree with drilling in ANWR. I think the suggestions of ecological catastrophe from those making them are quite disingenuous for the most part. It could certainly be done without harming wildlife or any other aspect of the environmnet in any material way.
I think both extremes are partially right and partially wrong on the energy issue. I think we should drill in the U.S. where we can (as long as it can be done without harming the environment, which I think we are capable to doing) -- we need to oil in the near term. However, I also think we should be actively developing technologies to bring us to a point where we can eventually wean ourselves off of oil completely (or in large part).
Last edited by SonomaCat on Sun Aug 28, 2005 4:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
Hell's Bells
- Golden Bobcat
- Posts: 4692
- Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 11:58 pm
- Location: Belgrade, Mt.
- Contact:
if we all drove hibreds we will be in this same situation in 6 yearsiaafan wrote:The argument about hybrids goes many ways. Some will argue that if we all had hybrids, we'd just drive that much more. Maybe. But I really have no desire to just drive for the sake of driving, driving is somewhat dangerous and the experience isn't always great.
Others argue that the cost of the Honda Civic hybrid is so much more than the regular Civic that the money you save on gas doesn't displace the Civic sticker cost. Maybe. Depends on how miles you get out of it.
But I'd think the if the manufactures would commit to building mostly hybrids the cost per unit would come down to a point that makes it decidely more efficient and economical.
There are other issues. The point, and the real issue, is decreasing American dependence on oil. Whether you drive a hybrid or car pool or bike or ride transit. The day will come when these decisions will weigh heavily on our minds.
This space for rent....
-
SonomaCat
- Moderator
- Posts: 24000
- Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 7:56 pm
- Location: Sonoma County, CA
- Contact:
-
Hell's Bells
- Golden Bobcat
- Posts: 4692
- Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 11:58 pm
- Location: Belgrade, Mt.
- Contact:
what im saying is that if we all drove hybreds we would be in the same situation gas price wise like we are now.Bay Area Cat wrote:Well, if we all drove hybrids (and other more fuel efficient vehicles) in six years, we would use a lot less fuel in six years than we would if we didn't drive hybrids, so I'm not sure where you are going with that statement.
we need to develop new sources of energy...now
This space for rent....