🚀 go-pugleaf

> > Gas Guzzlers
> > What will we be driving �Day After Tomorrow�? Why we need higher gas
> > prices.
> > by Alan Bisbort
> {snip}
> 
> Posting old, tired letters/essays to Usenet...  Gee, of whom does THIS
> remind you???
> 
> Bill "but Don is the /best-named/ troll around" S.

Thank you for the honorific title. 

But what do you get? Best defense of the indefensible? Would you go
down in history as the guys who defended the RAMPANT WASTE,
ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE, AND THE OIL WAR? THE PIGS AWARD?

You got my vote! ;)

"the only solution is to get rid of the jungle" 
<If you looking one to blame look around yourself, insurances. This is
area which push US down much more than oil.
If you want free America, illegalize insurance companies. >

All these corporations--oil, insurance, military, etc--are part of the
jungle, but by far the most dangerous is the HUNGRY DINOSAUR. Its
appetite for oil causes ENVIRONMENTAL DESTRUCTION and WAR like no
other. If the lion is the political-military, the dinosaur is the
economics of it, the obsolete industries and technologies that are
kept artificially alive. This dinosaur really has no use, and I find
it particularly repugnant to die over it.

But since all these predator are working together, the only solution
is to get rid of the jungle...

Bravo for this post.  My great grandfather was a staunch Republican
too, and he'd agree. For Americans with 4% of the world's
population to squander 25% of the world's
limited oil supply, as if there's no tomorrow, is immoral
from a social justice perspective, and from a political and
an environmental perspective, it's insane.

However, higher gas prices ALONE will not be enough.  If we
just let gas and oil prices rise, one thing we'll do is encourage
the global energy industry to produce a lot more fossil fuels.
It's not unthinkable that this could then lead to a temporary DROP
in energy prices again, and the sales of more SUVs and Hummers.

This sounds paradoxical, but it is pretty much what happened
in the early 1980s when world oil prices were soaring and the US
had just decontrolled the oil industry - thanks to a 1978 decision by
the Carter administration, oddly enough, and not the Reaganites.

Especially with Iraq and Iran engaged in a bitter war, world oil
prices in the early 1980s soared to something like $27 a barrel or
more, then suddenly plunged in 1985 to roughly $13/barrel.  It
wasn't global scarcities or global surpluses that did this, but
the vagaries of Middle East politics and disagreements within OPEC.

But in any case, "energy conservation" powered by high prices suddenly
became un-economic, big cars started to come back into fashion, and
the US embarked on the trend towards gas-guzzling SUVs that we see today.

Given the high degree of oligopoly and global cooperation/conflict
that characterizes the global oil market, relying on price trends
alone to promote conservation is a mistake. Higher prices, taken
by themselves, help the oil companies to boost their revenues
and their power, which may not be that good for the environment.

They also screw the poor and those living on fixed incomes,
and they don't guarantee that private enterprise and government
will make the large investments needed -- in mass transit and
in residential housing patterns, for example -- to make a "green"
and sustainable energy future possible.

So if we do embrace higher energy prices, let's make damned sure
that there are safeguards put in place to keep lower-income people
from being ruined in the process -- if only because we don't want
them being mobilized against "environmental elitists" by the 
corporate polluters and amoral economic conservatives of the future. 

Meanwhile, let's use the power of government to make other
essential changes as well -- more public investment in mass
transit systems, higher fuel efficiency standards for new
cars mandated by law, higher federally mandated standards for
the energy efficiciency of large appliances, and maybe some
government-funded pilot projects on making it easier for people
to live near where they shop and work.  

Federal subsidies for promising new alternative energy technologies
and tax breaks for "green" alternative energy development would be good,
too.  

When these measures are combined with higher fuel prices, they
might enable American society to make use of some "market mechanisms"
to promote better energy policies -- but without becoming slaves
of a so-called "free market" in energy that are largely controlled
by the largest corporations on earth, and not by the average individual.


nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com (DonQuijote1954) wrote in message news:<4e4a3f58.0408030903.74d7535e@posting.google.com>...
> Once upon a time, a race of dinosaurs roamed the Earth...
> 
> http://pub36.bravenet.com/forum/3021914257/fetch/330301/
> 
> dinosaur food should cost more 
> common sense, no?
> 
> > The real solution? Make cars safer by moving them over long distances via
> > railcars handling them individually on an automated system.
> 
> The real solution is to INCREASE THE PRICE OF GAS. Stop subsidized
> roads and gas. THEN ALTERNATIVE TRANSPORTATION WILL NATURALLY BECOME A
> REALITY. And a bonus benefit will be greater security...
> 
> 'We keep being told we are at war and yet no one is sacrificing for
> the cause. Everywhere I turn I see Hummers and SUVs with American
> flags waving from antennae like banana republic touring cars and
> "United We Stand" and "We Support the Troops" on the bumpers.'
> 
> June 10 
> 
> Gas Guzzlers 
> What will we be driving "Day After Tomorrow"? Why we need higher gas
> prices.
> by Alan Bisbort 
> 
> Hooray for higher gas prices. Yes, you heard me correctly. I'm glad
> the price of gas is going up. I'm glad that The Day After Tomorrow is
> the world's number-one box office hit. The weaknesses of its plot
> notwithstanding, the film is the sort of bang-on-the-head most people
> need to wake them from their daydream. Will people make the connection
> between disastrous impacts of global warming and fossil fuel use? I've
> given up trying to figure out what it takes to make people see the
> truth, but anything that wakes them from their stupor long enough to
> consider a new idea is a good thing. But about those gas prices. I'd
> like to see them go even higher. Am I a masochist? No, a realist, a
> pragmatist, or call me what you will. I was raised in a household
> headed by a self-made American colonel who came of age in the Great
> Depression and understood, to the very marrow in his bones, the adage,
> "waste not want not."
> 
> Like father, like son. My father was a lifelong Republican of the old
> and improved stripe, and there were many things on which we found
> common ground, including fiscal responsibility, conserving and
> protecting our natural resources, honoring promises, paying back debts
> promptly (actually, not incurring debts if possible), doing an honest
> day's work in exchange for an honest day's pay. My father lived to be
> 92. Throughout his long and active life, he was appalled by the waste
> of Americans. The root of Americans' blissful ignorance, my father (an
> engineer) was certain, was its cheap gas. Nowhere else in the world
> was it so cheap, so taken for granted. He didn't make too many friends
> sharing this thought with colleagues.
> 
> By what birthright do Americans think it is fitting and proper that we
> squander the world's finite supply of fossil fuels? What delusion
> about our superiority do we have that allows us to consume 75 percent
> [I think it's 25%] of the world's natural resources while comprising 5
> percent of the world's population? Looked at from a purely religious
> perspective -- one that Americans insist they abide by -- we are all
> equal in the eyes of God. But we act as if we really believe what
> Orwell said in Animal Farm , "Some animals are more equal than
> others."
> 
> Taking it further, I'd like the price of gas go even higher, with the
> currently proposed 50-cent-per-gallon tax hike to be used to
> underwrite the start-up costs of a viable long-term national energy
> policy that will tap into alternative fuels and reusable energy
> sources. Advocating for this hike, the University of Maryland's Robert
> Park noted, "We need conservation. High gas prices are already pushing
> SUV sales down, but it was OPEC that pushed the price up. If we plan
> to declare war on every country led by a bad guy, we'll need tax
> revenue. We could also think about making CAFE [corporate average fuel
> economy] standards apply to all passenger cars, even if they're SUVs
> and weigh as much as cement trucks. As the price of gas goes up, the
> air gets cleaner, people return to the inner cities, traffic is
> reduced, less time is wasted commuting."
> 
> The price of gas should also be gauged at the pump to reward those who
> drive more fuel-efficient cars, so that someone who drives, say, a
> Toyota Echo would pay 2.50 for the same gallon of gas that would cost
> an SUV driver $4, and, conversely, the driver of a hybrid car $2.
> Hummer drivers would, therefore, pay the highest price for the dubious
> status these cars apparently provide. (Gas prices for transit trucks,
> buses, mass transit, and other vehicles performing vital roles, would
> not be affected by these price hikes). This isn't punishment. It's
> called an incentive system. And it's about time.
> 
> During World War II, Americans pitched in by carpooling, planting
> victory gardens and rationing gas. Signs were posted everywhere that
> read, "Is This Trip Necessary?" and "When You Ride Alone You Ride With
> Hitler." Few people got on their high horses about an individual's
> inalienable right to be a glutton, and those who did were quickly
> shouted down for the jackasses they were. In short, people got the
> message, and cooperated. Seldom, in fact, has there been a more
> unified American populace.
> 
> So what's the difference today? We keep being told we are at war and
> yet no one is sacrificing for the cause. Everywhere I turn I see
> Hummers and SUVs with American flags waving from antennae like banana
> republic touring cars and "United We Stand" and "We Support the
> Troops" on the bumpers.
> 
> Oh, but this war in Iraq is not about oil, is it? In case you missed
> it, the Muzhir al-Dulaymi, spokesman for the League for the Defence of
> Iraqi Peoples' Rights has said that the United States is
> systematically liberating the Iraqi people from their oil.
> 
> "A daylight robbery is going on in Iraq. I have first hand information
> from sources in al-Bakr port in southern Iraq, and in the Turkish port
> of Jihan, confirming that three million oil barrels are being taken
> out of Iraq on a daily basis," Dulaymi said, adding that the Bush
> administration, and its oil company supporters, are benefiting from
> the process.
> 
> http://thomasmc.com/0610ab.htm
> 
> http://webspawner.com/users/donquijote

