GM will cap gas prices for buyers in California, Florida - Page 3

OC · 05-25-2006, 02:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cheapie

a couple of points. hybrids are here. but they don't really make much sense financially. the various threads here have hashed that out ad nauseum.

Ok... Not sure why you're directing this at me. I know hybrid are available now. My point is that hybrids aren't the only game in town.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cheapie

as far as ethanol, nobody cares what their mpg is. they care how good their mp$ is. that's pretty much the only reason anyone tracks it. if ethanol was $.25/gallon, nobody would give a rat's behind if it was only 50% as efficient as gas.

You have a point there. I do wish people cared though.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cheapie

i would love to buy a hybrid. but with 3 kids, i'm not sure what's available. the lexus SUV? i don't have that kind of coin...for now.

Why do you want to buy a hybrid when you just said they don't make sense financially, and why do you want an SUV?

cheapie · 05-25-2006, 02:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OC

Ok... Not sure why you're directing this at me. I know hybrid are available now. My point is that hybrids aren't the only game in town.

You have a point there. I do wish people cared though.

Why do you want to buy a hybrid when you just said they don't make sense financially, and why do you want an SUV?

cuz that's the only 5 passenger hybrid out there. and i mentioned the hybrid thing to you because you said

[quote]You could buy an electric car today if you really wanted to. Granted, the selection isn't that great, but they're available. Real, highway-capable ones too, in addition to several city-only models. The problem is that people refuse to be convinced that an electric car can meet the vast majoirty of their vehicle needs. That's the real problem that needs to be addressed./quote]

OC · 05-25-2006, 02:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LegendKiller

If refineries were to blame, then why is oil so high?

I dunno. How about you tell us? You seem to be the only voice of authority on this subject around here.

You need to learn to pick your battles. First you rip DarkFury a new one for choosing to buy a gas guzzler, then you lay into me for... what, exactly? Having a position that doesn't support blindly pursuing more oil? When you shoot at both sides you start looking like a egomaniac.

LegendKiller · 05-25-2006, 02:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OC

I dunno. How about you tell us? You seem to be the only voice of authority on this subject around here.

You need to learn to pick your battles. First you rip DarkFury a new one for choosing to buy a gas guzzler, then you lay into me for... what, exactly? Having a position that doesn't support blindly pursuing more oil? When you shoot at both sides you start looking like a egomaniac.

I am not picking any "side", except for one of data, logic, and reason. If you feel that I am attacking you, that certainly wasn't my intent, as you and I can have pretty dang good discussions with absolute civility, since we both can bring reasonable points into the dicussion that can be proven or disproven. That is all I was attempting to do with you, not "ripping" or anything such.

1. It is not reasonable to continue with our current consumption levels just for "fun" or to buy a stupidly wasteful car.

2. On the flip side of that is that we are not going to run out of gas, it's just going to be a heck of a lot more expensive. I don't agree with peak oil, since it just doesn't logically make sense in light of all of the other resources and known fact of economics and geological information. It seems to me to be a position used by many to get people to "wake up", when in fact, it is asleep itself.

3. The "punishment" that should be borne by wasteful people is due to the environmental and economical impact of their decisions. If you use more, which causes it to be more expensive, then you should be "punished" for ruining it for everybody else. Furthermore, since you are using more, it costs society billions to fix pollution or find remedies for your massive consumerism, thus you should bear the disproportionate amount of your disproportionate consumption.

It's reasonable to ask those who cost society the most to bear the most cost, is it not?

of course, those who cost society the most refute that logic by pointing at the shadow causes for their own misdeeds (nefarious oil companies and shadow organizations), when, in fact, it is the finger pointers who should be looking in the mirror while pointing the finger.

However, if society cannot look inwardly, to judge and moderate themselves, then somebody has to do it for them. Normally I hate "nanny states" as much as the next libertarian, but I also hate short-term consumerism that is ruining the future of this country.

A moderate position must be found, but in many instances we cannot leave it up to the egocentric consumers of this, or many other countries, to find that moderation, since they are ill equipped to deal with their own shortcomings.

DarkFury · 05-25-2006, 03:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LegendKiller

I guess that the old adage applies, if you can't logically argue a position, minimize it be calling it extremist and hatred. Good one!

