[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by itai195:
There are campaigns for that... Personally, I'm not going to go on a crusade against SUVs, but I do recognize that some people make socially irresponsible choices by purchasing one when they don't need it.

SIGH!

When I was stationed at MCRD, San Diego I remember a Sergeant saying the Marine Corps is the last place in our society where a man could be a man.

When I lived in Northern Arizona, I recall a cowboy saying he liked the cowboy life where he was free to live according to the rules of nature and the land, rather than those of 'civilized society.'

When I was a kid I recall watching cartoons where characters clobbered, shot and obliterated each other. But now, those same cartoons are called irresponsibly violent.

I recognize the need for societal changes in attitude and behavior and lament (resent?) those changes as well.

[typoon]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
SIGH!

When I was stationed at MCRD, San Diego I remember a Sergeant saying the Marine Corps is the last place in our society where a man could be a man.

When I lived in Northern Arizona, I recall a cowboy saying he liked the cowboy life where he was free to live according to the rules of nature and the land, rather than those of 'civilized society.'

When I was a kid I recall watching cartoons where characters clobbered, shot and obliterated each other. But now, those same cartoons are called irresponsibly violent.

I recognize the need for societal changes in attitude and behavior and lament (resent?) those changes as well.

It's because we have gotten to politically correct in this country and are afraid to ofeeend someone.

[MATTRESS]

Originally posted by typoon:
Were we as productive as we are now since we "got along for so long without oil?" Who said the plastic is going to be polluting this planet for centuries and eons? Who knows maybe someone will figure out an energy source by using plastics?

Right, and maybe I will grow a third arm out of my ass and it will help me improve my golf game.

The question isn't whether we'll run out of oil or not. The question is when, and, who will be prepared to adapt and who will not?

So what if it went up to 200 Dollars per quart? That too is nothing over a period of a year when you look at the big picture right?

I've said all along I could care less about oil prices. Increased prices won't affect me because as a whole I'm a relatively small consumer of anything.

Good for you. I wish I did too. My electrical bills would be MUCH lower than they are now. You might not be the one who has to deal with the increased prices but what about everyone else? Should we all have windmills in our backyards?

Again, what to do when the oil runs out? What then? It won't be my problem just as increased oil prices aren't going to affect my heating costs one penny.

Obviously we adapt that is human nature. To be able to adapt. But you keep bashin oil so I made a statement basically stating that if you hate the consumption of oil so much why not go back to the horse and buggie? Why Don't you ride a bicycle instead of drive? You wouldn't use any oil then.

Because the point being that oil prices are of no concern to me. I wish they would keep going up just to get people to cut consumption.

Why should you tell someone what they can and can't drive?

Same reason why homeowner's associations can tell me what color I can and can't paint my house, as an example.

If a person wants to drive an SUV then I think it should be conditional with a massive consumption tax for tearing up the roads I have to drive on, for example, along with the massive consumption of a finite resource and in addition perhaps said person should pay a higher tax to keep the military funded so that their oil can keep flowing.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by MATTRESS:
I will take a chill pill when all these mini-tanks are off the streets.

I wonder if the war in Iraq would have been necessary if it weren't for all the asshole SUV drivers in this country making securing our oil supplies necessary.

I think that all the blood in Iraq is due to the overconsumption of supplies by the wasteful morons who drive these large piles of useless junk.

You know, I think you MIGHT be right about the oil motive being at the heart of our invasion of Iraq.

Yet, just as there are valuable by-products of petroleum aside from just gasoline, there are also valuable by-products to be gained from our Iraqi invasion.

Remember, we got TANG and TEFLON as by-products of the Space program and it has cost several lives along the way.

[MATTRESS]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:


Remember, we got TANG and TEFLON as by-products of the Space program and it has cost several lives along the way.

Obtaining TANG and TEFLON didn't require us to invade other countries.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by MATTRESS:
I doubt seriously a rice burner will consume the fuel that an Expedition or Suburban does.

I'm all for doing whatever it takes to get these monsters and their idiotic drivers off the road.

What about the poor folk?

They can't afford a more economical new/newer car, so they buy a 1977 T-Bird (or some other BIG GAS GUZZLING BOAT) just to get around.

Then, they don't make enough $$ to afford to keep it well tuned or maintained. It burns more gas AND pollutes more.

What say you?

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by MATTRESS:
Obtaining TANG and TEFLON didn't require us to invade other countries.

No, but much, much WORSE!

We invaded another WORLD!

Not only that, but it looks like we CLAIMED IT FOR OURSELVES!

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by MATTRESS:
Right, and maybe I will grow a third arm out of my ass and it will help me improve my golf game.

The question isn't whether we'll run out of oil or not. The question is when, and, who will be prepared to adapt and who will not?

I've said all along I could care less about oil prices. Increased prices won't affect me because as a whole I'm a relatively small consumer of anything.

Again, what to do when the oil runs out? What then? It won't be my problem just as increased oil prices aren't going to affect my heating costs one penny.

Because the point being that oil prices are of no concern to me. I wish they would keep going up just to get people to cut consumption.

Same reason why homeowner's associations can tell me what color I can and can't paint my house, as an example.

If a person wants to drive an SUV then I think it should be conditional with a massive consumption tax for tearing up the roads I have to drive on, for example, along with the massive consumption of a finite resource and in addition perhaps said person should pay a higher tax to keep the military funded so that their oil can keep flowing.

Not exactly sure why, but I get the impression you not only would favor a society that is tightly controlled (by leaders and rules you'd agree with, of course) and regimented, but would also see nothing wrong with imposing that kind of society on ALL of us.

What say you?

[djohnson]

Originally posted by MATTRESS:
...for tearing up the roads I have to drive on...

You realize with that statement you just made a fool of yourself? You really think an SUV that might weigh 6000 lbs vs a car that weight 4000lbs makes that much difference to the roads? If you want to go after someone that destroys roads, why not try the garbage truck and firetrucks...

[typoon]

Originally posted by MATTRESS:
Right, and maybe I will grow a third arm out of my ass and it will help me improve my golf game.

No comment

The question isn't whether we'll run out of oil or not. The question is when, and, who will be prepared to adapt and who will not?

No one really knows when. There are so many estimates right now that no one knows for sure. Necessity is the mother of invention. If people need to adapt they WILL always find a way.

