Insightful comments, particularly regarding NYC. Hardly the most desireable place to live -- but transportation is good, even if often unclean, etc.
Pump prices are off from last year's highs, but don't expect that to last.
Insightful comments, particularly regarding NYC. Hardly the most desireable place to live -- but transportation is good, even if often unclean, etc.
I heard in the past if the pump gas show $5.00 dollars per galon in California people will burning Gas Stations I hope nothing happens !...
What you missed mghferguson is peak oil. Eventually , and probably sooner than you think, peak oil will result is lower supply as world production begins it's relentless and unstoppable decline at 2-3% per year. Demand will continue to fall as supply falls. Double digit gasoline will be almost a given within 5-10 years. I would get rid of your SUV and buy something more efficient now while they are still affordable.
I read Chris Steiner's $20 Gallon. It's horribly flawed in that the presumed increases from $6 - $20 are all based on growing demand, while Steiner provides ample examples of high prices choking off demand. You can't have both. There seems to be no mitigating factor for declining demand in his calculations. Did I miss something?
I read Chris Steiner's $20 Gallon. It's horribly flawed in that the presumed increases from $6 - $20 are all based on growing demand, while Steiner provides ample examples of high prices choking off demand. You can't have both. There seems to be no mitigating factor for declining demand in his calculations. Did I miss something?
Nobody gives a *** about gas prices unless they're at 4 dollars. That's when you should've released your crappy book which by the way nobody read because it was so terrible. Unfortunately once the price dips back down from 4 dollars, like right now, people go back to not giving a *** and people will continue to not read your book, like they wouldn't have even if gas was at 20 dollars a gallon because by then we'll have different energy. I have an idea for your next book: it can be about how the earth is going to run out of oil and we should all panic and commit suicide. For the low price of 20 dollars a gallon, one can simply use it to douse themselves and then use a simple match found at most local restaurants to set themselves ablaze. As a bonus to the hippie haters it'll be one last screw you to mother earth as the smoke from your charred corpse pollutes the air.
I have half a mind to report you to the police or something, bro.
You going to go shoot up a museum (like Von Brunn did) or an abortion doctor (as happened to Tillmann after O'Reilly all but advocated for it on his show) if people continue not to agree with you? Or I suppose with you, you'd probably go after an environmental group, right?
The more you act angry and hateful and like you want to see everybody who opposes you dead, the more the rest of us are going to make sure to vote against your political ideologies. I'll just pray that you don't actually take that turn and start acting on your hatred and going and burning liberals yourself instead of just telling us to do it ourselves.
how the *** can you justify any of your points based on my post? please try so i can laugh at you for a few hours and then stop and realize that you actually think you're smart, then get really depressed.
There's plenty of oil; just a sore lack of political will to fight off the "futuristic" progressives who want us to ride our bikes to our collectives.
The feigned argument that contends that oil prices are a direct reflection of supply and demand is flawed in every sense....including common. The trading value of the dollar; short selling, speculative profiteering, refining capacity; shipping costs; cartel collusion....all factors that run their course freely because we won't simply devote ourselves to pumping more of our own oil. No, that would be environmentally unfriendly and only put off the inevitable . Yes, we must "look forward to a greener future..." -- the Trekkies have grown up and are running things now. Yikes.
*** .all factors that run their course freely because we won't simply devote ourselves to pumping more of our own oil. ***
Sheer, unmitigated ignorance.
The facts are that the US uses 24.3% of the world's oil. We have about 2% of the world's remaining oil. There is no way that drilling more here is going to make any difference in the price of oil at all.
You're statistics are what is ignorant; both empty of merit and meaningless in the debate. Ownership of oil itself is a rather vague concept when you consider the multinational essence of big oil. However, that said, by proportion of your own 2% number, then a mere increase of 1% capacity would seemingly have a major impact on our oil prices. But again, the differences between known oil supplies and projected/estimated oil supplies is vast. Somewhere inbetween lies sufficient oil to meet our current needs and keep prices in check and our economy running in high gear...during which time, I am all for research and development into viable alternatives. But to consider it either smart or inevitable that we crash our economy and severely limit our lifestyle to something a relative few invision because we refuse to exploit what resources are around us is ridiculous, un-needed, and dangerous.
