Gas prices

What happened? Bush was elected & then reelected!

Consume, consume, consume! That's what is desired from the leadership of the country!

Conserve? What for?

see ya

Do Gary and Steve live in the same country as me? There must be something in their local water supplies.

Consumption happens b/c of consumers, not the government. Ever hear of free will?

And, Joan, are you serious when you ask "And how/why is the American government encouraging this worldwide hyper-consumption of oil? Anyone?"
Is Bush making the Chinese and the Indians consume oil? Was Clinton doing that in the 90s when their economies were growing just as fast?

Ya'll must have a hard time waking up each morning, knowing the sky is about to fall.

Isnt't it interesting tht the only crowd that cries stolen election are the Bush haters, and blame him for practically every evil in the world such as title waves to India and China consuming so much fuel?
Next I suppose is that he had something to do with the Pope's death. Or was that the Florida courts since he was on a feeding tube for a time?

Steve,

"today there's no reason why cars can't all get 30 miles per gallon. even hummers!"

Ok, produce this vehicle and the people will buy it.
Or are you making blind unfactual statements?
Can you show us an example of a Hummer or similar with this efficiency?

"same with polution controls, etc. laws encourage a better society. otherwise we'd still be driving those overweight 6 mile per gallon hot rod's of the 50's."
Not factual. Imagine trying to sell a 6MPG car today.
This is what Castro has in his "workers paradise" and he is loaded with laws.

"drilling more oil is nice"

Drilling for more oil = more independance from forein oil. Conservative estimates indicate the ANWR reserves would replace all Soudi oil for the next 30 years. This is more than just "nice" and gives us more time to develop an alternative. We have huge capped reserves right here on our soil and many estimates indicate a larger oil reserve right here in our Golf of Mexico than in the Middle East.

"doing nothing to encourage conservation is short sighted"

Is sponsoring hydrogen fuel "nothing"?
Is providing a tax reduction for the purchase of hybrid vehicles "nothing"?
It's truly amazing that today I bought a 5 passenger vehicle and am getting over 60MPG with it.
How about more extreme pollution laws.
I guess that's all nothing.

I haven't researched all the government is doing to conserve but I'll bet I could find a very, very long list.

The world is not coming to an end, we don't have to live in doom-and-gloom, as we have a bright and truly wonderful future to look forward to.

Dazy, if you live in the post election country of Dumbassistan (Red States) and don't live in the USA (Blue States), then yes, I'm from the same country as you.

BTW, you're right about something in my local water supply. Its called pollution.

"Consumtion happens because of consumers, not the government"

I suppose you'll say the government going to war didn't burn any fuel or start causing pipe lines and storage tanks to be blown up. Do you think this may have cause a shortage or even a rise in prices?

Hot_G, not crying stolen election or blaming Bush for waves to India or anything like that either. Government has to be accountable for its actions. The topic here is gas prices. The question was about our government encouraging hyper consumpion of oil, my point was about Steve's comment of leadership, I don't think we have leadership, just crisis mismanagement.

Fortunatley, I cannot afford not owning a Hybrid because of gas prices. If anyone thinks things are getting better for those that don't have one, fine, I don't. Gas prices are at a breaking point for many Americans already in too much debt. The fact that their gas guzzlers will cost them more and be worth less with higher gas prices, will make the high demand for Hybrids out of reach for them.

Hot_G. you and I own a Hybrid and don't have to live in a world of doom and gloom right now. Putting your head in the sand is not going to help others. You stated "How about more extreme pollutions laws". You have to be kidding, right? What extreme pollution laws did Bush push for?

Joan,
I didn't mean to come off as combative, if I sounded that way I apologize. But I do like a good debate.
Yes, we are and should be concerned about pollution.

Anwar:
http://www.warriorsfortruth.com/alaska-oil-anwar.html

"Recoverable oil estimates ranges from 600 million barrels at the low end to 9.2 billion barrels at the high end. They also reported identifying 26 separate oil and gas prospects in the Coastal Plain that could each contain "super giant" fields (500 million barrels or more)"

The truth is we don't know how much is really up there unless we do more exploritory drilling. How can we claim more oil reserves if we're not even allowed to look anywhere? It would affect only 8% of the 1.5million acres, in areas that more resemble the martian surface no where near the beautiful snow-capped mountains we've seen.

Indeed we do need to drill for more oil, surely not as a solution but to ease the burden of foreign oil while we develop alternative fuel surces.

I've never heard of Bob Brinker but find it interesting that he is suggesting hurting one of the major developers of an alternative fuel car, hydrogen.
Personally I don't mind if someone buys a large, powerful vehicle. As long as they don't complain in my ear about their fuel expenses.

Gary:
I'm not sure what you mean by head in the sand as I have prepared for these high fuel prices long ago, and have moved my family into the countryside where pollution is minimal. (Among many other reasons)
And no, our President has not signed any extreme pollution laws.

Steve,
H2's are averaging more than 6mpg. 10-13, a big difference.
Do a google search for Hummer MPG for confirmation.

"can you start with a review of the Kyoto agreement Bush refused to sign"

Ok.
I'll start with these references:
http://www.ct-yankee.com/manfctry/kyoto.html
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_46_14/ai_53409140

It's interesting that some would put people's heath, wealth and the United States economy at risk while other countries get a free pass:

http://www.climateark.org/articles/reader.asp?linkid=37276

"China's pollution now second only to that of the US"

http://www.iags.org/china.htm

"Its oil consumption grows by 7.5% per year, seven times faster than the U.S."

Where does all that oil go with China's modest at best pollution requrements & enforced standards?
Pollution?