I've said all along I could care less about oil prices. Increased prices won't affect me because as a whole I'm a relatively small consumer of anything.

Yes but add up all the relatively small consuers and you have a lot of consumers. I would consider myself a small consumer as well but if a quart of oil cost 200 dollars then everything else would go up as well. How would you be able to pay your rent/mortgage feed your family if everything costs so much in the first place? So indirectly the cost of things DOES affect you and every small medium and large consumer.

Again, what to do when the oil runs out? What then? It won't be my problem just as increased oil prices aren't going to affect my heating costs one penny.

Lucky for you that it won't cost you a penny. Again should everyone have a windmill in there backyard? Hopefully there will be some alternative source of inexpensive energy.

Because the point being that oil prices are of no concern to me. I wish they would keep going up just to get people to cut consumption.

Less consumption, less money, less money, less need for the employee, less need for the employee=Less consumption since there will be no need for your consumable product.
No job no paying for anything no matter what the cost.

You WILL always need to eat. How do they get it to your local market? Are you planning to grow your own food and keep your own livestock? You will always need to consume some type of product.

Same reason why homeowner's associations can tell me what color I can and can't paint my house, as an example.

If a person wants to drive an SUV then I think it should be conditional with a massive consumption tax for tearing up the roads I have to drive on, for example, along with the massive consumption of a finite resource and in addition perhaps said person should pay a higher tax to keep the military funded so that their oil can keep flowing.

Totally different senario the home owners association and your car. It's more like me telling you want you can and can't wear. That's like me tell you that you can't wear a leather coat because i don't like leather and there are only a finite number of hides.

If you are so worried about costs and limited resources how come you don't drive a hybrid? you WILL use up much much less of the limited resource.

If you don't live in a complex that has a home owners association you CAN paint your house whatever color you want. My house is white. If I wanted to paint it bright Yellow no one would stop me since i don't have a housing association.

[MATTRESS]

Originally posted by djohnson:
You really think an SUV that might weigh 6000 lbs vs a car that weight 4000lbs makes that much difference to the roads?

Every bit makes a huge difference when one lives in a hot environment or one where the jackasses put studs and chains on their tires when there's never any snow, ice, or slush on the ground.

If you want to go after someone that destroys roads, why not try the garbage truck and firetrucks...

Garbage trucks and firetrucks aren't being driven by women with PMS, cell phones attached to their faces, and screaming kids.

[MATTRESS]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
Not exactly sure why, but I get the impression you not only would favor a society that is tightly controlled (by leaders and rules you'd agree with, of course) and regimented, but would also see nothing wrong with imposing that kind of society on ALL of us.

What say you?

I believe regulation is necessary when society isn't willing to behave or act in a responsible manner.

[typoon]

Originally posted by MATTRESS:
Garbage trucks and firetrucks aren't being driven by women with PMS, cell phones attached to their faces, and screaming kids.

Yes but don't you think they consume MORE oil/gas than ANY SUV on the market? Why not get rid of them? I mean we have a limited supply.

[MATTRESS]

Originally posted by typoon:
No one really knows when.

Everyone knows it will run out. It's getting more expensive to find and more difficult to find. The easy to pump oil is becoming more scarce.

Yes but add up all the relatively small consuers and you have a lot of consumers. I would consider myself a small consumer as well but if a quart of oil cost 200 dollars then everything else would go up as well. How would you be able to pay your rent/mortgage feed your family if everything costs so much in the first place? So indirectly the cost of things DOES affect you and every small medium and large consumer.

And once again the capital outlay, expense, extra employees, etc. that was necessitated by moving from horses to vehicles went over without bankrupting everyone. When the oil rises in price, becomes more scarce, etc. we'll transition to something more economical when it becomes too expensive to use oil. Question is, will we be ready or will we bury our heads in the sand drunk and intoxicated by cheap oil today?

Lucky for you that it won't cost you a penny. Again should everyone have a windmill in there backyard? Hopefully there will be some alternative source of inexpensive energy.

Or maybe people will move away from the parts of the country which have a high incidence of heating and cooling days.

You WILL always need to eat. How do they get it to your local market? Are you planning to grow your own food and keep your own livestock? You will always need to consume some type of product.

It would appear, once again, being blessed by living in a place where much of the nation's food supply is raised benefits me again. My costs won't go up like those who live very far away from the nation's breadbasket would be forced to deal with if they continue to live in such remote places.

If you are so worried about costs and limited resources how come you don't drive a hybrid? you WILL use up much much less of the limited resource.

Because I'm not the one consuming more than my fair share. I drive a much more economical vehicle than even current Federal regulations force upon the automakers. If anyone's going to pay the price it should be the Suburban, Explorer, or other SUV driver.

[MATTRESS]

Originally posted by typoon:
Yes but don't you think they consume MORE oil/gas than ANY SUV on the market? Why not get rid of them? I mean we have a limited supply.

Firetrucks and garbage trucks serve a purpose. Big honking stinking gas guzzling SUV pigs do not.

[typoon]

Originally posted by MATTRESS:
Everyone knows it will run out. It's getting more expensive to find and more difficult to find. The easy to pump oil is becoming more scarce.

One of the reasons it's getting harder to find is because people don't want to allow more discovery of new oil supplies.

And once again the capital outlay, expense, extra employees, etc. that was necessitated by moving from horses to vehicles went over without bankrupting everyone. When the oil rises in price, becomes more scarce, etc. we'll transition to something more economical when it becomes too expensive to use oil. Question is, will we be ready or will we bury our heads in the sand drunk and intoxicated by cheap oil today?

What does that have to do with the price or oil? You implied that the price of oil should go up to reduce consumption. But the transition from horse and buggie to the automobile increased consumption thereby improving everyones life.

What do you think they are working on now? Right now we have Hybrid cars, Electric cars and other things they are working on. As new techonolgies are invented/used hopefully someone will come up with something inexpensive and alternative. The Question is if oil goes up how do you propose they mill the needed tools to create these new technologies? How do you think they created the hydro Electric plant you are now benefitting from? They had to use some oil driven device to create it. If it costs too much then people will not want to create because it will be too cost prohibitive for them.

Or maybe people will move away from the parts of the country which have a high incidence of heating and cooling days.

