BrewWench
Well-Known Member
I thought you meant "gas" as in farting when I read the subject line. Pairing that with the mad face was very very funny to me!
well it is their oil
So why cant we pay lower prices with the oil we dril for in Texas, California, Colorado and Alaska, Gulf of Mexico......
Meh I think it should be 10$ a gallon to encourage alternatives.
The less money we give to the middle east the better the world is
Meh I think it should be 10$ a gallon to encourage alternatives.
The less money we give to the middle east the better the world is
Im buying a Schwinn scooter. I am gonna get laughed at sooo bad but I dont care*** I really do care *** but my other mode is a Ford F 250 crew cab diesel lifted w/ some 35'S so 70 MPG is a BIG jump from 15
Diesel here TODAY is 5.30 a gal but tomorrow its gonna be 8.99 Im sure
What scooter are you getting? I getting the Schwinn Valo 150! Hopefully getting it Tuesday!
Yep thats the one!!! comming in June. Oh Im gonna get laughed at!!!! (all the way to the pump) FK the oil co's
JJ
You are aware that the we import most of our oil from Canada with Mexico being second?
This would be the biggest problem. It isn't just gasoline that is rising at an alarming rate, it is everything derived or associated with petroleum.
If gasoline jumps to $10 a gallon what do you think will happen to food, electricity, heating and raw material costs just to name a few. A lot of people are just making it now....if fuel prices make that big of a jump all hell might just break loose.
...
I think about this too, but am not sure it would be a completely bad situation.
That's really a moot point. It's an international economy. America could buy all their oil from Venezuela. All that would do is drive every other country to buy from somewhere else. So the net effect on the flow of money would be nil.
We don't buy oil from Iran, but guess what- everybody else does, so our little "embargo" there really doesn't mean much of anything. Remember the Food for Oil program with Iraq? The freakin French were buying the oil under our noses.
It's a global economy. Where we get "ours" from has to do with logistics more than price. Buying from one source does not deprive the other so long as there are more willing buyers..
Meh I think it should be 10$ a gallon to encourage alternatives.
The less money we give to the middle east the better the world is
I think about this too, but am not sure it would be a completely bad situation. If products have very long shipping routes, perhaps they would become more expensive than local products. Maybe it wouldn't be so cheap to buy produce from central and south america anymore...maybe it would make U.S. products more affordable. Who knows...this might even stimulate locally-grown produce and small local manufacturers of goods. This could happen, but I wonder about how high gas prices will need to get for this to become feasible. If transportation costs get prohibitively expensive for global distribution, maybe we'll see global markets recede...my point is, we'll never find out if oil keeps being cheap and plentiful.
I know a guy who speaks with many people at MIT. He has been saying there will be a complete re-industrialization of the US over the next couple decades due in part to the rising shipping costs. This means fewer imports, greater economic independence for the US and possibly lower costs. It's not that this could happen, its when is it going to happen.
Sounds good. You can pay my heat bill.
[SIZE=+2]Carbon Chastity[/SIZE]
The First Commandment of the Church of the Environment
[SIZE=-1]By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, May 30, 2008; A13
[/SIZE]
I'm not a global warming believer. I'm not a global warming denier. I'm a global warming agnostic who believes instinctively that it can't be very good to pump lots of CO2into the atmosphere but is equally convinced that those who presume to know exactly where that leads are talking through their hats.
Predictions of catastrophe depend on models. Models depend on assumptions about complex planetary systems -- from ocean currents to cloud formation -- that no one fully understands. Which is why the models are inherently flawed and forever changing. The doomsday scenarios posit a cascade of events, each with a certain probability. The multiple improbability of their simultaneous occurrence renders all such predictions entirely speculative.
Yet on the basis of this speculation, environmental activists, attended by compliant scientists and opportunistic politicians, are advocating radical economic and social regulation. "The largest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy and prosperity," warns Czech President Vaclav Klaus, "is no longer socialism. It is, instead, the ambitious, arrogant, unscrupulous ideology of environmentalism."
If you doubt the arrogance, you haven't seen that Newsweek cover story that declared the global warming debate over. Consider: If Newton's laws of motion could, after 200 years of unfailing experimental and experiential confirmation, be overthrown, it requires religious fervor to believe that global warming -- infinitely more untested, complex and speculative -- is a closed issue.
But declaring it closed has its rewards. It not only dismisses skeptics as the running dogs of reaction, i.e., of Exxon, Cheney and now Klaus. By fiat, it also hugely re-empowers the intellectual left.
For a century, an ambitious, arrogant, unscrupulous knowledge class -- social planners, scientists, intellectuals, experts and their left-wing political allies -- arrogated to themselves the right to rule either in the name of the oppressed working class (communism) or, in its more benign form, by virtue of their superior expertise in achieving the highest social progress by means of state planning (socialism).
Two decades ago, however, socialism and communism died rudely, then were buried forever by the empirical demonstration of the superiority of market capitalism everywhere from Thatcher's England to Deng's China, where just the partial abolition of socialism lifted more people out of poverty more rapidly than ever in human history.
Just as the ash heap of history beckoned, the intellectual left was handed the ultimate salvation: environmentalism. Now the experts will regulate your life not in the name of the proletariat or Fabian socialism but -- even better -- in the name of Earth itself.
Environmentalists are Gaia's priests, instructing us in her proper service and casting out those who refuse to genuflect. (See Newsweek above.) And having proclaimed the ultimate commandment -- carbon chastity -- they are preparing the supporting canonical legislation that will tell you how much you can travel, what kind of light you will read by, and at what temperature you may set your bedroom thermostat.