And as I said then, I am 6'2" with a *REALLY* bad knee (2 massive knee surgeries with titanium screws and plates) and I can deal with it, in fact it's actually pretty painless. I guess some people can't "take one for the team" and deal with their issues on their own, rather than screwing everybody else at the same time.

And as I stated before, you are assuming that those sedans *HAVE* to get that gas milage. They don't, but they do because people like you aim for the V8 rather than a more reasonable engine, which can be made even more economical by weight considerations *AND* better designs. However, you prevent the economic motivation of that, due to your unrestrained egocentricism.

Again, it's not the oil companies. It's amazing how little people listen but would rather point to everybody else, if you actually listened and learned to what I have posted in the past, perhaps you would understand the true nature of the beast. However, some people refuse to acknowledge the effect they have on their own lives and they would rather blame others for their own mistakes.

Frankly, I am not barking up the wrong tree. *YOU* are responsible for your actions, people like *YOU* are responsible for the situation we are in. Your POV, according to all known and logical and reasonable data points that you *ARE* wrong. HOwever, it is your problem that you cannot see that. I can present factual data all day counting everything you have said (and I have) and you still don't listen. So what it comes down to is that you refuse reality and blame others, which isn't that surprising.

If it were up to me all vehicles with anything larger than an I/V6 would be taxed prohibitively, 20-30% for non-business vehicles and then they would pay a "pump penalty" of another $3/gal or so. You don't NEED anything larger for consumer use. If you want it, pay for your consumerism to make up for the damage you are doing.

My finger may be pitiful, at least it has logic and proof backing it. I can understand why you want to defend yourself, if you didn't you might have to acknowledge some of the things I have said. Be defensive about it, but in the end, you are only fooling yourself.

As I have stated, I rideshare, my wife takes the metro. Heck, she went to FL today and I dropped her off at the metro station in Falls Church rather than driving all of the way to Reagan. We did that in our I4 Accord BTW, which also fit enough luggage for a 2-week trip (you know women...), and 2 people that are 6'+, AND stuff I was bringing into work.

Amazingly, that I4 was also able to get to a speed greater than 70, something that people think only V8's can do.

I guess I consider myself successful if I leave as minimal of an impact on society and the environment as I can throughout my life. Other's define successful as making the biggest imact they can.

Only time will tell who is correct.

Wah wah... I'm still gonna lump everything you say into the "Whatever man" category as you willl continue to single me out when you want to rant on these issues. I pointed out some facts for you on "large sedans".. and guess what, the car manufacturers still make them. Now is your crusade against "SUVs and Large Sedans"... sure seems like it.

As far as the oil companies... I still don't know where you are coming from there on me. I have clearly stated that "profit motive" moves the prices upward more than actual demand... and that as of right now, people driving these vehicles will still pay even in an artificially high price point which primarily profits the oil companies... and that is my only arguement with it. But again... whatever...

My opinion still hasn't changed and yes, I'm glad that YOU don't make the rules as to what I can and will drive. Life sure would be pretty boring under your standards. Do you also complain about people who "drive for fun" burning gas needlessly? Hell if you gonna complain about one... then complain about them all. Don't be such a hypocrite.

Oh well...that is all... carry on with your previously mentioned "save the gas" ways if that makes you feel more like a "responsible person".

I personally haven't "screwed anyone" over in my choice of vehicles and just because YOU feel that I have doesn't make that a true statement. So whatever mang. It's not my fault that you live in D.C. where life in general is WAY more expensive than out here in the Midwest... where folks HAVE to take the metro rather than face $25+ parking in the D.C. area. Maybe one day, everyone will need to be on public transportation rather than private cars.. but that day isn't today.

I can live with my decisions... you just go live with yours, either way, I'd kindly appreciate it if you would quit making referrences to me everytime you want to start a debate on this topic. There are plenty of worse targets out there for you to attack... but then again you probably just enjoy the argument for lack of any other response.

LegendKiller · 05-25-2006, 03:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DarkFury

Wah wah... I'm still gonna lump everything you say into the "Whatever man" category as you willl continue to single me out when you want to rant on these issues. I pointed out some facts for you on "large sedans".. and guess what, the car manufacturers still make them. Now is your crusade against "SUVs and Large Sedans"... sure seems like it.

I have stated many times that my position is not one of class, but engine size and general fuel economy, whether that be a SUV with a V10 or a car with a V10, both are just as wasteful. You can attempt to pigeonhole the argument with whatever means you want, but that doesn't lessen the argument in a logical sense, but it does allow those who have no logical counter to minimize it.

Quote:

My opinion still hasn't changed and yes, I'm glad that YOU don't make the rules as to what I can and will drive. Life sure would be pretty boring under your standards. Do you also complain about people who "drive for fun" burning gas needlessly? Hell if you gonna complain about one... then complain about them all. Don't be such a hypocrite.

Why would it be boring? There are plenty of nice cars with I6's. Furthermore, I never put a prohibition on large engines, I just said that people should pay a whole crapton for them, to align the societal costs to the actual costs. But hey, if you want to further justify your actions by pigeonholing rather than substantial debate, that finger-ear relation works well to let you sleep, so more power to ya!

Quote:

Oh well...that is all... carry on with your previously mentioned "save the gas" ways if that makes you feel more like a "responsible person".

I personally haven't "screwed anyone" over in my choice of vehicles and just because YOU feel that I have doesn't make that a true statement. So whatever mang. It's not my fault that you live in D.C. where life in general is WAY more expensive than out here in the Midwest... where folks HAVE to take the metro rather than face $25+ parking in the D.C. area. Maybe one day, everyone will need to be on public transportation rather than private cars.. but that day isn't today.

So, justfication takes a new tact. We only use the metro because it's cheaper. Well shucks, I guess my new company should just toss out that *FREE* parking I get. That raise I also got, I guess that's just spent on paying for parking, $13/day, where my wife works. Dang, that hurts so damn much that I am forcing her to ride the Metro....

Silly me, I work my arse off to get through various levels of education, achieved moderate career and financial success, only to have my plans of massive short-term wasteful consumerism to be foiled by parking costs. DANG! I might as well move to the midwest, take a paycut in line with reduced COL, so I can buy my wasteful car.

Guess what? Even if I lived in the MW, like I have previously, I would still do what I do now. Right now, I could afford almost any car I wanted, within reason, yet, I find ride-sharing with my co-worker so much better. Yet another pigeonhole shot down eh?

Quote:

I can live with my decisions... you just go live with yours, either way, I'd kindly appreciate it if you would quit making referrences to me everytime you want to start a debate on this topic. There are plenty of worse targets out there for you to attack... but then again you probably just enjoy the argument for lack of any other response.

Funny, I never mentioned your name. Perhaps you just identify with the certain group responsible. If you have the need to defend yourself because of that, then how is it my problem?

DarkFury · 05-25-2006, 03:34 PM

Once again... "WHATEVER MANG"....

Quote:

Originally Posted by LegendKiller

Funny, I never mentioned your name. Perhaps you just identify with the certain group responsible. If you have the need to defend yourself because of that, then how is it my problem?

You might as well have with this quote:

Quote:

Originally Posted by LegendKiller

Want that $25k 300C, ok...fine...Pay $5k gas tax up-front, then get hammered every time you go to the pump. Once somebody shells out $2000 more per year with that tax & gets hammered up front $5k, AND has to pay the base gas costs, you will see American stupidity decrease rapidly.

You don't have to mention a name... all you have to say is 300c or HEMI and everyone around here knows who you are talking about.

Even a blind man can see that.

MikeD · 05-25-2006, 03:44 PM

smeakim · 05-25-2006, 03:55 PM

So here is what I propose
<Sarcasm>

1. Ban all race car driving (even with going with an ethanol blend like indy they still waste the fuel and pollute the environment)

2. Ban all private planes unless they are carrying full capacity.

3. Ban all fast food because people getting fatter causes more fuel to be burned when driving, flying, and anything else requiring gas.

4. Make all golf courses require people to walk 18 holes because of the waste in electricity for electric carts and those carts that are gas is just a waste

5. Allow everyone to work at home then we don't have to waste our money trying to get someplace because we have to live far away to own a home

6. Get rid of newspapers and we can read everything online because then carriers don't have to deliver the papers

7. Ban all gas lawn mowers and we can all buy a goat or use manual push mowers like in the past

8. Ban leaf blowers and weed whackers that use gas

9. Ban traffic helicopters because they are just stupid anyway since they serve the same purpose as someone on the ground

10. Ban all letters and send everything by e-mail or electronically and we can get rid of most all residential delivery of packages

11. I almost forgot we can have all student stay home to save on bussing costs and the other costs with running a school. They can all get an education online.

