+ Reply to Thread
Results 11 to 17 of 17
Thread: Gas prices
04-11-2005 01:21 PM #11
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.
"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.
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.
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"
I'll start with these references:
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:
"China's pollution now second only to that of the US"
"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?
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.
04-11-2005 05:27 PM #12
Like, Georgia, I didn't mean to be argumentative, I just enjoy debates a little more when we can all (hopefully) chuckle a bit.
I love to hear others views even when I disagree. I fundamentally believe that the consumers (population) determine what we do as a nation -- often b/c of their apathy. But when consumers act, look out -- hybrid demand today.
Many of the people on this site are ahead of the curve, but as Joan mentioned, big SUV's are getting ignored more and more by Americans as we as a nation are finally beginning to understand the 'full costs of oil.'
04-11-2005 08:43 PM #13
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.
04-12-2005 08:14 AM #14
Steve, nothing you can say will change Hazy or Hot _G's mind, their for Bush! They can't understand what's real and what's not.
Example, "what do you mean about head in the sand" My God, are these people real? Their smart enough to buy hybrid but can't vote right on the subject!
04-12-2005 07:30 PM #15
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.
04-18-2005 03:50 PM #16
A few who make the so-called "leadership" get & stay entrenched in Washington see Satan & the end of the world. And in that case why would you want to save any natural resources (oil/gas) & why not exploit everything, such as people for one's own self-righteous ends, getting rich & "powerfull" in the process? It's a war or crusade not just on Muslims, but on life itself, which is thought to be the devils realm. And you don't think the genocide on the Palestinians have hothing to do with this, along with giving so much of your tax dollars to Israel (think you Jewish lobby/enablers!). Religion & politics do not work for any nation, especially the world dominate, "good guy" bully, warmonger nation. One can not blame the Democrats for sky high gas prices which will only go up & up, even though their leadership is so lacking. Where's the next war crusade for peace? Iran? Potheads? Hippies? Enviro-nerds? The consumer/middle-class? That would be a good target. Gas price problems are rooted in our spiritual lack/ignorance.
05-27-2005 07:30 PM #17
"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!