Only Monday, a British parliamentary committee proposed that every citizen be required to carry a carbon card that must be presented, under penalty of law, when buying gasoline, taking an airplane or using electricity. The card contains your yearly carbon ration to be drawn down with every purchase, every trip, every swipe.
There's no greater social power than the power to ration. And, other than rationing food, there is no greater instrument of social control than rationing energy, the currency of just about everything one does and uses in an advanced society.
So what does the global warming agnostic propose as an alternative? First, more research -- untainted and reliable -- to determine (a) whether the carbon footprint of man is or is not lost among the massive natural forces (from sunspot activity to ocean currents) that affect climate, and (b) if the human effect is indeed significant, whether the planetary climate system has the homeostatic mechanisms (like the feedback loops in the human body, for example) with which to compensate.
Second, reduce our carbon footprint in the interim by doing the doable, rather than the economically ruinous and socially destructive. The most obvious step is a major move to nuclear power, which to the atmosphere is the cleanest of the clean.
But your would-be masters have foreseen this contingency. The Church of the Environment promulgates secondary dogmas as well. One of these is a strict nuclear taboo.
Rather convenient, is it not? Take this major coal-substituting fix off the table, and we will be rationing all the more. Guess who does the rationing.
Wait till the government passes the Warner Lieberman bill.
After this passes, we'll all be looking for scooters, those of us still employed.
In addition to consumption going up, our own production is down like 40% in the same time frame.
Who do we thank for no drilling or refineries being built to fuel our country? Lame-ass politicians and people like AlGore with their hidden agenda to bring America down a few notches while they make billions through mandating "alternatives" in which they are heavily invested.
The envirowackos are gleefully rubbing their hands at the thought of less consumption due to $6 a gallon gasoline, but they never think of unintended consequences like tanking the economy, airlines going under, people losing their jobs and making people go hungry.
The Gas Prices We Deserve
By George Will
WASHINGTON -- Rising in the Senate on May 13, Chuck Schumer, the New York Democrat, explained: "I rise to discuss rising energy prices." The president was heading to Saudi Arabia to seek an increase in its oil production, and Schumer's gorge was rising.
Saudi Arabia, he said, "holds the key to reducing gasoline prices at home in the short term." Therefore arms sales to that kingdom should be blocked unless it "increases its oil production by one million barrels per day," which would cause the price of gasoline to fall "50 cents a gallon almost immediately."
Can a senator, with so many things on his mind, know so precisely how the price of gasoline would respond to that increase in the oil supply? Schumer does know that if you increase the supply of something, the price of it probably will fall. That is why he and 96 other senators recently voted to increase the supply of oil on the market by stopping the flow of oil into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, which protects against major physical interruptions. Seventy-one of the 97 senators who voted to stop filling the SPR also oppose drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
One million barrels is what might today be flowing from ANWR if in 1995 President Clinton had not vetoed legislation to permit drilling there. One million barrels produce 27 million gallons of gasoline and diesel fuel. Seventy-two of today's senators -- including Schumer, of course, and 38 other Democrats, including Barack Obama, and 33 Republicans, including John McCain -- have voted to keep ANWR's estimated 10.4 billion barrels of oil off the market.
So Schumer, according to Schumer, is complicit in taking $10 away from every American who buys 20 gallons of gasoline. "Democracy," said H.L. Mencken, "is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard." The common people of New York want Schumer to be their senator, so they should pipe down about gasoline prices, which are a predictable consequence of their political choice.
Also disqualified from complaining are all voters who sent to Washington senators and representatives who have voted to keep ANWR's oil in the ground, and who voted to put 85 percent of America's offshore territory off-limits to drilling. The U.S. Minerals Management Service says that restricted area contains perhaps 86 billion barrels of oil and 420 trillion cubic feet of natural gas -- 10 times the oil and 20 times the natural gas Americans use in a year.
Drilling is under way 60 miles off Florida. The drilling is being done by China, in cooperation with Cuba, which is drilling closer to South Florida than U.S. companies are.
ANWR is larger than the combined areas of five states (Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Delaware) and drilling along its coastal plain would be confined to a space one-sixth the size of Washington's Dulles Airport. Offshore? Hurricanes Katrina and Rita destroyed or damaged hundreds of drilling rigs without causing a large spill. There has not been a significant spill from an offshore U.S. well since 1969. Of the more than 7 billion barrels of oil pumped offshore in the past 25 years, 0.001 percent -- that is one-thousandth of 1 percent -- has been spilled. Louisiana has more than 3,200 rigs offshore -- and a thriving commercial fishing industry.
In his "Gusher of Lies: The Dangerous Delusions of 'Energy Independence,'" Robert Bryce says Brazil's energy success has little to do with its much-discussed ethanol production and much to do with its increased oil production, the vast majority of which comes from off Brazil's shore. Investor's Business Daily reports that Brazil, "which recently made a major oil discovery almost in sight of Rio's beaches," has leased most of the world's deep-sea drilling rigs.
In September 2006, two U.S. companies announced that their "Jack No. 2" well, in the Gulf 270 miles southwest of New Orleans, had tapped a field with perhaps 15 billion barrels of oil, which would increase America's proven reserves by 50 percent. Just probing four miles below the Gulf's floor costs $100 million. Congress' response to such expenditures is to propose increasing the oil companies' tax burdens.
America says to foreign producers: We prefer not to pump our oil, so please pump more of yours, thereby lowering its value, for our benefit. Let it not be said that America has no energy policy.
Paying $115 for 3/4 of a tank (44 gallon tank) on your lunch break = FAIL!
You may want to trade in your school bus for a scooter.
Enter your email address to join: