|
Home > Archive > Home Repair forum > April 2008 > Are we the only ones getting screwed ?????
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Are we the only ones getting screwed ?????
|
|
|
|
This may be off topic but here goes............
The price of home heating oil here in New Hampshire, USA just hit $3.799 a gallon, up $1.50 since
September..... My question is, are we the only ones getting screwed here in the US or has the price
gone up as much in other countries around the globe ????? I believe we're getting it shoved up our
backsides because of George Bush's war pissing the rest of the world off, but that's just my
opinion... Please, I'm not looking to start a long flaming thread here, just interested in what
other people in other "non Bush" countries are paying...............
Thanks
| |
| gfretwell@aol.com 2008-03-28, 8:25 pm |
| On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 20:01:54 -0400, Brian <unisaw@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>This may be off topic but here goes............
>
>The price of home heating oil here in New Hampshire, USA just hit $3.799 a gallon, up $1.50 since
>September..... My question is, are we the only ones getting screwed here in the US or has the price
>gone up as much in other countries around the globe ????? I believe we're getting it shoved up our
>backsides because of George Bush's war pissing the rest of the world off, but that's just my
>opinion... Please, I'm not looking to start a long flaming thread here, just interested in what
>other people in other "non Bush" countries are paying...............
>
>Thanks
It is just a demand problem more than anything. China is using a lot
of oil as is most of the world. Of course the disruptions in Iraq are
not helping. Diesel (basically the same stuff) is over 4 bucks in a
lot of places but 30-40 cents of that is tax
| |
|
| Brian wrote:
> This may be off topic but here goes............
>
> The price of home heating oil here in New Hampshire, USA just hit $3.799 a gallon, up $1.50 since
> September..... My question is, are we the only ones getting screwed here in the US or has the price
> gone up as much in other countries around the globe ????? I believe we're getting it shoved up our
> backsides because of George Bush's war pissing the rest of the world off, but that's just my
> opinion... Please, I'm not looking to start a long flaming thread here, just interested in what
> other people in other "non Bush" countries are paying...............
>
> Thanks
The bigger issue is that oil is the most significant purchase that is
being made by the USA on the world market. If you look at the cost of
oil in terms of gold (ounces of gold per barrel of oil) the price is
quite good. The problem we have is that the the value of the US dollar
has fallen precipitously outside the US.
| |
| Brent Bolin 2008-03-28, 8:25 pm |
| On Mar 28, 7:42=A0pm, Boden <Bo...@tidewater.net> wrote:
> Brian wrote:
>
a gallon, up $1.50 since[color=darkred]
ere in the US or has the price[color=darkred]
e're getting it shoved up our[color=darkred]
, but that's just my[color=darkred]
e, just interested in what[color=darkred]
>
>
> The bigger issue is that oil is the most significant purchase that is
> being made by the USA on the world market. =A0If you look at the cost of
> oil in terms of gold (ounces of gold per barrel of oil) the price is
> quite good. =A0The problem we have is that the the value of the US dollar
> has fallen precipitously outside the US.
The problem we have in the U.S. is no drilling or refining. Going
green is the problem. It is reflected in the green that comes out of
your wallet.
| |
| HeyBub 2008-03-28, 9:25 pm |
| Brian wrote:
> This may be off topic but here goes............
>
> The price of home heating oil here in New Hampshire, USA just hit
> $3.799 a gallon, up $1.50 since September..... My question is, are
> we the only ones getting screwed here in the US or has the price gone
> up as much in other countries around the globe ????? I believe we're
> getting it shoved up our backsides because of George Bush's war
> pissing the rest of the world off, but that's just my opinion...
> Please, I'm not looking to start a long flaming thread here, just
> interested in what other people in other "non Bush" countries are
> paying...............
>
Put on another sweater. Our government is not responsible for the world-wide
price of oil. Oil is fungible.
| |
| hallerb@aol.com 2008-03-28, 9:25 pm |
| On Mar 28, 8:07=EF=BF=BDpm, Brent Bolin <brent.bo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 28, 7:42=EF=BF=BDpm, Boden <Bo...@tidewater.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
99 a gallon, up $1.50 since[color=darkred]
crewed here in the US or has the price[color=darkred]
elieve we're getting it shoved up our[color=darkred]
ff, but that's just my[color=darkred]
read here, just interested in what[color=darkred]
>
>
ost of[color=darkred]
dollar[color=darkred]
>
> The problem we have in the U.S. is no drilling or refining. =EF=BF=BDGoing=
> green is the problem. =EF=BF=BDIt is reflected in the green that comes out=
of
> your wallet.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
around pittsburgh theres a boom of new oil and gas wells, a friend
sold his mineral rights, company drilled a 5000 foot well, he gets
free gas and some money
| |
| hallerb@aol.com 2008-03-28, 9:25 pm |
|
>
> Put on another sweater. Our government is not responsible for the world-wide
> price of oil. Oil is fungible.
the fast and loose devaluing of our money is at least partially from
ru away war spending and the lack of any energy policy at all.
big oil owns the white house and congress, and were getting screwed
| |
| Kurt Ullman 2008-03-29, 3:25 am |
| In article
<1b2f8535-a93b-4179-a6c1-8ab50c33b47c@d62g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
"hallerb@aol.com" <hallerb@aol.com> wrote:
>
> the fast and loose devaluing of our money is at least partially from
> ru away war spending and the lack of any energy policy at all.
The lack of energy policy is a chronic condition from the 70s forward.
Pretty much all of the world's oil fields (including the big ones in
Saudi) have passed their peaks and are on the way down.
| |
| websurf1@cox.net 2008-03-29, 3:25 am |
| On Mar 28, 7:15 pm, "hall...@aol.com" <hall...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> the fast and loose devaluing of our money is at least partially from
> ru away war spending and the lack of any energy policy at all.
>
> big oil owns the white house and congress, and were getting screwed
High oil prices IS an energy policy (albeit not a planned one--Bush
isn't responsible for it)
With high oil prices, alternative energy will gain strength.
If oil is cheap, we won't change. I've been advocating $5.00 per
gallon for gas for some years now. However, I would have like to have
seen it gradually, and through taxation, instead of a dollar
devaluation and a rise in world consumption.
| |
| Edwin Pawlowski 2008-03-29, 3:25 am |
|
"Brian" <unisaw@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:o51ru31qondv48pfj7f79v78urpjldaiuh@4ax.com...
>
> This may be off topic but here goes............
>
> The price of home heating oil here in New Hampshire, USA just hit $3.799 a
> gallon, up $1.50 since
> September..... My question is, are we the only ones getting screwed here
> in the US or has the price
> gone up as much in other countries around the globe ????? I believe we're
> getting it shoved up our
> backsides because of George Bush's war pissing the rest of the world off,
> but that's just my
> opinion... Please, I'm not looking to start a long flaming thread here,
> just interested in what
> other people in other "non Bush" countries are paying...............
>
> Thanks
It is higher in most other countries. Last year at this time I was in Italy
and I paid 1.2 Euro per liter for heating oil. There, it is the same price
as diesel fuel. Last year when you did the translation of Euro to US dollar
is was $6.40 per gallon. With the decline of the dollar it is much higher
today. Needless to say, we kept our villa on the cool side. We did not
have to pay electric, but the going rate was about .25/kWh, nearly double
the high price we paid here.
Much as you think we are getting screwed, the rest of the world is much more
expensive to buy energy.
Rather that just getting PO'd at Bush, find the real reasons for the high
price and properly channel your anger. Much of the blame goes to China as
they are willing to pay dearly for raw materials. Cement, steel, copper,
you name it. It will get even worse as India gets the cheap automobile.
Well, Tata for now.
| |
|
|
|
|
"Brent Bolin" <brent.bolin@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ed371cb2-aca1-4007-af95-cd52b6a76545@k13g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 28, 7:42 pm, Boden <Bo...@tidewater.net> wrote:
> Brian wrote:
>
>
>
> The bigger issue is that oil is the most significant purchase that is
> being made by the USA on the world market. If you look at the cost of
> oil in terms of gold (ounces of gold per barrel of oil) the price is
> quite good. The problem we have is that the the value of the US dollar
> has fallen precipitously outside the US.
The problem we have in the U.S. is no drilling or refining. Going
green is the problem. It is reflected in the green that comes out of
your wallet.
The problem is all of the above and then some. The irony is we have plenty
of oil in the ground and a coal reserve of 200 years. No nuclear power plant
construction in decades either. Looks like oil will remain above $100/barrel
for a long time. I just paid $3.44/gallon for regular at Costco. Its
relatively cheap compare with some part of Europe at around $8/gallon. But
the Europeans are driving smaller and more efficient cars. They have much
more efficient clean diesel, we don't. But we don't care, we love our cars,
full size trucks and SUVs, very few takes public transportation and even
fewer car pools. 300hp is good, 400hp is better and 500hp would be ideal,
everyone should be able to do 0-60mph under 3.5 seconds. Our auto industry
is going backwards but they only manufacture what people buys. We all knew
its coming when we had those long lines wrapped around the block waiting at
the pumps during the 1970s. Corn ethanol is a joke and a disaster. Don't
blame Bush, he didn't start this and won't be able to end it either. Neither
could Hillary, Obama or McCain. We had done so little since and now in a
position of transferring our wealth to various countries that really don't
like us. At this rate we will be poor and don't have the means to defend a
major attack. What was that old saying? We have found the enemy and it is
us.
| |
|
|
| dadiOH 2008-03-29, 9:25 am |
| Brian wrote:
> This may be off topic but here goes............
>
> The price of home heating oil here in New Hampshire, USA just hit
> $3.799 a gallon, up $1.50 since September..... My question is, are
> we the only ones getting screwed here in the US or has the price gone
> up as much in other countries around the globe ?????
No idea but we just paid $5.37/ gallon for propane. Anyone want a gas hot
water heater?
______________
> I believe we're
> getting it shoved up our backsides because of George Bush's war
> pissing the rest of the world off, but that's just my opinion...
> Please, I'm not looking to start a long flaming thread here, just
> interested in what other people in other "non Bush" countries are
> paying...............
Nobody wants dollars because they are worth zilch. Nevertheless, they are
getting them at the rate of 5,000 per second. Yes, FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS
PER FREAKIN' *SECOND*!!!!!!! That's the cost of Georgie's war...a war paid
for largely by borrowing. And close to 40% of that borrowing is from China.
LBJ used to be at the top of my "worst presidents"list - and that list goes
back to FDR - but Bush has replaced him.
Cost in other countries? It is going to be higher in dollars (assuming the
local currency has increased in value relative to dollars - have any NOT
done so? -) but maybe not in local currency depending on their import
dependancy. Doubt it has increased as much in Mexico, eg.
--
dadiOH
____________________________
dadiOH's dandies v3.06...
....a help file of info about MP3s, recording from
LP/cassette and tips & tricks on this and that.
Get it at http://mysite.verizon.net/xico
| |
| HeyBub 2008-03-29, 9:25 am |
| hallerb@aol.com wrote:
>
> the fast and loose devaluing of our money is at least partially from
> ru away war spending and the lack of any energy policy at all.
>
> big oil owns the white house and congress, and were getting screwed
Nice theory, but it doesn't explain why countries with even less of an
energy policy than we are seeing the cost of oil go up too.
As to oil companies owning the White House and Congress, who would you
rather own them? Rice farmers? Rat Terrier breeders? The AMC Gremlin Fan
Club?
At least with oil companies, when you get screwed, you get lubed up first.
| |
| trader4@optonline.net 2008-03-29, 9:25 am |
| On Mar 29, 5:54=A0am, "dadiOH" <some...@fuggetit.com> wrote:
> Brian wrote:
>
>
> No idea but we just paid $5.37/ gallon for propane. =A0Anyone want a gas h=
ot
> water heater?
> ______________
>
>
> Nobody wants dollars because they are worth zilch. =A0Nevertheless, they a=
re
> getting them at the rate of 5,000 per second. =A0Yes, FIVE THOUSAND DOLLAR=
S
> PER FREAKIN' *SECOND*!!!!!!! =A0That's the cost of Georgie's war...a war p=
aid
> for largely by borrowing. =A0And close to 40% of that borrowing is from Ch=
ina.
> LBJ used to be at the top of my "worst presidents"list - and that list goe=
s
> back to FDR - but Bush has replaced him.
>
> Cost in other countries? =A0It is going to be higher in dollars (assuming =
the
> local currency has increased in value relative to dollars - have any NOT
> done so? -) but maybe not in local currency depending on their import
> dependancy. =A0Doubt it has increased as much in Mexico, eg.
>
> --
>
> dadiOH
> ____________________________
>
> dadiOH's dandies v3.06...
> ...a help file of info about MP3s, recording from
> LP/cassette and tips & tricks on this and that.
> Get it athttp://mysite.verizon.net/xico
What none of this specifically addresses is why certain products have
gone up a lot more than others which are also derived from crude
oil. For example, diesel has just hit $4.30 here in NJ, which puts
it around $1.25 higher than regular gasoline. That's the highest
spread I've ever seen. Diesel is essentially fuel oil, which is what
Brian is complaining about. My own suspicions would be:
1 - Refining capacity
2 - Environmental reqts that require this fuel to be cleaner, ie ultra
low sulfur, but as I recall that went into effect some time ago, and
while the spread between diesel and gasoline, crude etc widened then,
it wasn't anywhere near as wide as the spread is now.
But no one has actually adressed this. ABC news ran a story last
night about the high cost of diesel, it's effect on truckers, shipping
costs, etc, but no explanation of why it's gone up significantly more
than other petroleum products.
| |
| HeyBub 2008-03-29, 9:25 am |
| websurf1@cox.net wrote:
> On Mar 28, 7:15 pm, "hall...@aol.com" <hall...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> High oil prices IS an energy policy (albeit not a planned one--Bush
> isn't responsible for it)
> With high oil prices, alternative energy will gain strength.
> If oil is cheap, we won't change. I've been advocating $5.00 per
> gallon for gas for some years now. However, I would have like to have
> seen it gradually, and through taxation, instead of a dollar
> devaluation and a rise in world consumption.
Virtually every survey shows that the cost of oil is not a deterrent to its
use. Oil is not price elastic. Like food, fuel is a necessity and increasing
the price - through taxes or supply/demand - only nibbles at the margins.
Doubling the cost of fuel means adding 10% to the cost of almost everything
that travels by truck. That translates to about a 30% increase at the retail
level.
Alternative energies may gain influence, but there are two things to
consider when pinning hopes on such plans:
1. Solar energy is dependent entirely on the earth's distance from the sun*.
It would take a solar collector farm the size of the Los Angeles basin to
provide electricity for just California.
2. Meddling in the natural order causes unintended consequences. Conversion
of traditional crops to grow corn (for example) has contributed to a
doubling of rice prices in only one year (now up to $1000/ton from $360 in
January 2007). Just this past week, Egypt, Pakistan, and Viet Nam stopped
the export of locally grown rice to forstall famine and inflation.
-------
*745 watts/sq meter at the equator, at noon, with no clouds. Adjusted for
latitude, night, and cloud cover, a solar collector farm in, say, Arizona
might average 100-200 watts/sq m.
| |
| Smitty Two 2008-03-29, 9:25 am |
| In article <o51ru31qondv48pfj7f79v78urpjldaiuh@4ax.com>,
Brian <unisaw@hotmail.com> wrote:
> This may be off topic but here goes............
>
> The price of home heating oil here in New Hampshire, USA just hit $3.799 a
> gallon, up $1.50 since
> September..... My question is, are we the only ones getting screwed here in
> the US or has the price
> gone up as much in other countries around the globe ????? I believe we're
> getting it shoved up our
> backsides because of George Bush's war pissing the rest of the world off, but
> that's just my
> opinion... Please, I'm not looking to start a long flaming thread here, just
> interested in what
> other people in other "non Bush" countries are paying...............
>
> Thanks
Maybe it's time to step away from that SUV:
According to Environmental Attorney Robert F. Kennedy, Jr, senior
counsel for the National Resources Defense Fund:
* If we raise fuel efficiency standards in American cars by one mile
per gallon, in one year, we would save twice the amount of oil that
could be obtained from the arctic national wildlife refuge
* Raise it by 2.7 miles a gallon to eliminate all the oil imports from
Iraq and Kuwait combined
* Raise it by 7.6 mpg, we eliminate one-hundred percent of our gulf oil
imports into this country
----------
As a side benefit, if we don't need their oil, maybe we don't need to be
over there spreading "democracy" around.)
| |
| nicksanspam@ece.villanova.edu 2008-03-29, 9:25 am |
| HeyBub <heybub@gmail.com> wrote:
>*745 watts/sq meter at the equator, at noon, with no clouds.
What planet do you live on? :-)
Nick
| |
| trader4@optonline.net 2008-03-29, 9:25 am |
| On Mar 29, 8:23=A0am, Smitty Two <prestwh...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> In article <o51ru31qondv48pfj7f79v78urpjlda...@4ax.com>,
>
>
>
>
>
> =A0Brian <uni...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
a[color=darkred]
ere in[color=darkred]
e're[color=darkred]
, but[color=darkred]
e, just[color=darkred]
>
>
> Maybe it's time to step away from that SUV:
>
> According to Environmental Attorney Robert F. Kennedy, Jr, senior
> counsel for the National Resources Defense Fund:
>
> * =A0If we raise fuel efficiency standards in American cars by one mile
> per gallon, in one year, we would save twice the amount of oil that
> could be obtained from the arctic national wildlife refuge
That's totally false. A one mile per gallon increase in avg fuel
efficiency would take decades to equal the avg estimate of what might
be in ANWR. And we don't even know how much oil there really is
there, because even very limited exploration to find out isn't
allowed. For all we know, there could be an elephant field there the
size of Saudi Arabia.
>
> * =A0Raise it by 2.7 miles a gallon to eliminate all the oil imports from
> Iraq and Kuwait combined
Last time I checked, Iraq's oil output was sharply curtailed and I'm
betting this number is based on some minimal amount from the last
several years, not what's there or could be produced. Funny though
that those countries get singled out among all the oil producers in
the world.
>
> * =A0Raise it by 7.6 mpg, we eliminate one-hundred percent of our gulf oil=
> imports into this country
>
> ----------
>
> As a side benefit, if we don't need their oil, maybe we don't need to be
> over there spreading "democracy" around.)- Hide quoted text -
>
Now, to suggest that just because we get our oil from somewhere else,
we can just ignore the vast oil reserves and security of the mideast
is to ignore the lessons of the last century. How much oil did
Germany and Japan have?
| |
|
| trader4@optonline.net wrote on 29 Mar 2008 in group alt.home.repair:
> What none of this specifically addresses is why certain products have
> gone up a lot more than others which are also derived from crude
> oil. For example, diesel has just hit $4.30 here in NJ, which puts
> it around $1.25 higher than regular gasoline. That's the highest
> spread I've ever seen. Diesel is essentially fuel oil, which is
> what Brian is complaining about. My own suspicions would be:
>
> 1 - Refining capacity
>
> 2 - Environmental reqts that require this fuel to be cleaner, ie
> ultra low sulfur, but as I recall that went into effect some time
> ago, and while the spread between diesel and gasoline, crude etc
> widened then, it wasn't anywhere near as wide as the spread is now.
>
> But no one has actually adressed this. ABC news ran a story last
> night about the high cost of diesel, it's effect on truckers,
> shipping costs, etc, but no explanation of why it's gone up
> significantly more than other petroleum products.
Ed Wallace, a commentator in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, pointed out
in a recent column that supply is up, and demand is down, so prices
should be down. He thinks the high prices are driven by speculation and
a weak Dollar. In 2000 there were 9 gigabucks in the oil futures market.
In 2008 the amount is 250 gigabucks.
Here's a link to the column:
http://www.star-telegram.com/ed_wal...ory/541726.html
--
Steve B.
New Life Home Improvement
| |
| hallerb@aol.com 2008-03-29, 9:25 am |
| feds should loosen smog regulations on gasoline and additives, to help
bring price down a little
temporarily suspend the federal gasoline tax
feds should allow cheap dirty econo car sales in the US for a limited
number of years. low power they wouldnt be allowed on some roads,
lower safety. but say 50 MPG minimum. such cars are sold in other
countries thru out the world
now before you gewt your panties in a wad, people use motorcycles for
transportation too, and by all means any car should be safer than a
harley...
all of these would help our short term problem. the cost of in action
is a major recession..........
and most importandly change funding of all national elections
completely. limit 100 bucks per person, no corporate giving to
candidates.
so our representives arent bought and sold anymore
| |
|
| Other countries are *doing* something about this situation. For example
Germany passed a law to increase its share of renewable power to 12.5% of
the country's total power generation by 2010 and to 20% by 2020.
They are installing solar power left and right in Germany!
We could do the same, but I suppose the large oil companies which control
the U.S. government do not want this, so it will not happen here.
Might want to write your elected representatives, but if you are not
enclosing a large campaign contribution (buying their vote), expect your
request to go in one ear and out the other!
"Brian" wrote in message
>
> This may be off topic but here goes............
>
> The price of home heating oil here in New Hampshire, USA just hit $3.799 a
> gallon, up $1.50 since
> September..... My question is, are we the only ones getting screwed here
> in the US or has the price
> gone up as much in other countries around the globe ????? I believe we're
> getting it shoved up our
> backsides because of George Bush's war pissing the rest of the world off,
> but that's just my
> opinion... Please, I'm not looking to start a long flaming thread here,
> just interested in what
> other people in other "non Bush" countries are paying...............
>
> Thanks
| |
| trader4@optonline.net 2008-03-29, 1:25 pm |
| On Mar 29, 10:41=A0am, "Bill" <billnomailnosp...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Other countries are *doing* something about this situation. For example
> Germany passed a law to increase its share of renewable power to 12.5% of
> the country's total power generation by 2010 and to 20% by 2020.
>
> They are installing solar power left and right in Germany!
>
> We could do the same, but I suppose the large oil companies which control
> the U.S. government do not want this, so it will not happen here.
If the oil companies control the US govt, how come there is no
drilling in ANWR? How come there is no drilling off the east coast
of the US?
And exactly what law or govt action is stopping anyone from installing
solar power?
The reason solar power isn't being installed is it's prohibitively
expensive. Here in NJ, you can get a system for an average house for
$50K. The state has a program, funded through a tax on everyone's
electric bill, to help pay for it. So, they will kick in maye $30K,
leaving the homeowner to pay $20K. Just looking at the $20K cost,
it takes about 8 years for the system to pay for itself through
eliminating the monthly utility bill and selling electric back to the
utility. That ignores the true economic cost, particularly the other
$30K.
Now, look at that in a commercial setting, which is what is needed to
make a significant impact. You'd have to get the $50k somewhere,
typically it's borrowed. At 6% interest, that would be $3K a year in
interest alone, which is more than the electric generated is worth.
Add in depreciation, maintenance, ROI, etc, and it just gets worse.
That's why no one is rushing out to build solar electric. Just
because the Germans want to throw their money down a rat hole, doesn't
mean it's economically viable or that there is some oil conspiracy
blocking the US from doing it.
>
> Might want to write your elected representatives, but if you are not
> enclosing a large campaign contribution (buying their vote), expect your
> request to go in one ear and out the other!
>
>
>
> "Brian" =A0wrote in message
>
>
a[color=darkred]
ere[color=darkred]
e're[color=darkred]
,[color=darkred]
e,[color=darkred]
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
| |
| trader4@optonline.net 2008-03-29, 1:25 pm |
| On Mar 29, 10:02=A0am, "hall...@aol.com" <hall...@aol.com> wrote:
> feds should loosen smog regulations on gasoline and additives, to help
> bring price down a little
Loosening any gasoline formulation regulations is only going to bring
the price down a little. Given that gas prices have about tripled,
it doesn't seem to me that any small change in the price is going to
be worth dirty air.
>
> temporarily suspend the federal gasoline tax
Yeah, they could do that. I think it's about 16 cents. But without
a corresponding decrease in spending, it would add to the deficit,
>
> feds should allow cheap dirty econo car sales in the US for a limited
> number of years. low power they wouldnt be allowed on some roads,
> lower safety. but say 50 MPG minimum. such cars are sold in other
> countries thru out the world
Where are these cheap dirty cars being driven? Certainly not in
Europe, Japan, Canada, etc. Maybe in China, where they don't give a
damn about the environment. I don't understand why they need to be
dirty. We have reasonable cost cars here getting very good mileage
that also meet all US regulations. The problem is, people haven't
been buying them. They've been buying bigger cars and more
importantly SUV's, so clearly price isn't the problem.
>
> now before you gewt your panties in a wad, people use motorcycles for
> transportation too, and by all means any car should be safer than a
> harley...
>
> all of these would help our short term problem. the cost of in action
> is a major recession..........
How is allowing cheap dirty cars into the US a short term solution to
anything?
>
> and most importandly change funding of all national elections
> completely. limit 100 bucks per person, no corporate giving to
> candidates.
>
> so our representives arent bought and sold anymore
IMO, unconstitutional.
| |
| Kurt Ullman 2008-03-29, 1:25 pm |
| In article
<20304cb5-dad9-4427-a360-3e098c114f39@s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
trader4@optonline.net wrote:
> On Mar 29, 10:02_am, "hall...@aol.com" <hall...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> Loosening any gasoline formulation regulations is only going to bring
> the price down a little. Given that gas prices have about tripled,
> it doesn't seem to me that any small change in the price is going to
> be worth dirty air.
You have something like seven different formulations that need to be
changed during the seasons. And most refineries can't do many of the
different types without major changes. Even then, refineries have to be
shut down to make the changeover. If demand is increased in one area, it
is not likely that the refineries in another would be able to easily
change over.
Having just one or two (probably even if the one is for California)
could help a bit with using refinery capacity we have now more
efficiently.
> Europe, Japan, Canada, etc. Maybe in China, where they don't give a
> damn about the environment. I don't understand why they need to be
> dirty. We have reasonable cost cars here getting very good mileage
> that also meet all US regulations. The problem is, people haven't
> been buying them. They've been buying bigger cars and more
> importantly SUV's, so clearly price isn't the problem.
Cheap oil was the reason (among others) and the fleet doesn't change
all that quickly. You can see the smaller, cleaner, and more fuel
efficient cars making head way in market now. It will accelerate once
people get convinced that this isn't just another 70s style bounce that
will go away soon.
| |
| hallerb@aol.com 2008-03-29, 1:25 pm |
|
>
> Loosening any gasoline formulation regulations is only going to bring
> the price down a little. =EF=BF=BD Given that gas prices have about triple=
d,
> it doesn't seem to me that any small change in the price is going to
> be worth dirty air.
a little here, a little there. it all adds up in the end. diesel has
soared in cost because of the low sulphur regulations
>
> Yeah, they could do that. =EF=BF=BDI think it's about 16 cents. =EF=BF=BD =
But without
> a corresponding decrease in spending, it would add to the deficit,
Unemployment benefits welfare and all the rest to help a recession
costs too. better to start the help at the top.
>
> Where are these cheap dirty cars being driven? =EF=BF=BD Certainly not in
> Europe, Japan, Canada, etc. =EF=BF=BD =EF=BF=BDMaybe in China, where they =
don't give a
> damn about the environment. =EF=BF=BD I don't understand why they need to =
be
> dirty. =EF=BF=BD We have reasonable cost cars here getting very good milea=
ge
> that also meet all US regulations. =EF=BF=BD The problem is, people haven'=
t
> been buying them. =EF=BF=BDThey've been buying bigger cars and more
> importantly SUV's, so clearly price isn't the problem.
add a fuel hog tax to any new vehicle getting under 20 MPG. sure car
companies will miss the SUV sales but its important.
>
>
> How is allowing cheap dirty cars into the US a short term solution to
> anything?
>
they get excellent gas mileage around 50MPG the tata costs 2500 bucks,
so lots of americans could afford a commuter or around home car.
>
>
> IMO, unconstitutional.
theres lots of rules on fundraising, this would just be more
restrictive........ and great for our country. and necessary, just
look at congress in the last 10 years, they are pathetic
we also need to look at what america can afford to do in the world?
wht should we still have military in europe? japan etc?
pre set hardened bases, with skelton crews, our troops back hme
spending their money here, providing border security etc......
currently our troops are just fiancial aid to other countries, like
germany.
definetely keep active bases in s korea etc........
in this day and age we can create a system to get our troops to any
part of the world in a day or two
| |
|
| Brian wrote:
> This may be off topic but here goes............
>
> The price of home heating oil here in New Hampshire, USA just hit $3.799 a gallon, up $1.50 since
> September..... My question is, are we the only ones getting screwed here in the US or has the price
> gone up as much in other countries around the globe ????? I believe we're getting it shoved up our
> backsides because of George Bush's war pissing the rest of the world off, but that's just my
> opinion... Please, I'm not looking to start a long flaming thread here, just interested in what
> other people in other "non Bush" countries are paying...............
>
> Thanks
It's simplistic thinking like yours that helps maintain the situation.
I could give you technical and economic answers probably beyond your
comprehension but they all lie within this thread.
Right now the speculators are screwing you but the majority of the
problem is with the environmentalists and government micromanagement.
| |
| Brent Bolin 2008-03-29, 1:25 pm |
| On Mar 29, 10:16=A0am, trad...@optonline.net wrote:[color=darkred]
> On Mar 29, 10:41=A0am, "Bill" <billnomailnosp...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
f[color=darkred]
>
>
l[color=darkred]
>
> If the oil companies control the US govt, how come there is no
> drilling in ANWR? =A0 How come there is no drilling off the east coast
> of the US?
>
> And exactly what law or govt action is stopping anyone from installing
> solar power?
>
> The reason solar power isn't being installed is it's prohibitively
> expensive. =A0 Here in NJ, you can get a system for an average house for
> $50K. =A0 The state has a program, funded through a tax on everyone's
> electric bill, to help pay for it. =A0 So, they will kick in maye $30K,
> leaving the homeowner to pay $20K. =A0 =A0Just looking at the $20K cost,
> it takes about 8 years for the system to pay for itself through
> eliminating the monthly utility bill and selling electric back to the
> utility. =A0That ignores the true economic cost, particularly the other
> $30K.
>
> Now, look at that in a commercial setting, which is what is needed to
> make a significant impact. =A0 You'd have to get the $50k somewhere,
> typically it's borrowed. =A0 At 6% interest, that would be $3K a year in
> interest alone, which is more than the electric generated is worth.
> Add in depreciation, maintenance, ROI, etc, and it just gets worse.
>
> That's why no one is rushing out to build solar electric. =A0 Just
> because the Germans want to throw their money down a rat hole, doesn't
> mean it's economically viable or that there is some oil conspiracy
> blocking the US from doing it.
>
>
>
[color=darkred]
>
>
>
99 a[color=darkred]
here[color=darkred]
we're[color=darkred]
ff,[color=darkred]
ere,[color=darkred]
>
>
Now that everything has been said about the subject. We should all
dim our lights today to "Go green". It's going to save us from
ourselves.
Green this "\~!@#$%^&*()_+\"
| |
| trader4@optonline.net 2008-03-29, 1:25 pm |
| On Mar 29, 11:55=C2=A0am, "hall...@aol.com" <hall...@aol.com> wrote:
[color=darkred]
>
led,[color=darkred]
>
> a little here, a little there. it all adds up in the end. diesel has
> soared in cost because of the low sulphur regulations
>
>
=BD But without[color=darkred]
>
> Unemployment benefits welfare and all the rest to help a recession
> costs too. better to start the help at the top.
>
>
n[color=darkred]
y don't give a[color=darkred]
o be[color=darkred]
eage[color=darkred]
n't[color=darkred]
>
> add a fuel hog tax to any new vehicle getting under 20 MPG. sure car
> companies will miss the SUV sales but its important.
>
>
>
>
> they get excellent gas mileage around 50MPG the tata costs 2500 bucks,
> so lots of americans could afford a commuter or around home car.
And again, how is this a SHORT term solution to gasoline demand?
And the problem is most people are buying bigger, more expensive cars
and particularly SUV's, instead of cars like the cheaper Honda Civic,
which gets 30/40MPG then how does offering a $2500 Indian shit box
solve anything? If anything it would likely increase the fuel usage
problem, by putting MORE cars on the road. People would use them as
cheap second, third or fourth cars and we would go back 30 years in
air and safety standards in the process.
>
>
>
>
> theres lots of rules on fundraising, this would just be more
> restrictive........ and great for our country. and necessary, just
> look at congress in the last 10 years, they are pathetic
>
> we also need to look at what america can afford to do in the world?
> wht should we still have military in europe? japan etc?
>
> pre set hardened bases, with skelton crews, =C2=A0our troops back hme
> spending their money here, providing border security etc......
>
> currently our troops are just fiancial aid to other countries, like
> germany.
>
> definetely keep active bases in s korea etc........
>
> in this day and age we can create a system to get our troops to any
> part of the world in a day or two
| |
|
| On Mar 28, 5:01 pm, Brian <uni...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> This may be off topic but here goes............
>
> The price of home heating oil here in New Hampshire, USA just hit $3.799 a gallon, up $1.50 since
> September..... My question is, are we the only ones getting screwed here in the US or has the price
> gone up as much in other countries around the globe ????? I believe we're getting it shoved up our
> backsides because of George Bush's war pissing the rest of the world off, but that's just my
> opinion... Please, I'm not looking to start a long flaming thread here, just interested in what
> other people in other "non Bush" countries are paying...............
>
> Thanks
Check out who gets what % of the $ in your state & see who is in your
pocket.
Bet you will find that it is the state.
| |
|
| Brent Bolin wrote:
> On Mar 29, 10:16 am, trad...@optonline.net wrote:
>
> Now that everything has been said about the subject. We should all
> dim our lights today to "Go green". It's going to save us from
> ourselves.
>
> Green this "\~!@#$%^&*()_+\"
If you're a Google fan, don't go there today. You'll come away pissed ;)
| |
| gfretwell@aol.com 2008-03-29, 1:25 pm |
| On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 05:23:50 -0700, Smitty Two
<prestwhich@earthlink.net> wrote:
>According to Environmental Attorney Robert F. Kennedy, Jr, senior
>counsel for the National Resources Defense Fund:
Would that be he same RFKjr that blocked Cape Wind, the wind farm off
Nantucket? (along with his drunken uncle Ted, John Kerry and Mitt
Romney)
| |
| gfretwell@aol.com 2008-03-29, 1:25 pm |
| On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 07:41:21 -0700, "Bill"
<billnomailnospamx@yahoo.com> wrote:
>They are installing solar power left and right in Germany!
They are also paying .55 Euro for the electricity. They hide the real
cost from the consumer by burying it in the massive taxes they pay
| |
| websurf1@cox.net 2008-03-29, 5:25 pm |
| On Mar 29, 4:59 am, "HeyBub" <hey...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Virtually every survey shows that the cost of oil is not a deterrent to its
> use. Oil is not price elastic. Like food, fuel is a necessity and increasing
> the price - through taxes or supply/demand - only nibbles at the margins.
Sure it's elastic! It's just not IMMEDIATELY elastic. You have to be
able to buy the more efficient car, or the alternative transportation
has to be made available. At $1.00/gallon, carpooling isn't
"reasonable". At $5.00, it sure as heck becomes reasonable. Cheap
gas = SUV. Expensive gas = higher mpg car.
Europeans live a comfortable lifestyle, and for many years their gas
has been at a price that would cause a revolt here in the guzzler
nation.
> Doubling the cost of fuel means adding 10% to the cost of almost everything
> that travels by truck. That translates to about a 30% increase at the retail
> level.
Yep, that's just the point. Maybe we'd grow produce locally instead
of trucking it all over. Maybe we wouldn't be bottling water in
Europe and Hawaii, just so some bunchasnobs can pretend they know the
difference.
> Alternative energies may gain influence, but there are two things to
> consider when pinning hopes on such plans:
>
> 1. Solar energy is dependent entirely on the earth's distance from the sun*.
> It would take a solar collector farm the size of the Los Angeles basin to
> provide electricity for just California.
Solar may vary with the distance. But it's relatively trivial.
Put solar on all the roofs in LA, and you make a big difference
without taking any land up.
> 2. Meddling in the natural order causes unintended consequences. Conversion
> of traditional crops to grow corn (for example) has contributed to a
> doubling of rice prices in only one year (now up to $1000/ton from $360 in
> January 2007). Just this past week, Egypt, Pakistan, and Viet Nam stopped
> the export of locally grown rice to forstall famine and inflation.
Here, you are absolutely correct. I am not a fan of ethanol from
crops, primarily because there isn't sufficient gain in energy after
you consider the farming, trucking, processing, fertilizing, water
pumping, and land consumption. The price of tortillas for Mexicans
has jumped substantially since we started putting corn in our gas
tanks. The whole thing is a moneymaker for Archer Daniels Midland,
which gets huge subsidies from the feds, even though they make huge
amounts of money from the crops. And don't get me started on crop
subsidies for the farmers themselves. It's a racket.
> -------
> *745 watts/sq meter at the equator, at noon, with no clouds. Adjusted for
> latitude, night, and cloud cover, a solar collector farm in, say, Arizona
> might average 100-200 watts/sq m.
Without a collector, people in AZ use fossil or nuclear fuels to cool
their homes.
| |
| websurf1@cox.net 2008-03-29, 5:25 pm |
| On Mar 29, 7:02 am, "hall...@aol.com" <hall...@aol.com> wrote:
> feds should loosen smog regulations on gasoline and additives, to help
> bring price down a little
>
> temporarily suspend the federal gasoline tax
That gas tax isn't enough to make a difference. RAISE the tax, and
use it for alternative development, efficient mass transit, etc.
| |
| hallerb@aol.com 2008-03-29, 8:25 pm |
| On Mar 29, 5:14=EF=BF=BDpm, websu...@cox.net wrote:
> On Mar 29, 7:02 am, "hall...@aol.com" <hall...@aol.com> wrote:> feds shoul=
d loosen smog regulations on gasoline and additives, to help
>
>
> That gas tax isn't enough to make a difference. =EF=BF=BDRAISE the tax, an=
d
> use it for alternative development, efficient mass transit, etc.
unrestrained higher costs of gasoline means less spending on
everything else.............
its killing our economy.
might be better to take the hit on lost gas tax revenue, than pay tons
more for unemployment welfare etc
| |
| hallerb@aol.com 2008-03-29, 8:25 pm |
| incidently my local home depot reports sales are dead, part timers
hours cut. the place was empty.......
normally they are hiring at this time
| |
| europeanvic 2008-03-29, 8:25 pm |
| On Mar 28, 7:01=A0pm, Brian <uni...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> This may be off topic but here goes............
>
> The price of home heating oil here in New Hampshire, USA just hit $3.799 a=
gallon, up $1.50 since
> September..... =A0My question is, are we the only ones getting screwed her=
e in the US or has the price
> gone up as much in other countries around the globe ????? =A0I believe we'=
re getting it shoved up our
> backsides because of George Bush's war pissing the rest of the world off, =
but that's just my
> opinion... =A0Please, I'm not looking to start a long flaming thread here,=
just interested in what
> other people in other "non Bush" countries are paying...............
>
> Thanks
It is not in US only, the prices in Europe are doubled and it is not
because of Gorge Bush war, gas prices in Europe have been always 2 - 3
times higher. Actually the cost of living in Europe is 3 times more
expensive than here in US, if you don't believe just try to live 3
years in Europe and will see:-)
http://www.planorealestateadvisor.com
http://www.planorealty.blogspot.com
| |
| dadiOH 2008-03-29, 8:25 pm |
| websurf1@cox.net wrote:
> Yep, that's just the point. Maybe we'd grow produce locally instead
> of trucking it all over.
Could we also go back to using freight trains? You know...by train from
major place to major place, by truck from major to local.
I seem to remember that worked well.
--
dadiOH
____________________________
dadiOH's dandies v3.06...
....a help file of info about MP3s, recording from
LP/cassette and tips & tricks on this and that.
Get it at http://mysite.verizon.net/xico
| |
| Edwin Pawlowski 2008-03-29, 8:25 pm |
|
"dadiOH" <someone@fuggetit.com> wrote in message
>
> Could we also go back to using freight trains? You know...by train from
> major place to major place, by truck from major to local.
>
> I seem to remember that worked well.
Sure, but it took a little longer. In this day of instant gratification
where things MUST go FedEx red we don't have the patience to wait a few more
days. I have seen though, where 53' containers can go by rail and be more
economical than straight truck routing. At $4+ for diesel, trains would
make a lot of sense. Passenger trains too!
| |
| Smitty Two 2008-03-29, 8:25 pm |
| In article <m84tu316t6k7te41spgfeg85ke79q623rj@4ax.com>,
gfretwell@aol.com wrote:
> On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 05:23:50 -0700, Smitty Two
> <prestwhich@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
> Would that be he same RFKjr that blocked Cape Wind, the wind farm off
> Nantucket? (along with his drunken uncle Ted, John Kerry and Mitt
> Romney)
Does that disqualify the cited calculations? Maybe you don't like him,
or you think he's a hypocrite, but that doesn't invalidate the message.
I doubt he obtained those numbers from throwing darts in a pub.
| |
| HeyBub 2008-03-29, 8:25 pm |
| hallerb@aol.com wrote:
>
> and most importandly change funding of all national elections
> completely. limit 100 bucks per person, no corporate giving to
> candidates.
>
> so our representives arent bought and sold anymore
The "special interests" are a counter to the mob. Sort of a
checks-and-balances, a division of power. The "mob" won't let the special
interests get too far afield, and the "special interests" act as a brake on
"gimme (oil, drugs, etc.) for free."
George Will proposed a simplified campaign finance law:
1. No cash,
2. No foreign contributions,
3. Instant disclosure.
That's it.
| |
| HeyBub 2008-03-29, 9:25 pm |
| hallerb@aol.com wrote:
> On Mar 29, 5:14?pm, websu...@cox.net wrote:
>
> unrestrained higher costs of gasoline means less spending on
> everything else.............
Exactly. Fuel use is virtually inelastic. Price goes up, people pay it or
starve, lose their jobs, or suffer other dire consequences. Gone are the
days when people "went for a drive." Virtually all travel is a necessity.
As for using increased tax revenues to fund, say, mass transit. It takes
five years to lay track. So 100% of the drivers in my town would be charged
extra amounts so that five years from now, 2% of the population will have
the opportunity to use rail transit? Really bad trade-off. Really bad.
| |
|
|
"Edwin Pawlowski" <esp@snet.net> wrote in message
news:ouAHj.124$zH5.48@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net...
>
> "dadiOH" <someone@fuggetit.com> wrote in message
>
> Sure, but it took a little longer. In this day of instant gratification
> where things MUST go FedEx red we don't have the patience to wait a few
> more days. I have seen though, where 53' containers can go by rail and be
> more economical than straight truck routing. At $4+ for diesel, trains
> would make a lot of sense. Passenger trains too!
>
Not on subject, looks like investing in rail transportation maybe a good
long term strategy. Trains are coming back.
| |
| gfretwell@aol.com 2008-03-30, 3:25 am |
| On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 17:16:04 -0700, Smitty Two
<prestwhich@earthlink.net> wrote:
>In article <m84tu316t6k7te41spgfeg85ke79q623rj@4ax.com>,
> gfretwell@aol.com wrote:
>
>
>Does that disqualify the cited calculations? Maybe you don't like him,
>or you think he's a hypocrite, but that doesn't invalidate the message.
>I doubt he obtained those numbers from throwing darts in a pub.
I just think it is a bullshit number. In the 74 the average MPG in the
US was 12.9 and they told us creating the CAFE standard by 6MPG would
make us energy independent. In 78 it was 18. Right now it is 27.5 and
we import more oil than ever. Making it 28 or 29 is not going to
suddenly allow us to kiss off the Saudis.
| |
| Tony Hwang 2008-03-30, 3:25 am |
| gfretwell@aol.com wrote:
> On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 17:16:04 -0700, Smitty Two
> <prestwhich@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> I just think it is a bullshit number. In the 74 the average MPG in the
> US was 12.9 and they told us creating the CAFE standard by 6MPG would
> make us energy independent. In 78 it was 18. Right now it is 27.5 and
> we import more oil than ever. Making it 28 or 29 is not going to
> suddenly allow us to kiss off the Saudis.
>
>
Hmmm,
Look at the increasing consumption. Nixon era started talking about
alternate energy and created also EPA. Look at the size of car getting
bigger as well. People have short memory and never seem to learn.
How much money U.S. spent on Iraq war? If that was used to develope
alternate energy......
| |
| Kurt Ullman 2008-03-30, 3:25 am |
| In article <13utt9hnpr9oac1@corp.supernews.com>,
"HeyBub" <heybub@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> As for using increased tax revenues to fund, say, mass transit. It takes
> five years to lay track. So 100% of the drivers in my town would be charged
> extra amounts so that five years from now, 2% of the population will have
> the opportunity to use rail transit? Really bad trade-off. Really bad.
Five years to lay track, but 10 years to do the engineering studies, 5
to do the enviornmental impact statements, 5 years to get the right of
way figured out.
One of the first things I did in '76 when I was a freshly minted
newspaper reporter was attend the first public hearing for a bypass
around the city I worked in. The final section was opened up 3 years
ago. Took 'em '76 to 95 to put the first shovel in the ground and '95 to
'05 to get it done.
| |
| gfretwell@aol.com 2008-03-30, 3:25 am |
| On Sun, 30 Mar 2008 00:17:43 -0400, Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>In article <13utt9hnpr9oac1@corp.supernews.com>,
> "HeyBub" <heybub@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Five years to lay track, but 10 years to do the engineering studies, 5
>to do the enviornmental impact statements, 5 years to get the right of
>way figured out.