</Sarcasm>

11. I almost forgot we can have all student stay home to save on bussing costs and the other costs with running a school. They can all get an education online. I moved this out becuase that is a good idea beucase I work in this industry. :-)

LegendKiller · 05-25-2006, 03:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DarkFury

Once again... "WHATEVER MANG"....
You might as well have with this quote:
You don't have to mention a name... all you have to say is 300c or HEMI and everyone around here knows who you are talking about.
Even a blind man can see that.

Next time I "rant", I will try to make it a little more unclear so as not to make you uncomfortable and feel like you are being singled out. How about "non-specific large quad vulcanized rubber and steel belted wheel clad conveyance with a octagonally configured hemispherical combustion chamber that weighs two gross tons and made by a subsidiary of a former American auto company now owned by a European company located in southern Germany in the province of Swabia which was severely bombed in WW2 and was formerly known as company X-Y until original co-founder Y replaced X in "X-Y" after his daughter Mercedes"

I wouldn't want to be non-pc.

OC · 05-25-2006, 04:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smeakim

So here is what I propose
SNIP

1 - Absolutely. Let's start with NASCAR.
2 - Let's expand that to include anything that gets less than 20mpg per person.
3 - I'm for that. Eat locally produced food instead.
4 - Instead, let's ban golf. It's an elitist waste of real estate.
5 - Excellent idea.
6 - Ditto. Let's do the same thing with magazines.
7 - Ban gas models, yes. Use electric models instead.
8 - See above.
9 - Get rid of the meteorologists too and you have a deal.
10 - Online education rocks.
11 - See above.

clutchy · 05-25-2006, 06:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OC

A typical conservative knee-jerk reaction. There have been no new refineries built because, largely, oil companies don't want to build them.

From here: http://www.businessweek.com/magazine...aign_id=search

Oil execs argue that bigger means stronger. "Consolidation has given companies the financial strength and technological capabilities to take on bigger risks," says John Browne, CEO of BP, the former British Petroleum. Trouble is, there's little evidence that they're doing so. Far from raising money to pursue opportunities, oil companies are paying down debt, buying back shares, and hoarding cash. Exxon Mobil Corp., for instance, earned record profits in 2003 and ended the year with nearly $11 billion in cash. It then piled on an additional $5 billion in cash in the first three months of 2004.

The conservatism of the supermajors is possible only because all of them behave pretty much the same. Mergers, by reducing the number of companies, helped stamp out diversity of opinion. No major has broken ranks by trying to snag a big share of the available deals. If one did, others might have to follow suit -- or be shut out of opportunities and eventually run out of oil. Rather than developing new fields, oil giants have preferred to buy rivals -- "drilling for oil on Wall Street." While that makes financial sense, it's no substitute for new oil.

If megamergers are part of the problem, why did the government O.K. them? In part because standard antitrust doctrine doesn't address the problems they pose. Trustbusters at the Federal Trade Commission focused on "downstream" problems, forcing the merging companies to spin off refineries and gas stations where they overlapped. But except for Arco's Alaska fields, they left their "upstream" operations of oil E&P intact on the grounds that the companies were too small to affect the world price of oil. Says former FTC Chairman Robert Pitofsky, who signed off on several mergers: "Exxon and Mobil accounted worldwide for 4% of reserves. No one has brought a successful antitrust case where the combined share was 4%.... It wasn't a close call."

But the oil industry is more complicated than the government understood. Contrary to antitrust theory, the big oil companies have strong institutional incentives to hold back somewhat on development of new oil wells, even if that limits their profit potential. Their risk-averse shareholders reward them for consistent results and big dividends. "CEOs are listening to what institutional shareholders want," says Lehman's Crandell. "Production growth is a secondary goal, if it's a goal at all."

