gordontravels
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2005
- Messages
- 758
- Reaction score
- 1
- Location
- in the middle of America
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
UtahBill said:A carrot and stick approach will work, or should. We humans have intellect, and should be able to choose the carrot over the stick.
I sent this idea on to my local GOP headquarters, maybe they will take it on as a good election year idea to present to the public. Even if they don't mean it, the word will get out....:mrgreen:
UtahBill said:Naysayers should either put up or shut up. If they have better ideas, let them present them. I am all for corporate "welfare" if that is what is required to get us started down the path of common sense.
Certainly it takes a big organiziation, whether government or corporations, to affect a change in attitude this large. Not all is evil, especially profit. Without profit, there is no business, and without business, there are no jobs.
Occasional corporate excesses aside, they are not evil. Same can be said for our government leaders, altho evil is not the word I would apply there.
Stupid, maybe.:mrgreen:
AlbqOwl said:We are not ethically or morally required to pay more than we need to pay either.
When the last U.S. refinery was built in 1975--also about the time the last oil exploration project was completed--the population of the U.S. was about 215 million. It is now more than 295 million and expanding by hundreds of thousands per year, mostly due to illegal immigration.
In 1975 the world population was about 4 billion. It is now 6.44 billion and expanding at an alarming rate.
In addition to increased population, the world is increasingly depending on its technology and machines and that trend is not likely to be reversed any time in our lifetime.
No amount of conservation of existing oil and gas production can keep up with that kind of increased demand. We either increase the supply or we slow or cripple economic growth and in the long run that is going to hurt very many people in major ways.
I am not at all knocking conservation and will support all reasonable methods to achieve it. But we are going to have to have new energy sources, and we might as well bite the bullet now and just go get them before the well runs dry.
AlbqOwl said:We are not ethically or morally required to pay more than we need to pay either.
When the last U.S. refinery was built in 1975--also about the time the last oil exploration project was completed--the population of the U.S. was about 215 million. It is now more than 295 million and expanding by hundreds of thousands per year, mostly due to illegal immigration.
In 1975 the world population was about 4 billion. It is now 6.44 billion and expanding at an alarming rate.
In addition to increased population, the world is increasingly depending on its technology and machines and that trend is not likely to be reversed any time in our lifetime.
No amount of conservation of existing oil and gas production can keep up with that kind of increased demand. We either increase the supply or we slow or cripple economic growth and in the long run that is going to hurt very many people in major ways.
I am not at all knocking conservation and will support all reasonable methods to achieve it. But we are going to have to have new energy sources, and we might as well bite the bullet now and just go get them before the well runs dry.
SouthernDemocrat said:We have less than 5% of the World's oil reserves. OPEC has over 70% of the world's oil reserves. Moreover, domestic oil production peaked 30 years ago. We simply cannot drill our way to more energy independence. Conservation, Efficiency, and alternative energy, especially nuclear, are our only real options.
Jimmie Carter tried to get the country to conserve more and use less foreign oil over 25 years ago and he was ridiculed for it. If we would have done what he tried to get us to do back then, today we would be a hell of a lot better off for it. We didn’t and you can blame Reagan, Bush, and to a slightly lesser extent Clinton and Bush Sr. for it (as they were both more conservation and efficiency minded). If Pro-Industry Republicans and Democrats would update CAFÉ standards, we would be better off. Mandates foster innovation, they always have and this is a national security issue. We have less than 5% of the world’s oil reserves and hit peak production 30 years ago. No amount of corporate welfare for oil companies is going to change that. Our biggest obstacle to greater energy independence is not environmentalists. If we did what they wanted us to do, we would be more energy independent because of conservation and efficency. However, unfortunately, for every dollar mainstream environmental groups spend lobbying congress, the oil and coal industry spends at least 100. We dont have an unlimited amount of money and resources to invest in energy independence. We can either do it the oil company way and give it to them in the form of corporate welfare or we can invest in alternative energy and efficency.gordontravels said:I agree with your post except for the last 4 words. Limitations on what we should, could, would do is no way to start. Unlimited; just as inventiveness has always been. Man will never fly. The horse is the best form of transportation. "I'm sorry but you only have a year to live." Any time you put limitations on the beginning of anything you either slow progress or turn away those who may only need a shove off the fence
The greatest stride in energy efficiency to date for this country is already here. It is the hybrid car; gas/electric getting up to 60/70 miles per gallon. I predict that as we see this marvel of invention come it will be a drop in the bucket for our energy needs. The Toyota Prius will start at $21,250+. Other cars getting half the mileage are still fuel efficient but cost less than half. If you buy the Prius your normal payback in fuel savings at $3.00 per gallon will be about 9 years. Most Americans will buy a new or used car every 4 to 6 years. They will receive no savings and it will be worse if in those 4 to 6 years the cost of fuel goes up more (and it will even with conservation).
We must be provided for with those savings and alternative energy proposals and yes, nuclear energy. We have one of the largest uranium reserves in the world. We have the technology to build safe plants and even deal with waste that will last dangerously for thousands of years.
Our economy is based on the person that lives in Salt Lake City, San Diego, Burlington, Dallas, Seattle and Miami. He needs the medicine, cooking oil, tuna, hambuger, tires, hammer, computer and envelope. He needs to buy things locally. If he has to depend on what is made locally he will either need more income, companies that don't make money or he must go without. You can't have a chemical plant everywhere; those tank cars have to roll. Those trucks that carry tomatoes have to run. That store has to be stocked or you have to do without.
This country has put up with "our only real options" for year after year and now we are paying the price. No matter how you look at it, 295 million people will not absorb the cost of energy in this country without pain that has been caused by a government that is self serving first. We have to "fix" Social Security because our Democrats and now our Republicans spent and continue to spend it. We have to pay $3.00 for a gallon of gas because our government didn't plan on the inevitable. Instead of having a government of action we have a government of reaction.
Want better? Turn your back on the Republicans and Democrats and make them earn your vote. If you can't register non-partisan then register Independent. The more that do the more responsive our government will have to be. The more we sit in political forums and pay it lip service the more they will plod on to their generous non Social Security retirement while jockying for their party. I'd rather ride them. :duel
SouthernDemocrat said:Jimmie Carter tried to get the country to conserve more and use less foreign oil over 25 years ago and he was ridiculed for it. If we would have done what he tried to get us to do back then, today we would be a hell of a lot better off for it. We didn’t and you can blame Reagan, Bush, and to a slightly lesser extent Clinton and Bush Sr. for it (as they were both more conservation and efficiency minded). If Pro-Industry Republicans and Democrats would update CAFÉ standards, we would be better off. Mandates foster innovation, they always have and this is a national security issue. We have less than 5% of the world’s oil reserves and hit peak production 30 years ago. No amount of corporate welfare for oil companies is going to change that. Our biggest obstacle to greater energy independence is not environmentalists. If we did what they wanted us to do, we would be more energy independent because of conservation and efficency. However, unfortunately, for every dollar mainstream environmental groups spend lobbying congress, the oil and coal industry spends at least 100. We dont have an unlimited amount of money and resources to invest in energy independence. We can either do it the oil company way and give it to them in the form of corporate welfare or we can invest in alternative energy and efficency.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?