So then we should pack everyone into parts of the country that don't have high incidence of heating and colling days. We should leave the rest of those places desolate.

[B]It would appear, once again, being blessed by living in a place where much of the nation's food supply is raised benefits me again. My costs won't go up like those who live very far away from the nation's breadbasket would be forced to deal with if they continue to live in such remote places./B]

What remote places? California? NJ? NY? PA? FL? Those are some really remote places.

Because I'm not the one consuming more than my fair share. I drive a much more economical vehicle than even current Federal regulations force upon the automakers. If anyone's going to pay the price it should be the Suburban, Explorer, or other SUV driver.

What kind of car do you drive that is even more Economical than current Federal regulations? Yes but if they pay more everyone pays more for everything.

[typoon]

Originally posted by MATTRESS:
Firetrucks and garbage trucks serve a purpose. Big honking stinking gas guzzling SUV pigs do not.

What's with all the bitterness towards SUV's? Why don't we all not drive? We could all go by bicycle since cars in general really don't serve much purpose. Why should someone like you dictate to me what I can and cannot drive? If I decide to drive an SUV why should I be paying more for something? That's like saying Bill Gates or Steve jobs should be making so much money since I'm not making my fair share.

[sideus]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
You know, I think you MIGHT be right about the oil motive being at the heart of our invasion of Iraq.

Yet, just as there are valuable by-products of petroleum aside from just gasoline, there are also valuable by-products to be gained from our Iraqi invasion.

Remember, we got TANG and TEFLON as by-products of the Space program and it has cost several lives along the way.

Teflon was developed in the 1930's.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by sideus:
Teflon was developed in the 1930's.

uh, er, I meant VELCRO! Yeah, that's what I meant. yeah. velcro.

And TANG!

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by MATTRESS:
I believe regulation is necessary when society isn't willing to behave or act in a responsible manner.

Frankly, I find your statement to be REMARKABLE!

[MATTRESS]

Originally posted by typoon:
What's with all the bitterness towards SUV's? Why don't we all not drive? We could all go by bicycle since cars in general really don't serve much purpose. Why should someone like you dictate to me what I can and cannot drive? If I decide to drive an SUV why should I be paying more for something? That's like saying Bill Gates or Steve jobs should be making so much money since I'm not making my fair share.

Because SUVs for the most part are not necessary to get from point A to point B, are dangerous to other drivers due to a general lack of proper training in handling and operation by their owners, have worse gas mileage than other ordinary vehicles, cause much more pollution than typical passenger vehicles, and are generally a total nuisance.

I believe that in the national security interest of this nation it's imperative to reduce our dependence on foreign energy supplies and if banning SUVs is one way to achieve this then I'm all for it.

The larger problem looming is that as these things age and are thrust upon the second-hand market the amount of pollution and overall gas consumption will increase.

No, these things need to be taken off the road and if legislation/higher taxes/consumption taxes are needed then I would support such measures fully and completely.

Sometimes it's hard to believe I'm a conservative but this is an issue that I feel is a national security problem.

[MATTRESS]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
Frankly, I find your statement to be REMARKABLE!

Is it really any different than all the environmental legislation that had to be passsed because corporations weren't willing to treat the environment in a responsible manner?

[MATTRESS]

Originally posted by typoon:
One of the reasons it's getting harder to find is because people don't want to allow more discovery of new oil supplies.

No, it's because the easily found sources are being pumped dry. Look at all the environmental destruction in the Mississippi delta, for example. The domes collapsing as oil and NG are pumped out. The only places where oil is readily obtainable are unfortunately in some of the most dangerous places on earth politically and militarily. One of the main problems is that oil can only be found at certain depths in the earth's crust because at a point the temperture becomes too high for oil to exist.

What does that have to do with the price or oil? You implied that the price of oil should go up to reduce consumption. But the transition from horse and buggie to the automobile increased consumption thereby improving everyones life.

Going from horse and buggy increased transportation costs. We managed to adapt our economy around that and when the oil runs out and transportation costs change again then we'll adapt to that. I'm just suggesting that waste needs to be eliminated and one way to achieve that is by legislating higher increases in fuel economy. Since the automobile manufacturers naturally oppose that because it eats into the most profitable lines (SUVs which by nature cannot achieve high fuel economy) then I think it becomes necessary to increase fuel taxes to affect the change that the automobile manufacturers are unwilling to take. The goal being, overall, to reduce or eliminate dependence on foreign energy supplies. Supplies which come from unstable and dangerous regions of this world.

So then we should pack everyone into parts of the country that don't have high incidence of heating and colling days. We should leave the rest of those places desolate.

Yes. There are reasons why places are desolate in nature.

What remote places? California? NJ? NY? PA? FL? Those are some really remote places.

It's going to be much cheaper for a person living in Napa Valley to get produce than someone in San Diego, for example. If transportation costs go up those living close to the source of a product won't be impacted as much as those living further away.

[tie]

Originally posted by typoon:
If I decide to drive an SUV why should I be paying more for something? That's like saying Bill Gates or Steve jobs should be making so much money since I'm not making my fair share.

I can't believe this thread got to page 2 without anyone answering this question, but I'm not reading page 1 to check.

The main reasons are national security, and the environment both locally and globally.

1. National security
a. Oil money goes to countries which are closely tied to terrorism
b. The reason Middle Eastern countries don't have to reform, and why we need to invade to spread freedom and democracy, is that they are awash in money. Cutting off the flood of money would force countries like Saudi Arabia to reform if they wanted to stay viable.

2. Environment
a. Locally, increased pollution harms health, costing money and hurting people's quality of life
b. Globally, warming could cost the world economy trillions. The people most causing the warming (SUV owners) should have to pay for it.

Here is a good editorial by Thomas Friedman on 1b (quoted in full):

The Battle of the Pump

By Thomas Friedman
Op-Ed Columnist
New York Times
October 7, 2004

Of all the shortsighted policies of President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, none have been worse than their opposition to energy conservation and a gasoline tax. If we had imposed a new gasoline tax after 9/11, demand would have been dampened and gas today would probably still be $2 a gallon. But instead of the extra dollar going to Saudi Arabia - where it ends up with mullahs who build madrasas that preach intolerance - that dollar would have gone to our own Treasury to pay down our own deficit and finance our own schools. In fact, the Bush energy policy should be called No Mullah Left Behind.