It just doesn't matter anyway. There are seven times the known fossil
carbon reserves that it takes to kill the world with pollution. There
is enough carbon already known to kill seven Earths. It is not
scarcity or abundance of carbon that is the issue -- it is the steady
deliberate expeditious phasing out of all carbon fuels that is the
ONLY issue for discussion. Stop wasting time with meaningless
discussion about dollars per barrel or dollars per gallon.

We are not running out of carbon fuels -- we are running out of
environment to dump the burned waste products. Get that straight once
and for all time.



AJFeeney48@yahoo.com (JohnAndrew) wrote in message news:<2fcaf67c.0408032004.47be4ab1@posting.google.com>...
> Bravo for this post.  My great grandfather was a staunch Republican
> too, and he'd agree. For Americans with 4% of the world's
> population to squander 25% of the world's
> limited oil supply, as if there's no tomorrow, is immoral
> from a social justice perspective, and from a political and
> an environmental perspective, it's insane.
> 
> However, higher gas prices ALONE will not be enough.  If we
> just let gas and oil prices rise, one thing we'll do is encourage
> the global energy industry to produce a lot more fossil fuels.
> It's not unthinkable that this could then lead to a temporary DROP
> in energy prices again, and the sales of more SUVs and Hummers.
> 
> This sounds paradoxical, but it is pretty much what happened
> in the early 1980s when world oil prices were soaring and the US
> had just decontrolled the oil industry - thanks to a 1978 decision by
> the Carter administration, oddly enough, and not the Reaganites.
> 
> Especially with Iraq and Iran engaged in a bitter war, world oil
> prices in the early 1980s soared to something like $27 a barrel or
> more, then suddenly plunged in 1985 to roughly $13/barrel.  It
> wasn't global scarcities or global surpluses that did this, but
> the vagaries of Middle East politics and disagreements within OPEC.
> 
> But in any case, "energy conservation" powered by high prices suddenly
> became un-economic, big cars started to come back into fashion, and
> the US embarked on the trend towards gas-guzzling SUVs that we see today.
> 
> Given the high degree of oligopoly and global cooperation/conflict
> that characterizes the global oil market, relying on price trends
> alone to promote conservation is a mistake. Higher prices, taken
> by themselves, help the oil companies to boost their revenues
> and their power, which may not be that good for the environment.
> 
> They also screw the poor and those living on fixed incomes,
> and they don't guarantee that private enterprise and government
> will make the large investments needed -- in mass transit and
> in residential housing patterns, for example -- to make a "green"
> and sustainable energy future possible.
> 
> So if we do embrace higher energy prices, let's make damned sure
> that there are safeguards put in place to keep lower-income people
> from being ruined in the process -- if only because we don't want
> them being mobilized against "environmental elitists" by the 
> corporate polluters and amoral economic conservatives of the future. 
> 
> Meanwhile, let's use the power of government to make other
> essential changes as well -- more public investment in mass
> transit systems, higher fuel efficiency standards for new
> cars mandated by law, higher federally mandated standards for
> the energy efficiciency of large appliances, and maybe some
> government-funded pilot projects on making it easier for people
> to live near where they shop and work.  
> 
> Federal subsidies for promising new alternative energy technologies
> and tax breaks for "green" alternative energy development would be good,
> too.  
> 
> When these measures are combined with higher fuel prices, they
> might enable American society to make use of some "market mechanisms"
> to promote better energy policies -- but without becoming slaves
