Author Topic: Does he have the Cajones... Will he do it? (Read 4509 times)

lazs2 · « **Reply #60 on:** April 24, 2006, 02:22:41 PM »

beet.... no matter what... we will be better off than you are because half the cost of our fuel won't be a socialism tax.

I am not worried about it.

lazs

beet1e · « **Reply #61 on:** April 24, 2006, 02:29:53 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lazs2
beet.... no matter what... we will be better off than you are because half the cost of our fuel won't be a socialism tax.

No, but the other half might be!

Boxboy · « **Reply #62 on:** April 24, 2006, 06:38:23 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by beet1e
Lazs - those alternative energy sources you speak of are not simply going to appear as if by magic. They are going to cost money. Not only that, but the technlogy to harness any new alternative energy source is going to have to be developed. Cars running on a shovel load of oil shale are not going to appear out of thin air. Let's see what happens when gas hits $10/gallon. I think that's exactly what you might see. Sardine can sized cars are exactly what I saw appearing on American roads when I was over there at the time of the 1979 Iranian revolution. Besides, just because a car has a diesel engine does not make it a sardine can. And... as for whether the same cars would sell, we need only look to the sales figures of European imports to the US. I'll do it later.

Do you live in a closet??? Many alternative fuels ALREADY exist in this country and can be made available on a large scale in less than a year.

Already many folks are driving hybred cars here, yes still using fossil fuels but MUCH less of it. We even have some folks, in Colorado I think, running their cars on waste cooking fat.

Hydrogen fuel cells are already on the drawing boards and could be ramped up in a realative short period of time.

As for money it would take you must be joking, we could just cut out some of our "over seas" aid for a month or so and pay for it all

Nashwan · « **Reply #63 on:** April 24, 2006, 07:07:52 PM »

Quote

As for money it would take you must be joking, we could just cut out some of our "over seas" aid for a month or so and pay for it all

How much money do you think the US gives in overseas aid?

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #64 on:** April 24, 2006, 07:11:09 PM »

More than he has in his checking account.

Hangtime · « **Reply #65 on:** April 25, 2006, 01:40:50 AM »

J_A_B · « **Reply #66 on:** April 25, 2006, 01:51:47 AM »

"Let's see what happens when gas hits $10/gallon. I think that's exactly what you might see. Sardine can sized cars are exactly what I saw appearing on American roads when I was over there at the time of the 1979 Iranian revolution."

That represents a decline in the standard of living. It's one of many. While our parents owned large plush Buicks and Oldsmobiles, now we're expected to make do with cramped little Hondas and Totoyas and our kids will be stuck in glorified go-karts.

This isn't "progress".

J_A_B

beet1e · « **Reply #67 on:** April 25, 2006, 04:10:12 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Boxboy
Do you live in a closet??? Many alternative fuels ALREADY exist in this country and can be made available on a large scale in less than a year.

No, I don't live in a closet - but I'm wondering if some people do. I have just come from a thread in which RedTop suggests that many people were caught with their pants down in the recent wave of gas price shocks, which would suggest that take up of vehicles powered by alternative fuels is somewhat limited. You are right though, and LNG (liquid natural gas) is sold alongside petrol and diesel at many filling stations around here. A lot of buses use it - you can smell the difference... But I think it's going to be a while before we see large scale deployment, especially while they're still selling Dodge Ram trucks that get 9mpg. Oh yes! I just checked on http://www.fueleconomy.gov - there's a version with an 8.3 litre, 10 cylinder engine. FFS! It gets a whopping 12mpg on the highway. It's a 2WD automatic, and its CO2 emissions are off the scale. And yet, in the "gas guzzler" attribute in the listing, it says NO!

Quote

That represents a decline in the standard of living. It's one of many. While our parents owned large plush Buicks and Oldsmobiles, now we're expected to make do with cramped little Hondas and Totoyas and our kids will be stuck in glorified go-karts. This isn't "progress".