The problem is that oil use puts negative externalities in terms of pollution, climate, and other environmental degradation factors on the economy as a whole without the economic costs of that environmental damage being reflected in the price at the pump. I personally have no desire to try to force you to live any particular way you don't want to, but I absolutely feel it's right to impose taxes when there are negative externalities. It's a longstanding part of macroeconomic theory that when there are damages to the economy as a whole that don't get reflected in the market price (pollution being one of the classic negative externalities), the government needs to tax it enough to offset the costs of that damage, such that between the tax revenues - which can be used to clean up the resulting mess - and the reduced demand for the good or service in question, the cost to the larger economy can zero out.
I support cap and trade for that reason. If you want to pay the extra tax premium, then I begrudge you your lifestyle not in the least, because the cost to the larger economy as a whole balances out, assuming the tax is calculated correctly. There's no desire on my part to make you change the way you live, but other people can't be made to pay the hidden costs of pollution, climate damage, et cetera, that's not fair either.
Believe it or not, I support domestic drilling contingent to the domestic drilling crowd supporting heavy solar power or other renewable investment. As you said, we need to get out of this energy hole, but I'm just not willing to do it with drilling alone. It has to be part of a multifaceted strategy, and it would help both sides if the environmentalists could agree to trade domestic drilling support for renewable energy support. I am.
As a final note, whether or not we are "refus(ing) to exploit what resources are around us", it is worth noting that in Canada's oil sands it is currently required to sift three TONS of oil sands to produce one barrel of oil, which more or less turns everything within miles of the site into an open-air slag pit. Even if one postulates that global warming is a completely fabricated fairy tale, that still represents some fairly serious environmental damage, and the oil reserves that we have that you're speaking of aren't necessarily a whole lot better in terms of what has to be done in order to get at the stuff. One way or another, global warming or not, there need to be additional taxes imposed on oil in order to offset the pollution costs. Drill, yes, but not without taking ALL the costs into account, not just the one at the pump.
I appreciate your reasoning. And I want clean water and air just like the next guy. In fact, despite the often cartoonish image painted of the corporate polluters, our air and water has signficantly improved over the last 30 years; do in part to regulation; do in part to a justfiable raising of our collective conscience. But I do find the current cap & trade proposal unacceptable for reasons that boil down to the ends don't always justify the means. That is. the current bill houses language and assumptions with regards to global C02 levels -- that there's a measurable "standard' that should be met; that it's somehow a 1:1 correlation of C02 levels to global warming; and that by raising all of our energy costs (which it wil...taxing energy production will be passed on to us, the consumer) substantially we can somehow avert further global warming disaster. I don't buy any of those assumptions...nor do many, many other -- non cave-man like humans. The whole fascination with man-created global warming has reached religious levels -- lost is the reasonable and known knowledge that global temp averages are meaningless....that temperatures are a regional phenomenon that have a well documented pattern of rising and falling. Its like being freaked out that a baseball's batting average is gone down 1- 2 percentage points. Why average a global temp when it has no tangible benefit? There are parts of the world that are cooling right now...other parts are warming up. That's known fact.
But I fully agree with your reasoning that we could drill for more oil reasonably and without savaging the environment. As far as the pollution fallout issue you raised....fine, understandable. But even the production of solar panels creates pollution (and I'm a big fan of solar). Wind turbines are made of steel and are a blight to the visual landscape....and their total impact on the grid is small and highly unpredictable.
Lastly, when you say that if "you want to pay the extra premium..." it would appear that your are assuming that you won't be paying that premium too? You will be...everyone's electric rates will go up; the costs of nearly everything made will go up since those costs will always be passed. Food will be more costly etc... Cap & Trade as it is written will only reward a relative few...those who will make money trading the credits, and those who can buy them all up in markets...squeezing out the little guys.
I am for alternatives....but just those that come about via the marketplace and are sustainable for us all.
Also, yes, solar panel production does pollute. And all renewables currently face problems of not being able to store their excess energy for when it's most needed, which is one of the big problems with wind as well as solar and other non-fuel-based forms of energy. What we need there is better battery technology.
Really, one of the biggest ways we could help solve the problem would be to do research into better transmission lines for our grid. We lose something like 80% of the electricity we use due to dissipation in the power lines before it ever gets to the target. That would be a very good and non-partisan issue for the pols to focus on, and I doubt anyone would complain if the government used part of the stimulus to hire people to go around upgrading America's power grid to a more reliable and efficient one.
All good points. I'll see if I have the time to respond to some of it later...for right now, the two things that stand out are:
" that it's somehow a 1:1 correlation of C02 levels to global warming"
Yes, that's bad. CO2 is only part of the whole picture and it should be treated as such.
"It would appear that you are assuming that you won't be paying that premium too"
Of course I will, and I will do it willingly.
yeah, your right, guess I'm just wishful thinking. Ah heck, why should any of us try anymore? Why develop anything else? Let's just stick to what we know and do well rather than invent new technology or ways of doing things. After all, it's worked so well for everyone before us. Who needs advancement.
what the heck, why did I post that there? ugg.
The point of your post seems to be that "liberals" have some weird hatred of cars and car culture and some unspoken desire to make you ride a bike. In reality, dependance on cars have made us less healthy (we walk less), made us less safe (by being dependant on foreign oil), and destroyed the environment (through global warming). The only sensible thing to do is change our lifestyles by making us less dependant on fossil-fuel burning automobiles. That's not some irrational hatred of cars or some bizzarre communist plot to make you ride a bike - it's logic.
My argument is one of choice. If liberals or progressives would simply apply their optimal lifestyle choices to just themselves, that would be wonderful. But too often they don't...and rather they too often seek legislative mandates that affect us all. I love riding bikes, hiking, and thoroughly enjoy many outdoor activiites that do not include a combustible engine. But my choices are just that...mine. And when I drive my car and pay for my home heating oil, I do not want to pay a ridiculous amount of money all because other folks would prefer me to ride my bike.
Many of us 'who use our brains' think Al Gore is full of crap.
I find that your argument fails to compel.
But, hey, I bought a reasonable car, moved closer to work six years ago and haven't driven more than a mile each way since, barely am affected by gas prices as a result, and don't like domestic drilling off my shore (we just had a spill near Santa Barbara a year and a half ago or so). So pardon me while I help vote against continued dependence on oil, domestic or foreign.
That's funny coming from California - the 7th largest economy in the world and it's going bankrupt!
My state's problems have little to do with oil, such as it is. They have much, much more to do with CA Prop 13's horrendous effects on property tax revenue and an initiative system that lets any interest group with enough power to get signatures financed to drop expensive measures on our ballots. I personally have voted against most of our spending-laden bond measures, not to mention that I've only had the opportunity to do so for ten years or thereabouts.
Besides which, I hardly claim to speak for all Californians on this. Why not respond to me directly as a person and individual instead of diverting the discussion to the thirty million people I don't speak for?
Also, it's the state government that's going bankrupt, not the state as a whole. There are a lot of economic troubles here - unemployment and housing prices among them - but when I step outside during the day, I see a damned nice place to live and a state that looks pretty prosperous to me, all things considered. The streets are mostly clean. The houses are nice. The cars are modern and functional. I go to the mall and see thousands of cars and people shopping. Nobody's starving, at least where I live. I'm of the opinion that we - and the country as a whole - need an attitude check on our entitlement and a serious managing of expectations down to reality FAR more than we are actually in the middle of some apocalyptic nightmare.