> One of the first things I did in '76 when I was a freshly minted
>newspaper reporter was attend the first public hearing for a bypass
>around the city I worked in. The final section was opened up 3 years
>ago. Took 'em '76 to 95 to put the first shovel in the ground and '95 to
>'05 to get it done.
The real problem is the places that need light rail the most, are
least likely to have the real estate to put it and nobody wants a
train running behind their house so the effective footprint of the
track is close to a mile wide.
| |
| aemeijers 2008-03-30, 3:25 am |
| Kurt Ullman wrote:
> In article <13utt9hnpr9oac1@corp.supernews.com>,
> "HeyBub" <heybub@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Five years to lay track, but 10 years to do the engineering studies, 5
> to do the enviornmental impact statements, 5 years to get the right of
> way figured out.
> One of the first things I did in '76 when I was a freshly minted
> newspaper reporter was attend the first public hearing for a bypass
> around the city I worked in. The final section was opened up 3 years
> ago. Took 'em '76 to 95 to put the first shovel in the ground and '95 to
> '05 to get it done.
About the only 'mass transit' you can do in a hurry is buses, either
conventional ones or privately run gypsy/jitney ones. Unlike Europe or
the old dense urban areas of east coast, most of US is not mass-transit
friendly. Too spread out, and peoples schedules vary too much. Around
here, they cut the bus routes back to the old part of the city. The
routes to the burbs and large apartment projects were money holes, even
with a buttload of federal subsidies. At work, I suggested they get with
the city bus folks, and try 4-trip a day (early and late to the office,
then the same thing the other way at quitting time) shuttle service from
where employee homes were concentrated to the office complex. The idea
went nowhere, even though several apartment complexes probably account
for a third of the junior-level employees.
--
aem sends...
| |
| Edwin Pawlowski 2008-03-30, 9:25 am |
|
"aemeijers" <aemeijers@att.net> wrote in message
> About the only 'mass transit' you can do in a hurry is buses, either
> conventional ones or privately run gypsy/jitney ones. Unlike Europe or the
> old dense urban areas of east coast, most of US is not mass-transit
> friendly. Too spread out, and peoples schedules vary too much. Around
> here, they cut the bus routes back to the old part of the city.
Schedules are not a problem. Years ago companies and workers adapted to
available transportation or they walked because they lived near the mill
That is probably the only easy part to overcome. The automobile allowed
us to use many other options. Used to be, people did not complain about
taking two busses and a trolley to get to work. Now we complain if our
parking spot is more than 25' from the door. If a train dropped 100 people
off at the entrance to an industrial park, chances are they'd still have to
travel a quarter mile to a mile to their workplace along roads with no
sidewalks.
The last time I took public transportation to work was in the 1960's and
where I park at work is only 10' from the door.
| |
|
| europeanvic wrote:
> On Mar 28, 7:01 pm, Brian <uni...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> It is not in US only, the prices in Europe are doubled and it is not
> because of Gorge Bush war, gas prices in Europe have been always 2 - 3
> times higher. Actually the cost of living in Europe is 3 times more
> expensive than here in US, if you don't believe just try to live 3
> years in Europe and will see:-)
>
> http://www.planorealestateadvisor.com
> http://www.planorealty.blogspot.com
It's all tax in Europe that causes the double gas price.
There are politicians that would like to emulate this in the US.
Personally I do not like "sin" taxes as they make the government
dependent on the sin for their income.
| |
|
| On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 07:02:11 -0700, hallerb@aol.com wrote:
> feds should loosen smog regulations on gasoline and additives, to help
> bring price down a little
>
> temporarily suspend the federal gasoline tax
>
> feds should allow cheap dirty econo car sales in the US for a limited
> number of years. low power they wouldnt be allowed on some roads, lower
> safety. but say 50 MPG minimum. such cars are sold in other countries
> thru out the world
Oh yeah, that's a great idea, because short-sightedness is in such short
supply already! Let's make sure to remove any financial incentive to
actually get away from our dependence on foreign oil. We also get the
lovely side benefits of more pollution and less safety. Fantastic.
Frankly, what's happening now is a reckoning that's been long in the
coming. If we as a nation had maintained the focus on reducing oil
consumption and dependence we had in the seventies, even in a toned down
fashion, we wouldn't be in the straits we are now.
The solution now is to explore alternatives. I'm looking into building a
zero-energy home right now and I'm amazed at how cheaply and practically
it can be done, depending of course on what part of the country you're
living in. Geothermal heat pumping (e.g. http://rebeeco.com/content/
view/15/15/ ) works pretty much anywhere in the U.S. and would greatly
reduce our environmental footprint. With fuel oil as high as it is, this
will greatly reduce our fuel costs as well.
Basically we've been lucky, spoiled and short-sighted for the last 30
years, and now we're paying for it. In order to solve the problem we need
less short-sightedness, not more. Or we could use your solution, and
leave the problem to our kids.
> and most importandly change funding of all national elections
> completely. limit 100 bucks per person, no corporate giving to
> candidates.
>
> so our representives arent bought and sold anymore
I agree with you in principle on that one.
| |
|
| Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
> "aemeijers" <aemeijers@att.net> wrote in message
>
> Schedules are not a problem. Years ago companies and workers adapted to
> available transportation or they walked because they lived near the mill
> That is probably the only easy part to overcome. The automobile allowed
> us to use many other options. Used to be, people did not complain about
> taking two busses and a trolley to get to work. Now we complain if our
> parking spot is more than 25' from the door. If a train dropped 100 people
> off at the entrance to an industrial park, chances are they'd still have to
> travel a quarter mile to a mile to their workplace along roads with no
> sidewalks.
>
> The last time I took public transportation to work was in the 1960's and
> where I park at work is only 10' from the door.
>
>
Reminds me of years ago I was transfered downtown where I would have to
pay parking. I investigated taking the bus and got all the brochures
from the bus company. Of major interest to me was their giving their
total passenger miles and fuel consumed. A simple calculation revealed
that one gallon of gasoline transported one passenger nine miles - less
than half the mileage I was getting on my car at the time ;)
| |
| Kurt Ullman 2008-03-30, 9:25 am |
| In article <47ef84e3_2@news.bluewin.ch>, gas <stark@dontspammebro.org>
wrote:
>
> Frankly, what's happening now is a reckoning that's been long in the
> coming. If we as a nation had maintained the focus on reducing oil
> consumption and dependence we had in the seventies, even in a toned down
> fashion, we wouldn't be in the straits we are now.
I agree, with the addition that I did not see any real focus to
maintain. A short-lived talk about maybe doing something, but other than
producing a few years of Vegas and Pintos, nothing of any real
consequence.
>
| |
|
| On Sun, 30 Mar 2008 05:01:26 +0000, aemeijers wrote:
> Kurt Ullman wrote:
> About the only 'mass transit' you can do in a hurry is buses, either
> conventional ones or privately run gypsy/jitney ones. Unlike Europe or
> the old dense urban areas of east coast, most of US is not mass-transit
> friendly. Too spread out, and peoples schedules vary too much. Around
> here, they cut the bus routes back to the old part of the city. The
> routes to the burbs and large apartment projects were money holes, even
> with a buttload of federal subsidies. At work, I suggested they get with
> the city bus folks, and try 4-trip a day (early and late to the office,
> then the same thing the other way at quitting time) shuttle service from
> where employee homes were concentrated to the office complex. The idea
> went nowhere, even though several apartment complexes probably account
> for a third of the junior-level employees.
Buses aren't a bad solution in a places, but your opinion is poorly
thought out. Huge amounts of fuel consumption could be saved by replacing
the most heavily traveled air commute routes (e.g. L.A. to New York, L.A.
to Las Vegas...) with high speed rail solutions. We wouldn't have to
develop the tech ourselves either, we can look to Germany, France,
Switzerland, China and Japan for examples, and attempt to improve on their
designs. Significant fuel use (and human lives) can be saved by allowing
people to place their cars on trains for transport (this is done is areas
of Switzerland).
For commuting distances less than 50 miles, another solution is
alternative modes of personal transportation. I personally want a Twike
(www.twike.com). In high sun states, e.g. Utah, Arizona, Nevada,
California, you could commute entirely on solar energy (charging when
parked, not solar cells on twike), _without any new tech_. If more money
gets pumped into such vehicles, improvements will come rapidly. In high
population density areas, improved Bike infrastructure will help. Better
health of the populace, reduced traffic congestion, reduced noise and air
pollution. It would be wonderful. For longer commutes, ride-sharing and
car-pooling can make significant impacts.
In areas where traditional vehicles are needed (farming, development), bio-
diesel is a practical solution, and stricter efficiency regulations are
needed.
We're stuck in a rut, and we need to get out of it. Culturally, we seem
to want a simple one-shot magic bullet that cures our woes without any
change of behavior on our part. On the other hand, a few common sense
tactics and a minor shift in our way of thinking, can make huge
differences while we work on further improvements.
Removing our dependence on fossil fuels is an eventual necessity. We can
already make huge dents in it now. The approaches needed will have both
immediate and long term benefits. No one solution is going to work in
every area of such a diverse land mass as the United-States, so regional
approaches have to be taken. What's most important is to avoid knee jerk
'oh that can't work' reactions. Apply careful analysis, and use what
works where it works.