Our own No Child Left Behind program has not been fully financed because the tax revenue is not there. But thanks to the Bush-Cheney energy policy, No Mullah Left Behind has been fully financed and is now the gift that keeps on giving: terrorism.

Mr. Bush says we're in "a global war on terrorism.'' That's right. But that war is rooted in the Arab-Muslim world. That means there is no war on terrorism that doesn't involve helping this region onto a more promising path for its huge population of young people - too many of whom are unemployed or unemployable because their oil-rich regimes are resistant to change and their religious leaders are resisting modernity.

A former Kuwaiti information minister, Sad bin Tefla, wrote an article in a London Arabic daily, Al Sharq Al Awsat, last Sept. 11 entitled "We Are All Bin Laden.'' He asked why Muslim scholars and clerics had eagerly supported fatwas condemning Salman Rushdie to death after he wrote a novel deemed insulting to Islam, "The Satanic Verses,'' but to this day no Muslim cleric has issued a fatwa condemning Osama bin Laden for murdering nearly 3,000 innocent civilians, badly damaging Islam.

Building a decent Iraq is necessary to help reverse such trends, but it is not sufficient. We need a much more comprehensive approach, particularly if we fail in Iraq. The Bush team does not offer one. It has treated the Arab-Israeli issue with benign neglect, failed to find any way to communicate with the Arab world and adopted an energy policy that is supporting the worst Arab oil regimes and the worst trends. Phil Verleger, one of the nation's top energy consultants and a longtime advocate of a gas tax, puts it succinctly: "U.S. energy policy today is in support of terrorism - not the war on terrorism."

We need to dramatically cut our consumption of oil and bring the price back down to $20 a barrel. Nothing would do more to stimulate reform in the Arab-Muslim world. Oil regimes do not have to modernize or govern well. They just buy off their people and their mullahs. Governments without oil have to reform to create jobs. People do not change when you tell them they should - they change when they tell themselves they must.

The Arab-Muslim world is in a must-change human development crisis, "but oil is like a narcotic that kills a lot of the pain for them and prevents real change,'' says David Rothkopf, a visiting scholar at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

Where is all the innovation in the Arab world today? In the places with little or no oil: Bahrain is working on labor reform, just signed a free-trade agreement with the U.S. and held the first elections in the Arab gulf, allowing women to run and vote. Dubai has made itself into a regional service center. And Jordan has a free-trade agreement with the U.S. and is trying to transform itself into a knowledge economy. Who is paralyzed or rolling back reforms? Saudi Arabia, Syria and Iran, all now awash in oil money.

When did Jordan begin privatizing and deregulating its economy and upgrading its education system? In 1989 - after oil prices had slumped and the Arab oil states cut off Jordan's subsidies. In 1999, before Jordan signed its U.S. free-trade accord, its exports to America totaled $13 million. This year, Jordan will export over $1 billion worth of goods to the U.S. In the wake of King Abdullah II's reforms, Jordan's economy is growing at an annual rate of over 7 percent, the government is installing computers and broadband Internet links in every school, and it will soon require anyone who wants to study Islamic law and become a mosque preacher to first get a B.A. in something else, so mosque leaders won't just come from those who can't do anything else. "We had to go through a crisis to accept the need for reform," says Jordan's planning minister, Bassem Awadallah.

We have the power right now to stimulate similar trends across the Arab world. It's the best way to fight a global war on terrorism. If only we had a president and vice president tough enough to fight this war.

[djohnson]

Originally posted by tie:
...Globally, warming could cost the world economy trillions. The people most causing the warming (SUV owners) should have to pay for it.

Nice editorial! Really interesting to read things like that about other non-oil producing ME countries. I do have a problem with the above statement though. Please show a legit study that proves that SUV's are causing global warming.

[typoon]

Originally posted by MATTRESS:
Because SUVs for the most part are not necessary to get from point A to point B, are dangerous to other drivers due to a general lack of proper training in handling and operation by their owners, have worse gas mileage than other ordinary vehicles, cause much more pollution than typical passenger vehicles, and are generally a total nuisance.

I believe that in the national security interest of this nation it's imperative to reduce our dependence on foreign energy supplies and if banning SUVs is one way to achieve this then I'm all for it.

The larger problem looming is that as these things age and are thrust upon the second-hand market the amount of pollution and overall gas consumption will increase.

No, these things need to be taken off the road and if legislation/higher taxes/consumption taxes are needed then I would support such measures fully and completely.

Sometimes it's hard to believe I'm a conservative but this is an issue that I feel is a national security problem.

The gov't HAS started to require higher Gas mileage from SUV's Also Ford is coming out with it's Hybrid SUV for 2005. What do you say about those things? I believe it's by 2007 or 8 that they need to come close to gas milage of a car.

I too believe it's a National Security issue. We SHOULD be drilling in ANWAR, We should also be getting more of our oil from Mexico and South America.

We should be telling Vincente Fox that we want 20 million barrels for every illegal Mexican that crosses the border. That might help to lessen some of the border issues. Border control and Other national security issues are for another thread though.

We should also be researching and promoting Hybrid and alternative fuel vehicles.

I'm acutally surprised that you are a conservative calling for higher taxes and more regulation. Be we can have many of the same beliefs and disagree.

[OldManMac]

Drilling in ANWR would be like putting a straw in a shot glass; it just gives you the illusion that there's more there than there actually is. It's a very few years worth of oil at best, and the ecological damage would outweigh the cost. We just need to face the facts, and as we won't do it willingly, the price of gas will help us.

[djohnson]

Originally posted by typoon:
We should be telling Vincente Fox that we want 20 million barrels for every illegal Mexican that crosses the border. That might help to lessen some of the border issues. Border control and Other national security issues are for another thread though.

You almost made me spit my water out on my computers. Very funny!!!

[MATTRESS]

Originally posted by typoon:
The gov't HAS started to require higher Gas mileage from SUV's Also Ford is coming out with it's Hybrid SUV for 2005. What do you say about those things? I believe it's by 2007 or 8 that they need to come close to gas milage of a car.

There's no reason why the fleet standard can't be higher except for the automakers dragging it out because it might cut into their profits. Get rid of all SUVs and suddenly the fleet average goes way up.

I too believe it's a National Security issue. We SHOULD be drilling in ANWAR, We should also be getting more of our oil from Mexico and South America.

The solution isn't more drilling, more killing, more devestation, more wars. The solution is conservation and government MANDATED efficiency.

I'm acutally surprised that you are a conservative calling for higher taxes and more regulation. Be we can have many of the same beliefs and disagree.

I believe that there are certain taxes which are necessary, if need be, to regulate behavior. Raising cigarette taxes is doing much to cut consumption. Raise the gasoline tax some more and perhaps these broken bridges and highways can be repaired in a timely manner, and, if we just tax the worst polluting and least efficient passenger vehicles then we can solve many problems at once. We could give people with vehicles that exceed a minimum a break on the gasoline taxes to offset the burden on those who aren't the problem.

[MATTRESS]

Originally posted by djohnson:
Nice editorial! Really interesting to read things like that about other non-oil producing ME countries. I do have a problem with the above statement though. Please show a legit study that proves that SUV's are causing global warming.

Internal combustion engines produce about 20 pounds of carbon dioxide per gallon of gasoline burned. Given that about 50% of new vehicles sold in this country are the light truck/SUV category, and, the CAFE for those vehicles is only 20.7MPG versus almost 28MPG for cars it's easy to see how the scourge of SUVs can cause far more pollution during the lifetimw of one SUV versus the typical passenger car. And believe it or not some of the worst offenders don't even have to meet any fuel standard because they fall outside the passenger car/light truck category.

For every 30MPG fuel rating it's estimated some 50 tons of carbon dioxide would be produced in an average vehicle's lifetime. Drop that to 15MPG (still higher than an Excursion achieves) and you go up to 100 tons of carbon dioxide.

Per year, for example, comparing a Ford Focus to a Ford Explorer the Explorer will produce about twice the greenhouse gases that the Focus will.

http://www.fueleconomy.gov

[typoon]

Originally posted by djohnson:
You almost made me spit my water out on my computers. Very funny!!!

Thanks it wasn't actually an original idea on my part but I liked it so I thought I'de get it out there.

[djohnson]

Originally posted by MATTRESS:
And believe it or not some of the worst offenders don't even have to meet any fuel standard because they fall outside the passenger car/light truck category.

The only SUV I can think of that matches that is the H2. That is one vehicle I see no need to have...

How do you suggest we raise fuel economy in trucks/SUV when they need the power to haul stuff? If you have an idea, I would love to hear it! I am all for increasing the fuel economy in vehicles.

[typoon]

Here is an interesting thing I found about Crashes and Safety of SUV's compared to cars.

http://www.mrtraffic.com/suv.htm

A newly released study by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety shows that when a car is hit by a light truck or SUV, the car is the loser. But IIHS spokesmen told the Washington Post that the report is meant to bring perspective to the car/light truck crash debate. The study shows that passengers in cars are four times more likely to die than those in pickup or sports utility vehicles.

This is what is being called a fight between automotive Gullivers and Lilliputians between 1990 and 1995. Statistics showed that if a small cars weighting less than 2,500 pounds is stuck in the side by a SUV, occupants of the car are 47 times more likely to die. By comparison, when a car hits another auto in the side there are six deaths in the car being hit for every one in the striking vehicle.

They cite the example of a pickup trucks in the 3,500-4,000 pound class, such as the Ford F150 or GMC 1500, that hits another vehicle. More than twice as many die in the other vehicles than the trucks: 115 to 52. But when a car in the same weight range, such as a Ford Taurus or Chevy Lumina , crashes with another vehicle the death ratio is 57 in the other vehicle to 53 inside the large car. And, for crashes involving sport utility vehicles, the ratio is 92 deaths in the other vehicles to 37 in the sport utility.

The link has the rest of the article.

[djohnson]

So typoon showed us that SUV's and trucks are much safer than cars. Now does anyone wonder why people drive SUV's? Lives are more important than a few bucks...

[olePigeon]

Originally posted by djohnson:
So typoon showed us that SUV's and trucks are much safer than cars. Now does anyone wonder why people drive SUV's? Lives are more important than a few bucks...

That's like saying a brick is safer than a tin can. The tides changed when they labeled a 6 ton truck as a "light pickup" to take advantage of a tax loophole. SUVs are cheap if you own a business or know someone who does.

People didn't buy them originally because they were safer than cars, they bought them because the government subsidized up to 70% of the damn thing. The law was intended to help farmers, not soccer moms. Now the market is saturated with SUVs.

If everyone started driving 18-wheelers, of course they'd be "safer" than SUVs.

[typoon]

Originally posted by djohnson:
So typoon showed us that SUV's and trucks are much safer than cars. Now does anyone wonder why people drive SUV's? Lives are more important than a few bucks...

I wasn't trying to make a point that they were safer that is why we need to allow them on the road. It was just an interesting article.

[Mithras]

typhoon's article was bizarre: it talked only about the relative ratio of whether car A or car B would die: it didn't talk about the actual rate of fatalities in an absolute sense. If you ask me, the idea is to have nobody die, not to make sure that the other guy dies.

Industry experts say that
(1) SUVs kill their own occupants more than cars do, and
(2) SUVs kill passengers in other cars more than cars do.

Basically, they're a safety disaster.

[MATTRESS]

Originally posted by Mithras:
typhoon's article was bizarre: it talked only about the relative ratio of whether car A or car B would die: it didn't talk about the actual rate of fatalities in an absolute sense. If you ask me, the idea is to have nobody die, not to make sure that the other guy dies.

Industry experts say that
(1) SUVs kill their own occupants more than cars do, and
(2) SUVs kill passengers in other cars more than cars do.

Basically, they're a safety disaster.

Not to mention more dangerous when in the hands of inexperienced drivers. Not to mention the rollover hazards, etc.

[angaq0k]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
Look around you. Almost EVERYTHING you own and use and value owes it's existence to oil.

Are you made out of oil?

[angaq0k]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I'll guess at some reasons. Oil prices in real (i.e. inflation adjusted) terms aren't really that high. I don't recall the exact figure, but I heard NPR the other day say the price per barrel when Carter was president would be something like $80 in today's dollars.
(...)
Anyway, my totally unscientific opinionated 2 cents.