The sky is falling! The sky is falling! I thought it was proven during the oil crisis in the mid 1970's that we'd all be riding bikes and reading by candlelight because the oil was suppose to run out within a decade or less. What ever happened to that alarmist pseudo-science? Hmm...perhaps it's the same scientists who knew absolutely, unequivocally back then that the world was soon to plunge into the Next Great Ice Age. Ooops! Got the negative sign backwards there. Okay, the world is heating up, yeah that's right. We know absolutely for sure this time. And not only that but man is causing it somehow. No, this isn't a hoax this time that a bunch of half wits and those with hidden agendas are trying to use to their own ends, no, no we're SINCERE this time. What we need is a new leader, a leader with VISION.
A new leader with a short, unproven political record but an eloquent, confident speaker who is feverishly worshiped by millions as the new savior. He wants to start his own para-military civilian force with as much power and arms as the regular army. He already has a fiercely loyal youth brigade of those who believe they've been disenfranchised. He wants to mandate highly fuel efficient cars for the good of the economy and environment, a "peoples car" if you will, which he can demand from one of the auto companies he's seized as Commander in Chief He's taken office in a time when the economy is collapsing and to fix it he's instituting policies that will lead to wildly out of control inflation on top of a severe depression. He believes he can be the first to institute socialist policies that succeed where others have failed and much of the success relies on the part of his plan to introduce presently hidden elements of his own agenda.
This great, wonderful leader? Of course the literate who bothered to study history and man's compulsion to repeat the same terrible mistakes throughout will know this is not just the Great Barack Obama but the Great Adolph Hitler. I wonder whether in a few decades from now young kids in the new up and rising Great Nation will drive the new People's Car (spelled Volkswagen in German) and think vague platitude filled thoughts about the collapse of the once great nation these cars came from, the nation that brought about its own demise under a dangerously narcissistic grandiose leader who was wildly worshiped by millions of angry, troubled masses who were desperately searching for scapegoats for their largely self created troubles?
Sorry, my eyes tend to skip over this kind of emotionally based rant...
Sadly, you hit the nail on the head. Supposed open minded, critical thinking progressives, need to take a moment to go to Youtube and watch The Obama Deception. I voted for the guy, but unfortunately, he is owned by corporations, and is only doing what best serves Wall Street, not Main Street.
I will do that. I supported Obama and still do, but I do think that Wall Street and the Fed are at the heart of a lot of our economic worries. Not enough people know that we owe something like half of our domestic debt to our own Federal Reserve. I personally don't see the reason for that.
Nor do they know that the Federal Reserve is a private, for profit, corporation, that is as federal as federal express!
No, it's not.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_reserve
Vigilance are you one of those people paid by Acorn to make paid responces in favor of the liberal agenda to keep people believing in a puppet for wallstreet and the illuminatti.
Not in the slightest.
This is what comes of placing a ''Czar'' in front of your name.[And this is what comes of an administration that promised America ''transparancy''].
''Put nothing in writing,ever''
These are the remarks of Obamas new ''Energy Czar'' Carol Browner, made to auto industry executives in a secret meeting on March 16,2009. We find that federal law makes it criminal to deliberately refrain from keeping records of any government meeting that would create national policy, as the later CAFE standards became. [ The ''Secret Cheney Energy Meetings'' broke no laws as while these were not made public, detailed records were kept, and are now subject to FOIA release. As opposed to this, Browner ordered that nothing be written down or retained for later public review].
Rep. James Sensenbrenner [R-Wi] has demanded an investigation into the ''who knew what when and what was said'' aimed directly at Browner in a letter to Waxman [D-Ca] who was once the chairman of the House Oversight Committee directed to look into such abuses of federal law. Browner, who was a relative unknown eminating from the old Clinton EPA, is now on the skillet turned up to 10.