And from here:

There was a tremendous flap during 2004 over Shell's downgrading of oil reserves. Those of us who used to work for Shell were particularly surprised; typically Shell was overly cautious about almost everything. I have no private sources of information from inside the major oil companies. Mostly, I try to evaluate what they do, not what they say. For instance, an editorial in the June 21, 2004, issue of Business Week complained that the 30 percent increase in oil prices induced only a tiny increase in company exploration budgets. Similarly, U.S. refineries are running close to capacity, but no new refineries have been built since 1976. Oil tanker ships are fully booked, but outdated tankers are being retired faster than new ones are being built. Instead, the industry seems to be hoarding cash, buying back stock, and paying out dividends. What is going on? Why don't higher prices and increasing demand encourage investment? Suppose, for a moment, that the premise of this book is correct: We have already found most of the oil. Drilling for the few leftovers yields neither fun nor profit. Should the major oil companies drill a string of dry holes just to keep the editors of Business Week happy? If, as I claim, world oil production is about to decline, then there is no point in adding refineries or increasing the size of the tanker fleet.

The major oil companies are not saying publicly that the oil game is over. If there were attractive prospects available, companies would be clawing their way over one another to get the drilling rights.

In short - ever hear of peak oil? We've either already hit it or we will hit it within this decade. Adding production capacity will accomplish nothing.

the oil companies would love to create more production, but since the environmentalists make it so difficult they just buy eachother... makes sense to me. and why not, when they're hampered the price of oil skyrockets and they rake it in...

Quote:

Originally Posted by OC

Why? At best, ANWR will provide only 9% of the US's oil per year.

From here: http://www.sibelle.info/oped15.htm

Assuming an optimistic scenario in which the mean expected technically recoverable oil in the entire coastal plain (not just the 1002 area) - 10.3 billion barrels - could be completely recovered (i.e. ignoring market pricing) the EIA estimates production of 600 million barrels a year. In comparison, US daily consumption is 18.5 million barrels a day, or 6,752 million barrels a year. Thus in this scenario ANWR, once on tap, would provide less than 9% of US annual usage

because 9% is a big honkin step in the right direction. why do you want to save it? there's nothing up there.

Quote:

Originally Posted by OC

We could save far more than 9% if we had the balls to actually engage in conservation as a nation.

who wants to conserve? that's not fun at all. If we can create the capacity we might as well...

Quote:

Originally Posted by OC

You could buy an electric car today if you really wanted to. Granted, the selection isn't that great, but they're available. Real, highway-capable ones too, in addition to several city-only models. The problem is that people refuse to be convinced that an electric car can meet the vast majoirty of their vehicle needs. That's the real problem that needs to be addressed.

they're not good enough, and they're too expensive. The only place i've noticed with electric hookups is walmart, and i don't shop there sooo....

Quote:

Originally Posted by OC

As for more options - what exactly do you want? We've had cars that get 40mpg or more available in this country for a long time now, well before hybrids hit the scene. Ethanol has two dirty little secrets - we can't possibly grow enough of it to replace gasoline and diesel, and it only has about 75% the energy content of gasoline. This means that a vehicle running on ethanol will only get about 75% the fuel economy (MPGs) than a car with a same-size gasoline engine. E85 isn't much better. Would you settle for that to get ethanol? Would you be happy to get 22.5 mpg where before you got 30? I'm really asking here, and it's fine if your answer is yes.

ethanol is a renewable resource, last time i checked oil was not. I don't think i'd be happy with the decreased mileage, but if fuel was cheaper and i knew i was doing something good for the planet i could stomach it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by OC

That's your choice, but I don't. The US has 5% of the world's population, but uses 25% of its energy. We need to fix this, and that includes getting rid of our gas guzzlers.

doesn't matter, we're a superpower... we really should start acting like one again or china is going to fly right past us laughing at us and thanking our enviro-commies...while they destroy their environment and pollute the worlds air.

my point with all of this is that we need a transitional solution (ethanol). One that won't cost too much so that we can get people to adopt the solution and then slowly bring about the change. I'm not going to go out and splooge 25K on a hybrid to save 10mpg and i'm not going to drive some piece of **** metro/fit/deathbox.