You are right: this increase is just an illusion.

[angaq0k]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
Why not pay less if we can?

I'd love to be rich like you!!!!!

Marry me!

[angaq0k]

Originally posted by Beewee:
I'd actually support the war if gas dropped to $1.30 a gallon or less.
There are reports that low income families are going to need finacial support to pay for gas bills this winter.

aberdeen believe we can afford to pay more though; do you disagree?

[angaq0k]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
Until we have a viable, readily available, cheap alternative we are stuck with oil. (Not to mention the time, equipment and costs for industry to switchover to that next alternative energy source.)

I think the president said he'd devoted a Billion $ to exploring alternative energy...didn't he say Hydrogen?

But we're still not there yet.

No. You are right . We are not there yet. I can't see anyoone getting there with Bush's Energy management policy.

But a vote for Bush is a vote for quicker depletion of oil reserves! Let's Buy and Burn!

[angaq0k]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
Not to mention the vested interests in maintaining the status quo. Alot of very rich people would suddenly be very poor should we lose our dependence on oil.

They would actually invest in stupidity and get even richer...

Don't undersestimate the Power of Human Imagination (PHI�).

[CreepingDeth]

Evidently Bush/Cheney is behind this one too!!!11!!!

Take some basic economics courses people. I'm not genius, but this is all common sense.
Oil is taken out of the ground. Right? Right.
When there is less demand for oil, prices go down with the demand. Perfect opportunity for buying, correct?
When there is a HUGE demand for oil, prices go up with the demand.

Currently, China is using alot of oil. I believe China has also stopped selling coal outside of the country leaving coal prices to go only one way: up. Coal prices are up very high right now.

Oil prices have finally gone up. It was going to happen anyway.
Also, some say prices might have to do with the oil platforms and hurricanes. There is most likely an effect there as well.
Also, it'd be helpful to examine the economy and related news of our largest oil suppliers to see what's happening there, too.

[angaq0k]

Originally posted by CreepingDeath:
Evidently Bush/Cheney is behind this one too!!!11!!!

Take some basic economics courses people. I'm not genius, but this is all common sense.
Oil is taken out of the ground. Right? Right.
When there is less demand for oil, prices go down with the demand. Perfect opportunity for buying, correct?
When there is a HUGE demand for oil, prices go up with the demand.

Currently, China is using alot of oil. I believe China has also stopped selling coal outside of the country leaving coal prices to go only one way: up. Coal prices are up very high right now.

Oil prices have finally gone up. It was going to happen anyway.
Also, some say prices might have to do with the oil platforms and hurricanes. There is most likely an effect there as well.
Also, it'd be helpful to examine the economy and related news of our largest oil suppliers to see what's happening there, too.

This thread is now about Faith in Oil Economy.

[CreepingDeth]

Also, why would it be an election issue if the President has not control over oil? Or college tuition, which is down, for that matter.

[aberdeenwriter]

THIS IS THE SUBJECT OF TONITE'S COAST TO COAST AM SHOW WITH ART BELL.

http://www.coasttocoastam.com/

Sun 10.24 >>
Author Matt Savinar claims worldwide oil production will peak in our near future, and he�ll cover alternatives that are becoming available.
************************************************** ********************
I believe this info is important enough to post the entire letter from Art's guest's website.

http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/

Dear Reader,
Civilization as we know it is coming to an end soon. This is not the wacky proclamation of a doomsday cult, apocalypse bible prophecy sect, or conspiracy theory society. Rather, it is the scientific conclusion of the best paid, most widely-respected geologists, physicists, and investment bankers in the world. These are rational, professional, conservative individuals who are absolutely terrified by a phenomenon known as global �Peak Oil.�

The ramifications of Peak Oil are so serious, one of George W. Bush�s energy advisors, investment banker Matthew Simmons has stated, �The situation is desperate. This is the world�s biggest serious question,� while comparing the crisis to the perfect storm: �If you read The Perfect Storm, where a freak storm materializes out of the convergence of three weather systems, our energy crisis results from the same phenomenon.�
Simmons� investment bank, Simmons and Company International, is considered the most reputable and reliable energy investment bank in the world.

Given Simmons� background and reputation, what he has to say about the situation is truly terrifying. For instance, in an August 2003 interview with From the Wilderness publisher Michael Ruppert, Simmons was asked if it was time for Peak Oil to become part of the public policy debate. He responded:
It is past time. As I have said, the experts and politicians have no
Plan B to fall back on. If energy peaks, particularly while 5 of the
world�s 6.5 billion people have little or no use of modern energy, it will be a tremendous jolt to our economic well-being and to our
health � greater than anyone could ever imagine.

When asked if there is a solution to the impending natural gas crisis, Simmons responded: I don�t think there is one. The solution is to pray. Under the best of circumstances, if all prayers are answered there will be no crisis for maybe two years. After that it�s a certainty.

In May 2004, Simmons explained that in order for demand to be appropriately controlled, the price of oil would have to reach $182 per barrel. With oil prices at $182 per barrel, gas prices would likely rise to $7.00 per gallon.

If you want to ponder just how devastating oil prices in the $180 range will be for the US economy, consider the fact that one of Osama Bin-Laden�s goals has been to force oil prices to $200 per barrel.

Simmons has been sounding the alarm for years. For a while, he was a lone "voice in the wilderness." In the past year or so, however, many experts have begun echoing his sentiments. Ali Samsam Bakhtiari, the vice-president of the Iranian National Oil Company has stated: The crisis is very, very near. World War III has started. It has already affected every single citizen of the Middle East. Soon it will spill over to affect every single citizen of the world.

On a similar note, the respected Washington-based consulting firm PFC Energy Group recently released a report predicting a coming "energy doomsday."

Say what you will about George W. Bush, he has been very open with the American people about this particular issue. In May 2001, George W. Bush went on the record as saying, �What people need to hear loud and clear is that we�re running out of energy in America.�_

Vice-President Dick Cheney publicly acknowledged the reality of Peak Oil in 1999 when he stated: By some estimates, there will be an average two-percent annual growth in global energy demand over the years ahead, along with, conservatively, a three percent natural decline in production from existing reserves.