The Washington Examiner July 09,2009: ''Put Nothing In Writing'' Browner Told Auto Execs In Secret White House CAFE Talks''.
www.house.gov
Wow, I don't even know why this is even an issue. I don't know about everyone else but the next car I buy, isn't even going to run on gasoline anyway. Oil is OLD NEWS and the oil companies need to realize that and move out of the way. With new alternative energy sources becoming more and more efficient, cheaper, and easier to come by, oil prices are inevitably going to plummet as there will be no use for it anymore. It will be worth absolutely nothing. Heck, we don't even need it to make plastics anymore as there are alternatives for that as well. Oil will soon be over, end of story. And gasoline will NEVER get up to $20 per gallon as oil prices are dictated by supply and demand and if demand is becoming less and less, supply is becoming more and more. Get off oil already, our drilling it is destroying natural habitats and making rich, RICH men out of evil people who could care less.
You paint an interesting picture...aboundant alternatives to oil. Please tell us what will fuel your next car? What will generate enough electricity to fuel a city like New York? What will be fueling our cargo transportation system...our trucks and railcars? I am not aware of solar's capacity to have reached such levels yet. How will steel be made if we don't burn coal? No plastics? Ok. What is the alternative that doesn't take just as much energy to produce...and by what? If the technology is already out there, I, along with everyone else except the oil and coal producers would love to know.
yeah, your right, guess I'm just wishful thinking. Ah heck, why should any of us try anymore? Why develop anything else? Let's just stick to what we know and do well rather than invent new technology or ways of doing things. After all, it's worked so well for everyone before us. Who needs advancement.
It is this very attitude that seeks to invoke emotive responses when reason must rule the day. I, in no way, believe libertyfirst was saying we shouldn't do anything. I read them to state that many people seem to be putting the cart before the horse here and declaring victory or proclaiming apocalypse when, in fact, we are still at the starting blocks or have been working with less than stellar facts.
To put a fine point on it, Toyota making a Prius does not solve our energy problems or change social values. For alternative energies to be successful, they must fill a current industry's need. They cannot demand the industry change to meet their limited design or implementation scope. This is basic business, not something I'm coming up with to thwart your well-meaning intentions. New energies are not becoming cheaper (biodiesel) nor are they becoming efficient (E85), or "easier to come by" (commercial electrical transport).
This process is not a process of changing energies, it's a process of changing mindsets...everyone's mindsets not just the other guy's. You want industry to embrace your ideas, give them something that is reasonable and based on hard numbers and is economically feasible. You want the citizenry to change, give them real and affordable alternatives. Remember, the automobile didn't explode on to the scene until it became mass produced (which brought down the costs) and showed it's worth (greater efficiency over the horse). So be practical and knock off the over-causal rhetoric because it gets us nowhere.
The problem is politicians making up lies about carbon being a pollutant, so they can increase taxes. Furthermore a recent study reveald that even if all the carbon in the world was to be stopped being produced it would only decrease global temeratures only about 1 one hundred of a degree. The current adminastration has swept these facts under the carpet. Just what are the real motives of this Cap and trade tax besides bankrupting America? I am pretty sure its all about complete control of people and they are not the slightest bit concerned about earth or the economy thats just a smoke screen to cover up what they are hiding and it wouldnt work to stop any warming anyway.
Look, we have one sure fire weapon to combat gas prices, and that's being smarter with the way we consume our gas. If we could take steps like driving the speed limit, turning the engine off when idling at crossings, and properly inflating our tires, we would save a ton of gas over time, not to mention money. Check out www.drivesmarterchallenge.org to see what I'm talking about. Plus, they have a nice coupon for saving dough on your next motor oil purchase!
Sameer Ranade
Energy Hog/Communications Intern
Alliance to Save Energy
The second is probably not going to happen, but the first and third are a spectacular idea.
Sameer,
I don't know cars that well, as I don't drive!! I'm epileptic and peddle. But doesn't it take more gas to start the engine than it does for the car to idle for a SHORT time on a red light or at a crosswalk?