Quote:

Originally Posted by OC

1 - Absolutely. Let's start with NASCAR.
2 - Let's expand that to include anything that gets less than 20mpg per person.
3 - I'm for that. Eat locally produced food instead.
4 - Instead, let's ban golf. It's an elitist waste of real estate.
5 - Excellent idea.
6 - Ditto. Let's do the same thing with magazines.
7 - Ban gas models, yes. Use electric models instead.
8 - See above.
9 - Get rid of the meteorologists too and you have a deal.
10 - Online education rocks.
11 - See above.

WTF? since you don't like nascar ban it? you're such a (was going to call you a name and decided not to) I really can't believe some of the stuff you spew out. What don't you get about land of the FREE? I wish you'd look a little beyond your agenda and focus on something real and substantive, the more looney your comments are the less impact they'll have... bring it out of the theoretical and suggest something that the core of america can live with and transition to.

online educ sucks btw.

DarkFury · 05-25-2006, 06:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LegendKiller

Next time I "rant", I will try to make it a little more unclear so as not to make you uncomfortable and feel like you are being singled out. How about "non-specific large quad vulcanized rubber and steel belted wheel clad conveyance with a octagonally configured hemispherical combustion chamber that weighs two gross tons and made by a subsidiary of a former American auto company now owned by a European company located in southern Germany in the province of Swabia which was severely bombed in WW2 and was formerly known as company X-Y until original co-founder Y replaced X in "X-Y" after his daughter Mercedes"

I wouldn't want to be non-pc.

Heh... yeah... go with that.

Still... better yet, just continue the "SUV bashing" that ya'll love so much... pretty much they've earned your scorn WAY more than most average large automobiles.... especially when there is only the driver traveling who is commuting.

OC · 05-25-2006, 07:16 PM

Wow, where to begin...

Quote:

Originally Posted by clutchy

since the environmentalists make it so difficult

Knock off the ad hominem attacks and back it up with facts.

Quote:

Originally Posted by clutchy

I wish you'd look a little beyond your agenda and focus on something real and substantive, the more looney your comments are the less impact they'll have

That's rich, considering the rest of what you just said. Consider: If ANWR can only provide 9% of our existing oil needs, that also means it'll be completely gone in just over 11 years. When it's gone, we'll be even worse off than we are now. Despite what you apparently choose to believe, oil is a finite resource.

Quote:

Originally Posted by clutchy

why do you want to save it?

As I said, I'd much rather we focus on conservation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by clutchy

they're not good enough

Define "good enough".

Quote:

Originally Posted by clutchy

ethanol is a renewable resource

And just how much do you think we can actually produce? What do we do after this "transition" you mentioned?

Quote:

Originally Posted by clutchy

who wants to conserve? that's not fun at all.

Quote:

Originally Posted by clutchy

doesn't matter, we're a superpower

So that justifies being irresponsible with the use of our planet's resources?

To summarize: You don't like the environment, or at least the people that care about the environment; you want more oil; you don't like electric cars or hybrids; you don't like small cars. Yet, judging by your comment "splooge 25K on a hybrid to save 10mpg", you want high fuel economy. How do you suppose we get there from here? Do you have anything to offer besides ethanol?

You're the one that needs to focus on something real and substantive. Attitudes like yours are why so much of the rest of the world despises us today - consume, consumes, consume, and act like am entitled bully while we're doing it. Rest assured that looney comments like yours will go ignored by people who give a damn about this planet and our future.

smeakim · 05-25-2006, 07:30 PM

Quote:

WTF? since you don't like nascar ban it? you're such a (was going to call you a name and decided not to) I really can't believe some of the stuff you spew out.

Did you miss the implied sarcasm? Take a deep breath it was meant as a joke.

clutchy · 05-25-2006, 07:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OC

Knock off the ad hominem attacks and back it up with facts.

ok, no new refineries or nuclear plants since the 1970's.

Quote:

Originally Posted by OC

That's rich, considering the rest of what you just said. Consider: If ANWR can only provide 9% of our existing oil needs, that also means it'll be completely gone in just over 11 years. When it's gone, we'll be even worse off than we are now. Despite what you apparently choose to believe, oil is a finite resource.

Uh, i think i just finished telling you that oil was a finite resource and the future is ethanol if we continue on internal combustion. here it is

Quote:

Originally Posted by clutchy

ethanol is a renewable resource, last time i checked oil was not.

are we saving ANWR for a rainy day or something? 9% is huge so i wouldn't call it an *only* 9%.