I know, J_A_B. But you have to accept that America has been a gas pig (as Yeager1 put it) for 40-50 years. Your whole economy has been based on cheap energy - cheap oil. Back in your parents' day, it was quite acceptable for cars to get single digit mpg figures, because when gas gost 10 cents a gallon, it simply "didn't matter". But - the rest of the world looked on in astonishment, that much I can tell you! My dad used to call those cars "hotels on wheels"!

But now things are changing, and America is going to have to catch up to the rest of the world and do what the rest of the world has always done and drive... "sensible" cars. This 9mpg nonsense (8.3L V10 Dodge Ram) simply cannot continue. Hey, I'm a big guy (6ft 1in and 100Kg.) and I don't feel cramped in my aluminium can, so I don't think there's any real hardship.

J_A_B · « **Reply #68 on:** April 25, 2006, 05:05:57 AM »

A better solution would be to identify and exploit a different energy source that has growth potential to maintain or improve the standard of living. I'm sure even you agree that a reduction of the rate at which we consume petroleum is at best a temporary solution, and as such not really a solution at all. Reducing consumption only takes the real problem and shifts the burden of finding a solution to the next generation to follow.

I don't believe the price per barrel is the sole reason for the pump-price increases we've seen. It's a contributor, sure, but it can't be the sole reason. If it was, the oil companies would simply be passing on the costs and wouldn't be enjoying their record profits. they wouldn't be closing down refineries in a period of rising demand. Where did regulation of this kind of corporate gluttony go? Oh yeah, Reagan killed it twenty years ago.

What has happened to the world? We're constantly being told "your standard of living is going downhill and you HAVE TO ACCEPT IT". That's utter rubbish. I'm watching as all the social advances made over the last century are gradually being whittled away. Wages aren't keeping pace with inflation, workweeks are gradually creeping upward, savings are near all-time lows, and affordable luxury household items are giving way to poorly-made "efficiency" junk. To heck with that. To heck with taking it.

I have two sets of silverware. One set is a few years old, and the "stainless steel" pieces are flimsy (for god's sake, the spoons bend when I scoop ice cream) and in some cases rusty. The other set was made in the 1920's, and the pieces don't bend and look brand new. Is this "progress"? The fan in my bedroom is from the 1950's and works great. The fans I can buy at Wal-Mart are lucky to last a year. Is that progress? In the course of a decade, my phone bill for the same basic service has more than tripled--is that progress? What has happened to our social structure? Families are giving way to latchkey lives. Heck, my own worthless parents (baby boomers, unsurprisingly) dumped me onto my grandparents to raise. Is that progress? For every step our society takes forward, these days we take two steps back.

I'll buy a horse-drawn buggy before buying one of those "smart" go-kart things pictured in that other thread. I might have little choice but to eventually bend to the times we live in, but I'll be damned if I willingly surrender to it.

J_A_B

beet1e · « **Reply #69 on:** April 25, 2006, 06:08:47 AM »

J_A_B

I think one of the best reasons for cutting consumption right now is cost. We have two gas price threads going, and in both of them we can see quite a few people who are suffering some degree of financial hardship because of the rising prices. It may only be a temporary solution with regard to the world's oil resources becoming depleted, which they eventually will in ~30 years, but it would provide immediate financial relief to those feeling the pinch. I know it will be hard to swallow for some, if their neighbour has a brand new 9mpg (8.3L V10 version) Dodge Ram 1500 pickup truck parked on his drive.

You mentioned silverware - I think the quality of furniture is another example. I bought some temporary bedside cabinets about a year ago. They looked OK (pine effect) but they were just chipboard with a pine veneer, and the back was just a piece of hardboard nailed on. They're going! I now have some solid pine unit that my uncle has given me because he no longer needs them. Much better quality, but much older of course.

As for cars, I think the cars we have now are far better than cars like my dad's P4 Rovers of the 1950s, which were quite up market in their day. Now we have much safer cars (crumple zones and all that) collapsible steering column, seat belts, and air bags. Power steering, servo assisted brakes and radial tyres are all pretty much standard these days, as are multi speed wipers with variable intermittent, electronic climate control with air conditioning and a multi speed fan, electric windows, heated rear window, central locking with doors that lock automatically as you pull away, a beefy electrical system with 120 amp alternator , adjustable seats, tinted windows - the list goes on and on. My 2005 car has all of these things. Dad's P4 Rovers had none of these things.