I believe it does. It also raises the specter of older cars failing to start and getting stuck in traffic. It is not a good idea. Checking one's tires and generally not driving like an illegal bat out of hell, however, would indeed save a bundle of gas.
Depends on what you mean by SHORT. If you turn off th engine and then turn it right back on, yes you are wasting fuel. But if you are idling more than 20 seconds (less time than the typical stoplight cycle where I live), you would be more fuel efficient to turn off your car. This does NOT hold true for the large diesel engines in most freight trucks and busses though, which can idle somewhat longer without wasting fuel on startup.
S. Ranade,
I'm not the most educated regarding cars, but does it not take more gas to start your car than it does to sit (for a SHORT period of time) while the car idles, such at the crosswalk or red light?
John
I miss the groups that sit together on a mountain on the day that the earth is to end. Gasoline at 20 dollars a gallon just doesn't do it for me.
We adjust to everything. You should have been here during the second world war. Gasoline was rationed to the extent that you could hardly go anywhere. Everyone adjusted immediately. The national speed limit was 35 miles per hour. This was primarily to conserve tires. Rubber all went to the war effort. Everything got done. People didn't change their locale because of scarcity. Meat was rationed. Sugar was practically unavailable. Shortages of most everything you used. We didn't complain. Most of this idea that gasoline prices having such a large effect is just pure hogwash. We manage to adjust to change. It is the nature of humankind.
We love plenty. We are the land of plenty. We love to waste plenty. It's American. When scarcity hits, then we quit wasting and call the wasteful days, "the good old days". It's just been so long that everybody just forgot. Look forward to scarcity. There is a togetherness that develops and people are happy in sharing their hardships. When plenty returns, then the deprivation becomes, "the good old days". There is nothing new under the sun.
I like your posts, Olderwiser. You're screen name fits.
Great posts.
I don't fully agree with the author as his assumptions aren't really based on any empirical data. Retrofitting cities to be "more like New York" would be so financially burdensome that it would break most municipalities??? backs. New York isn't the watermark for mass transit as its development occurred is a significantly different way from what many of you consider the "fly over states". This author seems to embrace such excessive prices as he believes that will motivate the citizenry through aversion. He fails, as does most ecologists, to realize that such tactics rarely succeed due to mankind's innate unwillingness to bow to other's ideals for the sake of their own inconvenience.
Cap and trade is a specter and will do more to damage the economy than it will to "balance" the ecological impact you profess is occurring. First, do you seriously believe that industry will not pass along the taxation to the end user thereby increasing inflation on goods? Second, who decides what the balance is? The statics being thrown around as of late are pure hyperbole and until a reason set of metrics and forecast models are developed under healthy scientific scrutiny from all sides, then any "zero out" cannot be justified or measured. So, we don't have this structure but you would put the government in charge of making these calls? The EPA is ineffective now let alone without the additional burden of cap and trade fantasies. How about a non-profit or industry-run association? Would probably be more efficient, but their results would always be under scrutiny.
The answer is quite simple, stop trying to find ways to beat the public into your point of view and start finding ways to reward transitory behavior. A Smart car means nothing to a construction worker or a mother of three, start applying your miracle technology to real vehicles. Port your "solutions" into the existing culture rather than trying to force everyone to adapt to the technology. Then you'll begin to see real change.
Should of scrolled down to your post earlier. Good one; well said. I particularly like the "stop finding ways to beat the public into your point of view and start finding ways to reward transitionary behavior."
I don't think that it will ever top $19.97 per gallon. Can't imagine how anyone ever arrived at $20.00. That'll be June 21, 2017 when it hits $19.97.
I don't fully agree with the author as his assumptions aren't really based on any empirical data. Retrofitting cities to be "more like New York" would be so financially burdensome that it would break most municipalities??? backs. New York isn't the watermark for mass transit as its development occurred is a significantly different way from what many of you consider the "fly over states". This author seems to embrace such excessive prices as he believes that will motivate the citizenry through aversion. He fails, as does most ecologists, to realize that such tactics rarely succeed due to mankind's innate unwillingness to bow to other's ideals for the sake of their own inconvenience.