That means that by 2010 we will need on the order of an additional 50 million barrels per day. The oil-producing nations of the world are currently pumping at full capacity yet they are only producing 82.5 million barrels per day. Raising production by 50 million barrels per day is essentially impossible. Cheney's remarks were thus a tacit admission of the severity and imminence of the peak.

Executives from Big Oil have publicly acknowledged the scope of the coming crisis as well. In 2003, Exxon Mobil president Jon Thompson stated: By 2015, we will need to find, develop, and produce a volume of new oil and gas that is equivalent to eight out of every 10 barrels being produced today. In addition, the cost associated_with providing this additional oil and gas is expected to be considerably more than what the industry is now spending.

Equally daunting is the fact that many of the most promising
prospects are far from major markets - some in regions that lack
even basic infrastructure. Others are in extreme climates, such as the Arctic, that present extraordinary technical challenges.
In October 2003, Michael Moore released the book, Dude, Where�s My Country? Chapter three of the book, �Oil�s Well that Ends Well,� was dedicated to the coming post-oil die-off.
The Saudi's have a saying about the situation,"My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet airplane. His son will ride a camel."

Former UK Environmental Minister Michael Meacher was equally frank, when he stated, "It is hard to envisage the effects of a radically reduced oil supply on a modern economy or society."
Put simply, anytime investment bankers, consulting firms, executives from "Big Oil," Dick Cheney, George W. Bush, officials from OPEC nations, Osama Bin Laden, and the Saudi royal family are in complete agreement with leftist demagogues like Michael Moore and influential environmentalists like Michael Meacher, it's safe to say "the **** is about to hit the fan."

"Are We 'Running Out'? I Thought There Was 40 Years of the Stuff Left"

The issue is not one of "running out" so much as it is not having enough to keep our economy running. In this regard, the ramifications of Peak Oil for our civilization are similar to the ramifications of dehydration for the human body. The human body is 70 percent water. The body of a 200 pound man thus holds 140 pounds of water. Because water is so crucial to everything the human body does, the man doesn't need to lose all 140 pounds of water weight before collapsing due to dehydration. A loss of as little as 10-15 pounds of water may be enough to kill him.

In a similar sense, an oil-based economy such as ours doesn't have to deplete its entire reserves of oil before it begins to collapse. Once the shortfall between demand and supply gets beyond 10-15 percent, all hell is going to break lose.

To understand the nature of the coming crisis, you need to understand what geologists call "Hubbert's Peak," named for the Shell geologist Dr. Marion King Hubbert. In 1956, Hubbert accurately predicted that US domestic oil production would peak in 1970. He also predicted global production would peak in 1995, which it would have had the politically created oil shocks of the 1970s not delayed the peak for about 10-15 years.
Oil will not just "run out" because all oil production follows a bell curve. This is true whether we're talking about an individual field, a country, or on the planet as a whole._

Oil is increasingly plentiful on the upslope of the bell curve, increasingly scarce and expensive on the down slope. The peak of the curve coincides with the point at which the endowment of oil has been 50 percent depleted. Once the peak is passed, oil production begins to go down while cost begins to go up.
In practical and considerably oversimplified terms, this means that if 2000 was the year of global Peak Oil, worldwide oil production in the year 2020 will be the same as it was in 1980.

However, the world�s population in 2020 will be both much larger (approximately twice) and much more industrialized (oil-dependent) than it was in 1980. Consequently, worldwide demand for oil will outpace worldwide production of oil by a significant margin. As a result, the price will skyrocket, economies will crumble, and resource wars will explode.

Graph: Dr. C.J Campbell (1996)

"What About Other or New Sources of Oil?"

Fortunately, we have a massive amount of oil located in the oil sands up in Canada and down in Venezuela. Unfortunately, these oil sands projects are projected to peak in 2020 at about 4-5 million barrels of oil per day. That's not much oil considering we currently need 82.5 million barrels per day and are already losing over 1 million barrels per day due to depletion.

Some people believe oil is actually a renewable resource continually produced by an "abiotic" process deep in the Earth. As emotionally appealing as this theory may be, it ignores most common sense and all scientific fact. Even if this theory is true, it isn't doing us much good as production is declining in pretty much every nation outside the Middle East.

The oil companies don't give this theory the slightest bit of credence even though they are more motivated than anybody to find an unlimited source of oil as each company's shareholder value is based largely on how much oil it holds in reserve.

"Aren't There Alternatives to Oil?"

Many politicians and economists insist that there are alternatives to oil and that we can "invent our way out of this." Physicists and geologists tell us an entirely different story. The politicians and economists are selling us 30-year old economic and political fantasies, while the physicists and geologists are telling us scientific and mathematical truth. Rather than accept the high-tech myths proposed by the politicians and economists, its time for you to start asking critical questions about the so called "alternatives to oil" and facing some hard truths about energy.

Unfortunately, since most people see and hear only what they want to see and hear, the politicians and economists are lauded while the physicists and geologists are ignored.

While there are many technologically viable alternatives to oil, there are none (or combination thereof) that can supply us with anywhere near the amount of net-energy required by our modern monetary system and industrial infrastructure.

If we have have a few dozen technological miracles, unprecedented political will and bipartisan cooperation, massive amounts of investment capital, and about 25-50 years of peace and prosperity to retrofit the world's 40 trillion dollar per year industrial infrastructure, we might be able to get the energy equivalent of 3-5 billion barrels of oil per year from alternative sources.

That's a tremendous amount of oil - about as much as the entire world used per year during World War II, but it's not enough. Unfortunately, the world currently needs over 30 billion barrels of oil per year to support economic growth. That number will only increase as time goes on due to population growth, debt servicing, and the industrialization of countries like China and India.

Furthermore, people tend to think of alternatives to oil as somehow independent from oil. In reality, the alternatives to oil are more accurately described as "derivatives of oil." It takes massive amounts of oil and other scarce resources to locate and mine the raw materials (silver, copper, platinum, uranium, etc.) necessary to build solar panels, windmills, and nuclear power plants. It takes more oil to construct these alternatives and even more oil to distribute them, maintain them, and adapt current infrastructure to run on them.