I've read references to scientists who support the man-caused global warming theory claim to stop the effect we must reduce greenhouse gasses by at least 60%, to reverse the effect even more, which the Koyoto treaty would never dream to even close to.
But I guess that too doesn't matter, just that Bush didn't sign.

This is just one of those never-ending debates and I'll just have to agree to dissagree with some of the members here.
Nobody's mind is going to change.

While the MPG rating for a hummer may be posted as 10-13, expect closer to 6 for a typical person’s drive pattern. even my Honda civic hybrid gets 42 while the posting said 48. my location in the hills explains why I don’t get the same miles as flat land driving. Few people hit the posted rating.

Your links sound like “gee – it’s too HARD to change the way we already do business so therefore we CAN’T!

They also say “well if EVERYONE isn’t doing this, then WE don’t sign up either!

And just because china thinks polluting themselves is fine, is no reason to not progress with getting the standards improved for usa.

The claim that small cars are more unsafe is pretty old. While it may be basic physics that big cars crush small cars, small car safety in the past 30 years has improved in leaps. I am living proof that small cars safety – and seat belts – works! I walked away from a small car total crash in 1981. way before airbags were invented.

When rules change, engineers go to work to meet them. The diesel changes that just went into affect this past year were initiated some 6 years ago. (I worked in that industry).

Years back California passed, as part of continuing air quality rules, requirement that in one area affected the electronics industry – solder & flux. Until then the chemistry was “the same it’s always been”. ~ something people that don’t want change always cry. Today they use a water based flux. Without the rules change, ie: incentive, nothing would happen. And while these changes may start in California they are frequently adopted across the country once proven in California. “old fashion” bar-b-q starter fluid is getting hard to find now that wax based starter fluid has been all that’s allowed in California for the past 10 years.

Today it seems we are even against employing engineers to do these tasks. Perhaps that might be the root of these “we can’t do it” claims. USA companies do not want to spend ANY cash to improve their designs. That’s why we outsource so much. That’s why the typical engineering department that was some 60 to 100 people 30 years ago today consists of usually 10 people.

From your links (one of those “sky is falling” sites) – all frequently disputed by opposing arguments:
1. It has not been proven that man-made carbon dioxide is contributing to global warming. Earth got out of the last Ice Age just fine, thank you, with at most the help of a few cavemen's camp fires. The current warming trend might be part of a natural cycle.
2. Even if man-made carbon dioxide is contributing to global warming, the Kyoto Treaty will do absolutely nothing to solve the problem. Third World nations like China are not subject to the treaty's carbon dioxide limits. Enactment of Kyoto (or legislated limits on carbon dioxide, as contemplated in California) will simply encourage businesses to move even more manufacturing jobs offshore, thus destroying American jobs. The jobs will go to places like China, which will pump not only the same amount of carbon dioxide up their smokestacks, but also toxic pollutants that American companies do not emit.
3. Some of the treaty's most vocal advocates are from South American countries that burn down rainforests to clear land for agriculture. Their rampant destruction of "the world's lungs," as some call these rainforests, is prima facie evidence that many of Kyoto's most ardent supporters do not consider global warming a serious threat.
Another one of your links:
Kyoto compliance likely will involve requiring automakers to increase their cars' fuel efficiency. How? By building smaller, lighter vehicles. The Sierra Club calls this "the biggest step to curbing global warming." But what if your car crashes? Despite air bags and tougher, lighter materials, collisions in smaller cars usually mean trouble. In 1991, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration concluded that the federally mandated drop in vehicle weights -- from about 3,700 to 2,700 pounds in the 1970s -- boosted highway fatalities by 2,000 annually and serious injuries by 20,000. Similarly, mandating average fuel-economy standards from 27.5 miles per gallon today to 40 mpg under Kyoto could cause an additional 1,650 traffic deaths and 8,000 more serious injuries each year.

I want high prices so we can have enough money going to Muslim countries so that they can stop anti-Muslim nations from destroying. The single biggest threat to the world is all the nations of the world trying to wipe out the more than 1 billion Muslims of the world. That's genocide. Islam is a religion of peace but they will defend themselves from genocidal invaders if needed.

"I want high prices so we can have enough money going to Muslim countries so that they can stop anti-Muslim nations from destroying. The single biggest threat to the world is all the nations of the world trying to wipe out the more than 1 billion Muslims of the world. That's genocide. Islam is a religion of peace but they will defend themselves from genocidal invaders if needed."

What the hell is that???? Are you a complete moron?!?!?!

You want high fuel prices so there is $$$ going to Muslim countries to stop "anti-Muslim" nations from destroying Islam? So, what you basically saying is that you support the current method of extracting some of the $$$ from oil sales and funneling through extremist groups that seem to accomplish nothing outside of killing innocent people (mostly other Muslims these days)???

How about wanting peace? How about wanting a new technology to fuel industry rather than oil? You think that it's about exterminating Muslims, but it's really about installing "democratic" oil-friendly governments.

It comes down to resources my friend... Wars are not fought over ideals, they are fought over resources! It is the nature of man to want what others have, and take it by force if necessary. The only major difference these days is the amount of time, effort and energy put into creating a reason for invading a country and getting your population to follow you like sheep.

If we can get rid of oil dependence all together, no one will want to bother with Muslim countries, as there will be no major resources up for grabs. (Unless sand becomes a commodity)

I hate the nature of man!

You think it's because you're Muslim?

No my friend... It's because a very large portion of the world’s most valuable consumable resource sits on soil that is controlled by Muslims!

The leaders of my country are slick to attach the "Christian" message to our crusades as to get the sheep of this country to go along with the program.

It’s been this way for thousands of years…. Nothing has changed!