Cap and trade is a specter and will do more to damage the economy than it will to "balance" the ecological impact you profess is occurring. First, do you seriously believe that industry will not pass along the taxation to the end user thereby increasing inflation on goods? Second, who decides what the balance is? The statics being thrown around as of late are pure hyperbole and until a reason set of metrics and forecast models are developed under healthy scientific scrutiny from all sides, then any "zero out" cannot be justified or measured. So, we don't have this structure but you would put the government in charge of making these calls? The EPA is ineffective now let alone without the additional burden of cap and trade fantasies. How about a non-profit or industry-run association? Would probably be more efficient, but their results would always be under scrutiny.
The answer is quite simple, stop trying to find ways to beat the public into your point of view and start finding ways to reward transitory behavior. A Smart car means nothing to a construction worker or a mother of three, start applying your miracle technology to real vehicles. Port your "solutions" into the existing culture rather than trying to force everyone to adapt to the technology. Then you'll begin to see real change.
Just Google HHO Generators and you will see what a crock all of this is. I installed a simple hydrogen generator in my 1995 Ford Explorer and increased my MPG by 35%!
The only reason why gas would go up to $20-$100 gallon, would be because the government owns GM, and the hybrid cars. They would have to raise the price of gas to offset the loss of oil profits.
Just Google or Youtube HHO Generators and you will see what I'm talking about. If Government, and the corporations they are involved with, can't profit from it, they don't want us to have it. END OF STORY!
This is all a liberal pipe dream....forcing us all back in to the cities. The solution to this is very simple and is coming.
We small town, country, and surburban dwellers will have one electric call to get around locally and then one
long range diesel to go further, using the electric mostly and the diesel when we need to leave town. You
will never, ever force us back to the cities and the hell holes they have become.
By all means please live as far out in the country as possible. If you hate liberals that much, it would be spectacular if you didn't even come near us. Everybody with a grudge against liberals or progressives who stays far away from the movement is one less Von Brunn we have to worry about...
That is the problem. You who consider yourselves 'Progressive' take no responsibility for the consequences of making stupid mistakes and you drag the cities and Countries down with you. Albeit not all of the progressive choices to further the economy are not bad, it is your social choices that cause a wave of judgement and undeniable hate you preach against. So those who are Conservative I say to you MOVE BACK TO THE CITY and bring some balance back to the Urban World.
In what way does my response to this person indicate a denial of responsibility on my part? It would help if your accusations were backed up by some form of argument, friend.
Really misleading storyline (header title). Anyhow, now that I've read it, and some comments, it seems we're stuck on the Sarah Palin theology of drill baby drill. We are drilling. And to cite the lack of it , if that's what you want to believe, due to politics, is THE reason for prices going back up, I disagree. It's been proven again and again, that it's all the speculation, that drives the price up. Folks need to start taking delivery of those barrels of oil they're buying, and then see if they want to keep on buying it. On a similiar note, 401k holders , the one's left,, are automatically vested by Smith Barney or whoever their broker is , in oil . That can be stopped by taking control of one's own stock portfolio, instead of letting these "experts" gain you a nickel in dividends, while the price of gasoline jumps a quarter. Finally, the talk of bombing Iran. If we want prices like the author is saying, than this is the quickest way to get there. Nuclear energy is not the answer either, it's solar and wind, contrary to what every a.m. radio station in the soutwest is touting. Nuclear powerplants puts big profits in the pockets of few, Haliburton would get the contract, as a matter of fact, and we still haven't solved the waste dilemma, plus they're just dangerous for a number of reasons. Solar and wind development would put money in more small business developers pockets, as it stands to be more widespread as far as parts makers, ilnstallers, etc.. They're (big business) are just making it sound like it isn't an alternative, because they don't get the whole pie, just a piece.
Enter comments if any for reporting abuse
Discuss