Of course, there's a lot of propaganda out there to sabotage these
efforts, and most of that propaganda comes from the energy and automobile
industries, who are worried about shifting power structures and reduced
profits. The worst nightmare for America's energy industry is more self
reliant America, where the citizens produce a large portion of the energy
they consume themselves. It would reduce their power and profits
drastically.
| |
|
|
> Not on subject, looks like investing in rail transportation maybe a good
> long term strategy. Trains are coming back.
I agree here. In the long term I think it'll also be good for truckers.
I used to hitchhike a lot. B/c of regulations I only rarely got picked up
by truckers, and when I did it was usually because they were just dying
for someone to talk to and give them some company (sometimes to keep them
awake).
On the average, most of them didn't seem to like doing long distance
hauls. This was always the case for the married, divorced, and with
children truckers. They only rarely got to spend time with their families.
On the other hand, shifting distribution to send freight by train to major
population centers (or freight centers), and the serving local areas by
truck from these freight centers would drastically improve energy
consumption, mean more time at home for the truckers, reduce traffic on
the highways, reduce pollution...
Okay, it might take a bit longer. Then the overnight delivery just gets
significantly more expensive. I think this is a good trade-off. Also,
with automazation technology, and improved routing and tracking, I think
we can expect an improvement on the shipping times we used to see.
This could also be combined with high speed shipping of people along major
flight-commute routes.
If we keep tacking on %1 - %5 percent reductions in fuel usage, eventually
we could be an energy neutral company (produce what we consume). Wouldn't
that be great!
| |
| trader4@optonline.net 2008-03-30, 9:26 am |
| On Mar 29, 7:16=A0pm, Smitty Two <prestwh...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> In article <m84tu316t6k7te41spgfeg85ke79q62...@4ax.com>,
>
> =A0gfretw...@aol.com wrote:
>
>
>
> Does that disqualify the cited calculations? Maybe you don't like him,
> or you think he's a hypocrite, but that doesn't invalidate the message.
> I doubt he obtained those numbers from throwing darts in a pub.
No, it doesn't totally discredit the obviously bogus number that
should set off anyone's BS detector. But it is a start. Let me
finish the discrediting process:
http://www.pollutionissues.com/A-Bo...ife-Refuge.html
"The U.S. Geological Survey has estimated that ANWR likely holds
enough oil to supply six months of U.S. consumption, and that these
reserves would take ten years to develop. Conservationists point out
that the United States could easily save more oil than can be
extracted from ANWR by increasing automobile fuel efficiency
standards. For example, a one-mile per gallon increase in U.S.
automobile fuel efficiency for a thirty-year period would save more
oil than the projected yield from ANWR. "
The bogus claim is off by a factor of 30. Now it is totally
discredited. And that assumes that the US Geological Survey estimate
is right. How about if ANWR has an actual field the size of Saudi
Arabia or Kuwait? But, the Kennedy clan would rather go around with
a cup begging for oil from their buddy Hugo Chavez, blocking offshore
wind if it's off their shore, and spreading nonsense.
| |
| gfretwell@aol.com 2008-03-30, 1:25 pm |
| On 30 Mar 2008 14:36:45 +0200, gas <stark@dontspammebro.org> wrote:
> Huge amounts of fuel consumption could be saved by replacing
>the most heavily traveled air commute routes (e.g. L.A. to New York
Yeah people would be lining up to pay more for a 2 day train ride.
When air fare was 10 times the price of the train people still took
the plane.
| |
| hallerb@aol.com 2008-03-30, 1:25 pm |
| On Mar 30, 11:22=EF=BF=BDam, gfretw...@aol.com wrote:
> On 30 Mar 2008 14:36:45 +0200, gas <st...@dontspammebro.org> wrote:
>
>
> Yeah people would be lining up to pay more for a 2 day train ride.
>
> When air fare was 10 times the price of the train people still took
> the plane.
mag lev can do it at 300 miles per hour, with flight delays etc speed
would be a wash.
once terrorists shoot some commercial airliners out of the sky mag lev
will surge.........
they could build a mag lev system with bus sized vehicles leaving
hourly sharing a rail guideway running continiously. all coputer
controlled for spacing
when you want to travel it would be like a bus just go and get on.....
if you want timed reservtions pay a bit more.
capital building costs high, operating costs low, very flexible.
no air pollution except for international flights.
| |
| hallerb@aol.com 2008-03-30, 1:25 pm |
| taxpayers pay for roads...........
railroads have to pay for rails........
made rail cost more for many years.
rail lines should be electrified
| |
| aemeijers 2008-03-30, 1:25 pm |
| Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
> "aemeijers" <aemeijers@att.net> wrote in message
>
> Schedules are not a problem. Years ago companies and workers adapted to
> available transportation or they walked because they lived near the mill
> That is probably the only easy part to overcome. The automobile allowed
> us to use many other options. Used to be, people did not complain about
> taking two busses and a trolley to get to work. Now we complain if our
> parking spot is more than 25' from the door. If a train dropped 100 people
> off at the entrance to an industrial park, chances are they'd still have to
> travel a quarter mile to a mile to their workplace along roads with no
> sidewalks.
>
> The last time I took public transportation to work was in the 1960's and
> where I park at work is only 10' from the door.
>
>
I'm not sure, but I think we are agreeing with each other. Until July
05, I lived in the apartments about a mile west of here, which was the
turnaround point for the end of that particular bus route (before it was
cancelled.) So, in theory, I could have ridden the bus to work, assuming
I got my lazy XXX out of bed in time. However, it was a 20 minute
meandering ride from their to the central bus stop downtown, and then a
20 minute wait for a transfer for the bus that stopped in front of my
office. Call it 50 minutes to an hour, minimum, twice a day.
I'm 51 years old. The insurance company tables say I have maybe 35 years
left, if I'm lucky. I can DRIVE to work in 10-12 minutes. Am I going to
use up 2 hours sitting on a bus every day? Would you? Would anyone
rational, unless they were flat broke and had no other choice? If my
employers and the city had come up with a express shuttle for the
federal installation where I work, so no transfer was involved and it
only took, say, 20 minutes twice a day, the bus would suddenly look a
whole lot more interesting. The apartments where I lived could have
filled half a bus with just the federal employees that lived there. Add
in the other apartments up and down the main drag on this side of town,
it could have worked out. The main drags in the other 3 compass
directions would have similar numbers- hit the big apartment complexes,
and maybe certain subdivisions where you know the employees live.
Hey, I LIKE buses. I rode them a lot in college. But they were cheap,
and went directly from where I slept, to where I needed to be, and there
was one every 15 minutes.
--
aem sends...
| |
| dadiOH 2008-03-30, 5:25 pm |
| gas wrote:
> On the other hand, shifting distribution to send freight by train to
> major population centers (or freight centers), and the serving local
> areas by truck from these freight centers would drastically improve
> energy consumption, ...
<snip>
Another possibility too: ship the trailers by train (like ship containers),
off load where needed, pick up a tractor and driver.
--
dadiOH
____________________________
dadiOH's dandies v3.06...
....a help file of info about MP3s, recording from
LP/cassette and tips & tricks on this and that.
Get it at http://mysite.verizon.net/xico
| |
| aemeijers 2008-03-30, 5:25 pm |
| In-Reply-To: <KrRHj.5641$A87.1627@trnddc06>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 24
Message-ID: <IwSHj.55643$D_3.8971@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: f20a8221986b86f4d0fdb704d32bd1c5
X-Complaints-To: abuse@worldnet.att.net
X-Trace: bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net 1206908072 f20a8221986b86f4d0fdb704d32bd1c5 (Sun, 30 Mar 2008 20:14:32 GMT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2008 20:14:32 GMT
Organization: AT&T Worldnet
Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2008 20:14:32 GMT
Bytes: 2468
Xref: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com alt.home.repair:1057911
dadiOH wrote:
> gas wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> Another possibility too: ship the trailers by train (like ship containers),
> off load where needed, pick up a tractor and driver.
>
Don't watch many trains go by, do you? Around here, that is already
dirt-common. There are sea-train boxes delivered to factories and
industrial parks around here that haven't been opened since they left
China or wherever. Don't know the handling steps on that end, but here
in CONUS they are offloaded in a port, many times directly to
purpose-built rail cars, and go cross-country by train to nearest rail
yard set up to pull them off and drop them on a matching semitrailer. I
understand some big factories with their own rail spurs can even offload
the containers directly from the trains.
--
aem sends...
| |
| gfretwell@aol.com 2008-03-30, 5:25 pm |
| On Sun, 30 Mar 2008 09:42:54 -0700 (PDT), "hallerb@aol.com"
<hallerb@aol.com> wrote:
>mag lev can do it at 300 miles per hour, with flight delays etc speed
>would be a wash.
What is the real average speed? 100? 150? What path will the train
have to take? 3500-4000 miles? so it only takes 24 hours.
Still not much of an option
Who will buy the land? How much do you figure that ticket is going to
cost?
Trains make sense in urban environments but when you start getting out
in the boonies they don't attract many passengers. You can't confuse
things that work in Europe where countries are the size of
congressional districts here with what works in the US.
| |
| gfretwell@aol.com 2008-03-30, 5:25 pm |
| On Sun, 30 Mar 2008 09:42:54 -0700 (PDT), "hallerb@aol.com"
<hallerb@aol.com> wrote:
>once terrorists shoot some commercial airliners out of the sky mag lev
>will surge.........