> of a so-called "free market" in energy that are largely controlled
> by the largest corporations on earth, and not by the average individual.
> 
> 
> nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com (DonQuijote1954) wrote in message news:<4e4a3f58.0408030903.74d7535e@posting.google.com>...
> > Once upon a time, a race of dinosaurs roamed the Earth...
> > 
> > http://pub36.bravenet.com/forum/3021914257/fetch/330301/
> > 
> > dinosaur food should cost more 
> > common sense, no?
> > 
> > > The real solution? Make cars safer by moving them over long distances via
> > > railcars handling them individually on an automated system.
> > 
> > The real solution is to INCREASE THE PRICE OF GAS. Stop subsidized
> > roads and gas. THEN ALTERNATIVE TRANSPORTATION WILL NATURALLY BECOME A
> > REALITY. And a bonus benefit will be greater security...
> > 
> > 'We keep being told we are at war and yet no one is sacrificing for
> > the cause. Everywhere I turn I see Hummers and SUVs with American
> > flags waving from antennae like banana republic touring cars and
> > "United We Stand" and "We Support the Troops" on the bumpers.'
> > 
> > June 10 
> > 
> > Gas Guzzlers 
> > What will we be driving "Day After Tomorrow"? Why we need higher gas
> > prices.
> > by Alan Bisbort 
> > 
> > Hooray for higher gas prices. Yes, you heard me correctly. I'm glad
> > the price of gas is going up. I'm glad that The Day After Tomorrow is
> > the world's number-one box office hit. The weaknesses of its plot
> > notwithstanding, the film is the sort of bang-on-the-head most people
> > need to wake them from their daydream. Will people make the connection
> > between disastrous impacts of global warming and fossil fuel use? I've
> > given up trying to figure out what it takes to make people see the
> > truth, but anything that wakes them from their stupor long enough to
> > consider a new idea is a good thing. But about those gas prices. I'd
> > like to see them go even higher. Am I a masochist? No, a realist, a
> > pragmatist, or call me what you will. I was raised in a household
> > headed by a self-made American colonel who came of age in the Great
> > Depression and understood, to the very marrow in his bones, the adage,
> > "waste not want not."
> > 
> > Like father, like son. My father was a lifelong Republican of the old
> > and improved stripe, and there were many things on which we found
> > common ground, including fiscal responsibility, conserving and
> > protecting our natural resources, honoring promises, paying back debts
> > promptly (actually, not incurring debts if possible), doing an honest
> > day's work in exchange for an honest day's pay. My father lived to be
> > 92. Throughout his long and active life, he was appalled by the waste
> > of Americans. The root of Americans' blissful ignorance, my father (an
> > engineer) was certain, was its cheap gas. Nowhere else in the world
> > was it so cheap, so taken for granted. He didn't make too many friends
> > sharing this thought with colleagues.
> > 
> > By what birthright do Americans think it is fitting and proper that we
> > squander the world's finite supply of fossil fuels? What delusion
> > about our superiority do we have that allows us to consume 75 percent
> > [I think it's 25%] of the world's natural resources while comprising 5
> > percent of the world's population? Looked at from a purely religious
> > perspective -- one that Americans insist they abide by -- we are all
> > equal in the eyes of God. But we act as if we really believe what
> > Orwell said in Animal Farm , "Some animals are more equal than
> > others."
> > 
> > Taking it further, I'd like the price of gas go even higher, with the
> > currently proposed 50-cent-per-gallon tax hike to be used to
> > underwrite the start-up costs of a viable long-term national energy
> > policy that will tap into alternative fuels and reusable energy
> > sources. Advocating for this hike, the University of Maryland's Robert