Plant based alternatives like ethanol and biodiesel are also entirely dependent on an abundant supply of oil as modern agriculture is entirely oil-powered. All pesticides are derived from oil while all fertilizers are derived from natural gas, which is also running out. As oil production declines, so will our ability to produce food and agricultural-based alternatives to oil.
It's not just transportation and agriculture that are entirely dependent on abundant, cheap energy. Modern medicine, water distribution, and national defense are each entirely powered by oil and petroleum derived chemicals. Most consumer goods are made with plastic, which is derived from oil.

As Matt Simmons has stated:. . . usable energy is the world's most critical resource then obviously it is an important issue._ Without volume energy we have no sustainable water, we have no sustainable food, we now have no sustainable healthcare.

"What About Amazing New Technologies?"

Technologies such as thermal depolymerization are promising as solutions to our landfill problems, but since most of the feedstock (such as tires and turkey guts) requires high-grade oil to make in the first place, it is not a solution to a permanent oil shortage. Furthermore, there is only one thermal deploymerization plant online and it is producing less than 500 barrels of oil per day. While the technology certainly deserves investment, it is both reliant on oil and it is simply "far too little, way too late" for it to save you from the devastating economic effects of the coming energy famine.

While there are some promising technological advancements in areas such as solar-nanotechnology, even the scientists at the forefront of these technologies admit we need a series of "miracles" to prevent a total collapse of industrial civilization.
In other words, the chances of technology saving you from the coming economic collapse are about the same as the chances of another virgin-birth taking place.

For you or any other "average" person to expect high-tech solutions to save you from the economic effects of Peak Oil is akin to a person living in sub-Saharan Africa to expect high-tech medical treatments to save their community from the effects of AIDS. These treatments are available to people like Magic Johnson, not the folks in Africa. Likewise, many of the recent technological advancements in energy production and efficiency may be available and affordable to people like George W. Bush and Warren Buffet or agencies like the Department of Defense, but they aren't going to be available or affordable to the average person.

The idea that technology is going to save you from this crisis is downright silly. Technology uses energy. It does not produce it. Here in the 21st century, we have no shortage of technology. We have a shortage of energy. As you are probably well aware, the price of technology has been plummeting while the price of oil has been skyrocketing.

Besides, most forms of technology require tremendous amounts of oil in the first place. The average desktop computer, for instance, consumes 10 times its weight in fossil fuels during its construction alone.

On a similar note, the average car consumes 120,000 gallons of fresh water just during its construction. Unfortunately, the world is in the midst of a severe water crisis that is only going to get worse in the years to come. Scientists are already warning us to get ready for massive "water wars."

Consequently, the only way for us to replace our current fleet of gas-guzzling SUVs with fuel-efficient hybrids is to kill 2-3 billion people, steal their fresh water, and use it to construct a new generation of high-tech cars.

The widespread use of technologies such as the internal combustion engine and the air conditioner is what got us into this situation. It is thus unlikely that even more technology will get us out of it.

"What's Going to Happen to the Economy?"

Even if you can currently afford these technologies, it won't help you much since the majority of the population can't. Got solar panels on your roof and a brand-new hybrid car? Great, but since most people can't afford those things, the economy is still going to collapse.

The US economy is particularly vulnerable to the coming oil shortages. As the most indebted nation in the world, the US is completely dependent on strong economic growth just to pay the interest on its debts. This is as true for individual citizens as it is for corporations and governments. A declining oil/energy supply means the economy can't grow which means individuals, corporations, and governments can't pay off their debts, which means economic anarchy is on the way.

Furthermore, unlike nations in Europe, the US has built it's entire infrastructure and way of life under the assumption oil would always be cheap and plentiful. Since that is no longer the case, the US economy is in even more trouble than the economies of nations like the UK, Germany, Spain, and France.

So even in the best-case scenario, we're looking at an international financial meltdown and a collapse of the value of US dollar so severe that the Great Depression will look like the "good ole days."

The financial dislocations wrought by the coming oil shocks will plunge the world into a series of resource wars and "currency insurgencies" unlike anything we can imagine.

"How Does the US Government Plan to Deal With This?"

Before you get too worried, rest assured that the US government has been aware of Peak Oil since at least 1977 and has been actively planning for this crisis for over 30 years. Three decades of careful, plotting analysis has yielded the following 2-step plan:

Step 1:_ Go to war to get oil;
Step 2:_ Kill whoever gets in the way; _

If you�re like 99 percent of the people reading this letter, you had never heard of the term �Peak Oil� until today. I had not heard of the term until a year ago. Since learning about Peak Oil, I�ve had my view of the world, and basic assumptions about my own individual future, turned completely upside-down.

A little about myself: In November 2003, I was a 25-year-old law school graduate who found out he had just passed the California Bar Exam. I was excited about a potentially long and prosperous career in the legal profession, getting married, having kids, contributing to my community, and living the �American Dream.� Since learning about Peak Oil, those dreams have been radically altered.

In January 2004, I published this site on the web. As of October 20, 2004 it has received over 1 million visits and 3 million page views. In May 2004 I published a book, The Oil Age is Over: What to Expect as the World Runs Out of Cheap Oil, 2005-2050 as a tool to convince my friends and family of the need to begin preparing for the coming energy famine. Below you will find selected adaptations from that book. If you would like a copy of the book, I've made them available via my online store.
I must warn you, the information contained in The Oil Age is Over is not for the faint of heart or the easily disturbed. Whether you�re 25 or 75, an attorney or an auto mechanic, what you will read will likely shake the foundations of your life and irrevocably alter your world outlook.

Sincerely,
Matt Savinar
10/20/2004

[Nicko]

Originally posted by CreepingDeath:
Also, why would it be an election issue if the President has not control over oil? Or college tuition, which is down, for that matter.

Actually I read in reuters the other day that on average in the US that tuition has increased 10% or more! As a Canadian, it just makes going there to school even more expensive.

[Isaac]

Originally posted by MATTRESS:
Really, if it took massive violence to get all of these things off the street I'd sign up in a moment to eliminate the gas-guzzling scourge that is these most useless of vehicles ever designed.

Direct Action

personly, I think people who drive SUV's are by the large selfish... alot of people buy SUV's for safety reasons, but all the added safety in an SUV comes at the cost of the safety of who ever you crash into...

and, currently i drive my moms car, but I have a bike that I'm fixing up... I don't know how much the bike gets per gallon but 589cc on a bike that weighes less then 350 lbs should get good mileage, I would think....