Quote:

Originally Posted by OC

As I said, I'd much rather we focus on conservation.

so would I, but you can't force people to conserve doing so would make you, everyone say it with me, a fascist

Quote:

Originally Posted by OC

Define "good enough".

too expensive, not enough places with available refueling stations. not mainstream.

Quote:

Originally Posted by OC

And just how much do you think we can actually produce? What do we do after this "transition" you mentioned?

hopefully i would think we'd be able to produce enough. Atleast enough to lower our dependence on oil and free ourselves from mexico, canada, and the middle east. After the transition we continue to improve the process and hopefully get all cars to run completely on ethanol. This process takes a lot of infrastructure so it can't happen overnight.

Quote:

Originally Posted by OC

So that justifies being irresponsible with the use of our planet's resources?

no justification just answers, you can't force people to conserve. I'd also prefer to maintain our position at the top of the world. I have no interest in ceding our power to someone else.

Quote:

Originally Posted by OC

To summarize: You don't like the environment, or at least the people that care about the environment; you want more oil; you don't like electric cars or hybrids; you don't like small cars. Yet, judging by your comment "splooge 25K on a hybrid to save 10mpg", you want high fuel economy. How do you suppose we get there from here? Do you have anything to offer besides ethanol?

You're the one that needs to focus on something real and substantive. Attitudes like yours are why so much of the rest of the world despises us today - consume, consumes, consume, and act like am entitled bully while we're doing it. Rest assured that looney comments like yours will go ignored by people who give a damn about this planet and our future.

I do like the environment and i try to conserve where i can, i'm too broke to waste fuel. I combine trips, i drive a motorcycle when i can. I pick up trash when i find it, i recycle and have been doing so for over ten years. However, i believe in responsible use of the environment not alarmist protectionism.

I do want more oil.

I do like electrics and hybrids, but they haven't matured yet.

I don't like deathboxes. I have a '91 accord, and a '99 maxima. I wouldn't call those big cars. I'm not sure there is anything but ethanol, alteast not that i know of. I don't really care how many mpg's ethanol cars get as long as it's cheaper burns clean and gets us away from oil dependence.

you know i really could care less what the world thinks of us, they're just jealous because they don't have the power and influence to do what we do; and i think my attitude and behavior is pretty mainstream.

: to you sir.

Quote:

Originally Posted by smeakim

Did you miss the implied sarcasm? Take a deep breath it was meant as a joke.

i got your joke, however having a little more experience with OC leads me to believe he was not joking.

I appreciated your try at lightening the mood.

05-25-2006, 03:44 PM	#68
MikeD President, Cowboys Nation Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: In the 'burbs, west of D.C. Posts: 5,135	__________________

05-25-2006, 03:55 PM	#69
smeakim Lieutenant Commander Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: CO Posts: 563	So here is what I propose <Sarcasm> 1. Ban all race car driving (even with going with an ethanol blend like indy they still waste the fuel and pollute the environment) 2. Ban all private planes unless they are carrying full capacity. 3. Ban all fast food because people getting fatter causes more fuel to be burned when driving, flying, and anything else requiring gas. 4. Make all golf courses require people to walk 18 holes because of the waste in electricity for electric carts and those carts that are gas is just a waste 5. Allow everyone to work at home then we don't have to waste our money trying to get someplace because we have to live far away to own a home 6. Get rid of newspapers and we can read everything online because then carriers don't have to deliver the papers 7. Ban all gas lawn mowers and we can all buy a goat or use manual push mowers like in the past 8. Ban leaf blowers and weed whackers that use gas 9. Ban traffic helicopters because they are just stupid anyway since they serve the same purpose as someone on the ground 10. Ban all letters and send everything by e-mail or electronically and we can get rid of most all residential delivery of packages 11. I almost forgot we can have all student stay home to save on bussing costs and the other costs with running a school. They can all get an education online. </Sarcasm> 11. I almost forgot we can have all student stay home to save on bussing costs and the other costs with running a school. They can all get an education online. I moved this out becuase that is a good idea beucase I work in this industry. :-) Last edited by smeakim : 05-25-2006 at 04:00 PM.

User Name
Password
Remember Me?