> > Park noted, "We need conservation. High gas prices are already pushing
> > SUV sales down, but it was OPEC that pushed the price up. If we plan
> > to declare war on every country led by a bad guy, we'll need tax
> > revenue. We could also think about making CAFE [corporate average fuel
> > economy] standards apply to all passenger cars, even if they're SUVs
> > and weigh as much as cement trucks. As the price of gas goes up, the
> > air gets cleaner, people return to the inner cities, traffic is
> > reduced, less time is wasted commuting."
> > 
> > The price of gas should also be gauged at the pump to reward those who
> > drive more fuel-efficient cars, so that someone who drives, say, a
> > Toyota Echo would pay 2.50 for the same gallon of gas that would cost
> > an SUV driver $4, and, conversely, the driver of a hybrid car $2.
> > Hummer drivers would, therefore, pay the highest price for the dubious
> > status these cars apparently provide. (Gas prices for transit trucks,
> > buses, mass transit, and other vehicles performing vital roles, would
> > not be affected by these price hikes). This isn't punishment. It's
> > called an incentive system. And it's about time.
> > 
> > During World War II, Americans pitched in by carpooling, planting
> > victory gardens and rationing gas. Signs were posted everywhere that
> > read, "Is This Trip Necessary?" and "When You Ride Alone You Ride With
> > Hitler." Few people got on their high horses about an individual's
> > inalienable right to be a glutton, and those who did were quickly
> > shouted down for the jackasses they were. In short, people got the
> > message, and cooperated. Seldom, in fact, has there been a more
> > unified American populace.
> > 
> > So what's the difference today? We keep being told we are at war and
> > yet no one is sacrificing for the cause. Everywhere I turn I see
> > Hummers and SUVs with American flags waving from antennae like banana
> > republic touring cars and "United We Stand" and "We Support the
> > Troops" on the bumpers.
> > 
> > Oh, but this war in Iraq is not about oil, is it? In case you missed
> > it, the Muzhir al-Dulaymi, spokesman for the League for the Defence of
> > Iraqi Peoples' Rights has said that the United States is
> > systematically liberating the Iraqi people from their oil.
> > 
> > "A daylight robbery is going on in Iraq. I have first hand information
> > from sources in al-Bakr port in southern Iraq, and in the Turkish port
> > of Jihan, confirming that three million oil barrels are being taken
> > out of Iraq on a daily basis," Dulaymi said, adding that the Bush
> > administration, and its oil company supporters, are benefiting from
> > the process.
> > 
> > http://thomasmc.com/0610ab.htm
> > 
> > http://webspawner.com/users/donquijote

Thank you for your comments. I agree with you. Rather one single event
bringing about change, it would take a comprehensive approach. But WE
NEED A POLITICAL WILL first. Regretably, the political will goes
toward consumption, as proven by the recent $.08 tax break on
gasoline.

So the starving of the dinosaur may come as the result of some major
world event--something we are totally and absolutely unprepared for.
How much better it would be to wean the oil-addicted dinosaur over a
period of time... ;)