Nashwan · « **Reply #70 on:** April 25, 2006, 07:11:46 AM »

Quote

I don't believe the price per barrel is the sole reason for the pump-price increases we've seen. It's a contributor, sure, but it can't be the sole reason. If it was, the oil companies would simply be passing on the costs and wouldn't be enjoying their record profits.

It is down to the increase in crude oil prices.

The reason oil companies are making large profits is because they produce the crude. In many cases, they don't get the full price of the oil they pump, they have to pay taxes and royalties to landowners and governments, but they are still getting a lot more for the oil they pump than they used to.

J_A_B · « **Reply #71 on:** April 25, 2006, 08:00:40 AM »

"I know it will be hard to swallow for some, if their neighbour has a brand new 9mpg (8.3L V10 version) Dodge Ram 1500 pickup truck parked on his drive. "

The tragic part of that is how some 5-axle trucks often make 7 MPG or more.

Nashwan--call me a commie, but I don't believe laissez-faire "what the market will bear" pricing is an ideal situation for vital commodities. If we had done things right back when we were developing the oilfields, the fuel companies would be nationalized and the global oil market wouldn't be an issue because Shell/Exxon/BP/etc wouldn't be permitted to sell to anyone except their own countries. Downside: Some of the newer developing countries like China would've been out of luck in that scenario. Other downside: The corporations wouldn't make as much profit. Boo hoo.

Obviously today is too late for that to happen. We let the corporations have free reign over a globalizing economy without securing our own production source, and now we're stuck with the consequences. We can either pay whatever they ask, or go without. In another couple decades, due to the loss of our manufacturing base, I can see this exact same issue happening with commodities such as steel and possibly textiles.

J_A_B

lazs2 · « **Reply #72 on:** April 25, 2006, 08:09:10 AM »

beet... you missed my point... let the oil prices go where they must.. I bet we can turn on a dime so far as distribution of other fuel sources tho.... no problem... my point is that if we are stuck in sardine cans because of high fuel prices then you will be in matchbox cars..

my point is that socialism and taxes that make your fuel twice as expensive as ours will allways mean that you will be twice as bad off.... if we decline in standard of living it means you end up in the slums.

lazs

Nashwan · « **Reply #73 on:** April 25, 2006, 08:10:09 AM »

Quote

and the global oil market wouldn't be an issue because Shell/Exxon/BP/etc wouldn't be permitted to sell to anyone except their own countries

If governments set the price of oil, what do you think you'd be paying? After all, it's the governments of Mexico, Canada, Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, Nigeria etc that you'd be paying it to. Think they'd charge you $60 a barrel?

Truth is, oil is a sellers market at the moment, and whilst the American government would be able to control the price for American oil, that makes up a lot less than half of what you use. The other countries you're buying from would want what they could get, and would be happy to sell to the Chinese or Europeans or Japanese rather than the US, if they offered more.

J_A_B · « **Reply #74 on:** April 25, 2006, 08:24:36 AM »

"After all, it's the governments of Mexico, Canada, Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, Nigeria etc that you'd be paying it to."

We should have replaced some of those weaker countries with puppet governments back in the days when we could get away with such things. In other words, we should have placed ourselves in a position to control the production. When we wanted to build a canal through central america and Colombia wouldn't cooperate, what did we do? We encouraged a little revolution and the foundation of a more US-friendly country.

However, that's nothing more than useless "would have, should have" discussion. Iraq presented a golden opportunity to do that sort of thing (and likely the last such opportunity we'll ever have), but of course our idiot government failed to capitalize on it. I agree that due to the past mistakes, for the time being we're stuck with the situation we have.

We should be investing in alternative energy sources (either additional sources of petroleum or different types of energy entirely), but the government seems disinterested and the oil companies are obviously in no hurry to do anything which might reduce their record profits.

J_A_B