AJFeeney48@yahoo.com (JohnAndrew) wrote in message news:<2fcaf67c.0408032004.47be4ab1@posting.google.com>...
> Bravo for this post.  My great grandfather was a staunch Republican
> too, and he'd agree. For Americans with 4% of the world's
> population to squander 25% of the world's
> limited oil supply, as if there's no tomorrow, is immoral
> from a social justice perspective, and from a political and
> an environmental perspective, it's insane.
> 
> However, higher gas prices ALONE will not be enough.  If we
> just let gas and oil prices rise, one thing we'll do is encourage
> the global energy industry to produce a lot more fossil fuels.
> It's not unthinkable that this could then lead to a temporary DROP
> in energy prices again, and the sales of more SUVs and Hummers.
> 
> This sounds paradoxical, but it is pretty much what happened
> in the early 1980s when world oil prices were soaring and the US
> had just decontrolled the oil industry - thanks to a 1978 decision by
> the Carter administration, oddly enough, and not the Reaganites.
> 
> Especially with Iraq and Iran engaged in a bitter war, world oil
> prices in the early 1980s soared to something like $27 a barrel or
> more, then suddenly plunged in 1985 to roughly $13/barrel.  It
> wasn't global scarcities or global surpluses that did this, but
> the vagaries of Middle East politics and disagreements within OPEC.
> 
> But in any case, "energy conservation" powered by high prices suddenly
> became un-economic, big cars started to come back into fashion, and
> the US embarked on the trend towards gas-guzzling SUVs that we see today.
> 
> Given the high degree of oligopoly and global cooperation/conflict
> that characterizes the global oil market, relying on price trends
> alone to promote conservation is a mistake. Higher prices, taken
> by themselves, help the oil companies to boost their revenues
> and their power, which may not be that good for the environment.
> 
> They also screw the poor and those living on fixed incomes,
> and they don't guarantee that private enterprise and government
> will make the large investments needed -- in mass transit and
> in residential housing patterns, for example -- to make a "green"
> and sustainable energy future possible.
> 
> So if we do embrace higher energy prices, let's make damned sure
> that there are safeguards put in place to keep lower-income people
> from being ruined in the process -- if only because we don't want
> them being mobilized against "environmental elitists" by the 
> corporate polluters and amoral economic conservatives of the future. 
> 
> Meanwhile, let's use the power of government to make other
> essential changes as well -- more public investment in mass
> transit systems, higher fuel efficiency standards for new
> cars mandated by law, higher federally mandated standards for
> the energy efficiciency of large appliances, and maybe some
> government-funded pilot projects on making it easier for people
> to live near where they shop and work.  
> 
> Federal subsidies for promising new alternative energy technologies
> and tax breaks for "green" alternative energy development would be good,
> too.  
> 
> When these measures are combined with higher fuel prices, they
> might enable American society to make use of some "market mechanisms"
> to promote better energy policies -- but without becoming slaves
> of a so-called "free market" in energy that are largely controlled
> by the largest corporations on earth, and not by the average individual.

> > the highest penal population in the world,
> 
> Thanks to the government "war on drugs".

You must be a Libertarian (and I agree with you on *this* issue) but
I'm afraid you are also a predator.

"society and state are not to be confused"
 
Those who want the Law of the Jungle (in their own terms) are
predators, not Libertarians. Those who accept MORAL OBLIGATIONS could
be considered the GOOD LION.

THE SOCIAL CONTRACT

Thomas Paine, previously cited numerous times, wrote that
society is always a blessing, and not to be confused with govern-
ment, which is essentially a police force--coercion, for short.
At that time I added that SOME government--as little as pos-
sible--is NECESSARY to protect the rights of the majority in any
society, who act in good faith, from INJURY by the selfish few to
whom "good faith" is an oxymoron.
Many so-called Libertarians will disagree vehemently with my
viewpoint, because I talk about moral obligations. Such persons
have no sense of moral obligations that I can discover. To them,
conscience--as Mencken wrote--is just the voice inside that tells
them someone might be watching.
In short, they want a license to steal--and they attempt to
justify their selfishness by saying they're Libertarians.

CONCLUSIONS

I submit that Libertarians must examine their own thinking
very carefully and decide if they are willing to accept the ideal
of social responsibility or not.
If no, I suggest they get out of the Libertarian Party, or
that true Libertarians unite to issue a Manifesto on a philosophy
that addresses (a) the necessity of accepting a responsibility
with every right; (b) the necessity of protecting the rights of
unborn Americans to as healthy an environment as our generation
inherited; and (c) the necessity of protecting those innocent and
unfortunate persons who are unable to protect themselves from the
rapacious greed and amorality of sociopaths who seek to live by
the law of the jungle.
If the Libertarian Party cannot concoct a platform of basic
ethical principles that go beyond mere freedom, the party should
be prepared to close up shop.

http://www.mega.nu:8080/ampp/kirkbros/pg10.html