It will be a whole lot easier for a terrorist to hit a train. At 300
MPH they could wreck one with a big rock.
| |
| gfretwell@aol.com 2008-03-30, 5:26 pm |
| On Sun, 30 Mar 2008 09:46:11 -0700 (PDT), "hallerb@aol.com"
<hallerb@aol.com> wrote:
>taxpayers pay for roads...........
>
>railroads have to pay for rails........
>
>made rail cost more for many years.
>
I guess you missed the creation of Conrail and Amtrack
Uncle sam has been maintaining rails since the Carter administration
>rail lines should be electrified
They are in the places that make sense to do it. Mostly the NE
corridor
| |
| gfretwell@aol.com 2008-03-30, 5:26 pm |
| On Sun, 30 Mar 2008 19:00:58 GMT, "dadiOH" <someone@fuggetit.com>
wrote:
>Another possibility too: ship the trailers by train (like ship containers),
>off load where needed, pick up a tractor and driver.
They do
| |
| Kurt Ullman 2008-03-30, 5:26 pm |
| In article <gk10v31gga4nt13vf3svob13fqgfhd22vd@4ax.com>,
gfretwell@aol.com wrote:
>
> I guess you missed the creation of Conrail and Amtrack
> Uncle sam has been maintaining rails since the Carter administration
Conrail was sold to CSX and Norfolk Southern in '99, so it isn't
involved federally any more.
| |
| websurf1@cox.net 2008-03-30, 8:25 pm |
| On Mar 29, 7:04 pm, "HeyBub" <hey...@gmail.com> wrote:
> hall...@aol.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Exactly. Fuel use is virtually inelastic. Price goes up, people pay it or
> starve, lose their jobs, or suffer other dire consequences. Gone are the
> days when people "went for a drive." Virtually all travel is a necessity.
>
> As for using increased tax revenues to fund, say, mass transit. It takes
> five years to lay track. So 100% of the drivers in my town would be charged
> extra amounts so that five years from now, 2% of the population will have
> the opportunity to use rail transit? Really bad trade-off. Really bad.
The alternative is that in 5 years, you'll still be paying huge
amounts for gas, but you WON'T have mass transit. That's even worse.
We screwed up mass transit a long time ago, and correcting that will
be costly, but not impossible.
Furthermore, you don't have to have rails for MT. You CAN use busses,
which don't take anywhere near 5 years to implement, and the routes
can be changed immediately at no cost as situations warrant. Not the
best answer, but it is and answer.
| |
| websurf1@cox.net 2008-03-30, 8:25 pm |
| On Mar 29, 3:55 pm, "hall...@aol.com" <hall...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Mar 29, 5:14=EF=BF=BDpm, websu...@cox.net wrote:
>
uld loosen smog regulations on gasoline and additives, to help[color=darkred]
>
>
and[color=darkred]
>
> unrestrained higher costs of gasoline means less spending on
> everything else.............
>
> its killing our economy.
>
> might be better to take the hit on lost gas tax revenue, than pay tons
> more for unemployment welfare etc
The gas tax revenue is fairly small, but is supposed to be used to
fund roadways and improvements. Kill the tax, and in a few years the
roadways are in bad shape, at which time you pay more for repairs,
detours, etc. Dropping the tax is a short-term answer that creates a
long-term problem.
Anyway, if you kill the tax, and stop funding needed roadwork, you now
have roadworkers out of work, which adds to the unemployment. The gas
tax hasn't kept up with inflation and increased road needs for many
years now.
| |
| aemeijers 2008-03-30, 8:25 pm |
| gfretwell@aol.com wrote:
> On Sun, 30 Mar 2008 09:46:11 -0700 (PDT), "hallerb@aol.com"
> <hallerb@aol.com> wrote:
>
> I guess you missed the creation of Conrail and Amtrack
> Uncle sam has been maintaining rails since the Carter administration
>
>
> They are in the places that make sense to do it. Mostly the NE
> corridor
Go back about 150 years. Fed Gov and the railroads were in bed together
for decades to settle the west, to the point where the line between the
railroads and the government got real fuzzy in spots. Railroads had land
grants, exclusive hauling rights, all sorts of sweetheart deals. Not
saying that was always a bad thing (unless you were a Native American or
a Buffalo, of course), just that it is what happened.
But in modern world, for human cargo, railroads only make economic sense
in certain locations, where the traffic flow will pay the costs. In US,
BOWASH corridor, SF-SD corridor, and <maybe> the Chicago-Detroit
corridor, would qualify. Perhaps a few more where they could share
existing freight ROWs. The interstates just have too much of a head start.
--
aem sends...
| |
| Don Klipstein 2008-03-30, 8:25 pm |
| In <d1bd79c2-c9c3-43fb-85bc-3bb555036f42@s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
websurf1@cox.net wrote:
>On Mar 29, 7:04 pm, "HeyBub" <hey...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>The alternative is that in 5 years, you'll still be paying huge
>amounts for gas, but you WON'T have mass transit. That's even worse.
>We screwed up mass transit a long time ago, and correcting that will
>be costly, but not impossible.
>Furthermore, you don't have to have rails for MT. You CAN use busses,
>which don't take anywhere near 5 years to implement, and the routes
>can be changed immediately at no cost as situations warrant. Not the
>best answer, but it is and answer.
Keep in mind where some transit tax money goes...
1. In many older big cities, the transit workers get big union benefits
that most other workers have no hope of getting. Such as health insurance
for entire family 100% paid by the employer or close to that.
In Philadelphia, it was some big union giveback around 2005 for the
employees with over 24 or 28 or whatever months seniority to pay 1%
or whatever pittance towards family health insurance premiums. (Covered
are employee and "qualifying dependents").
Despite this "giveback", cost increases in health insurance premiums
for employees with over 2 years seniority are 99% paid by the employer.
During the first 2 years, employees pay 30% of premiums during the first
year, 20% during the second year (as of 2005 and the following contract).
I managed to find an agreement for the current TWU Local 234 labor
contract, though I cannot quite guarantee that this is the actual current
contract as opposed to a proposed one:
http://www.twu.com/intstaff/contrac...CTDContract.pdf
The workers also get pensions!
Any corrections to any misinterpretations by me of this, please post or
e-mail to me at don@misty.com
(I will post all factual corrections to anything I said regarding this
labor contract as a result of any private e-mails I receive regarding this
labor contract.)
2. I do remember ongoing proposals for a rail line to be built (or
upgraded) along where one already ran, northwest from Philadelphia along
the Schuylkill river past Norristown. A big part was electrifying that
route. Price tag was a billion or two as of a few years ago.
The dollar amount sounds to me awfully high to get a nice little light
rail line up and running. I suspect this was going to be a big pork
barrel public works project to keep employed for a little while many
people in the politically powerful building construction trades unions at
their top dollar rates.
************
I think we need more open debate as to who the politically powerful few
of the unions nesting in older big cities are fighting for, and who they
are fighting against!
This does manage to tie in to political battling for more-vs-less
spending of tax dollars towards mass transit, as well as the battles to
get these tax dollars spent towards where they will do the most good vs.
towards where the political powers that be exert force to spend *our*
money on!
***********
I am a fan of mass transit, and I am a bit "socialist". I do see
fairness in "to each according to their needs, from each according to
their abilities". However, I also believe that people earning a living
largely deserve to not be taxed from most or even half of what they work
for or otherwise earn, and that their productivity and increases thereof
should reward those that successfully strive more than those who don't!
So I see existence of need to subsidize mass transit, but not with tax
dollars being spent to give its workers a hugely better deal than that
achieved by most of the workers riding mass transit or workers paying for
it through taxes!
I see need for more open debate in this area!
***********
- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)
| |
| Stormin Mormon 2008-03-31, 8:25 pm |
| The environmental people closing wells, that hasn't helped. Think Alaska,
and offshore. I do believe we have oil in the USA that isn't being used.
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..
<websurf1@cox.net> wrote in message
news:009974a5-0be4-4556-94cd-c3c4d8076378@h11g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
High oil prices IS an energy policy (albeit not a planned one--Bush
isn't responsible for it)
With high oil prices, alternative energy will gain strength.
If oil is cheap, we won't change. I've been advocating $5.00 per
gallon for gas for some years now. However, I would have like to have
seen it gradually, and through taxation, instead of a dollar
devaluation and a rise in world consumption.
| |
| Stormin Mormon 2008-03-31, 8:25 pm |
| Environmentalists and shutting down oil wells? That a factor?
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..
"Edwin Pawlowski" <esp@snet.net> wrote in message
news:JVhHj.6324$6H.1378@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net...
Rather that just getting PO'd at Bush, find the real reasons for the high
price and properly channel your anger. Much of the blame goes to China as
they are willing to pay dearly for raw materials. Cement, steel, copper,
you name it. It will get even worse as India gets the cheap automobile.
Well, Tata for now.
| |
| websurf1@cox.net 2008-04-01, 3:26 am |
| On Mar 30, 5:19 pm, d...@manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein) wrote:
>snip of some good stuff<
>
> - Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)
I can't disagree with most of what you said.
The efficiency with which tax money is spent is a major issue,
somewhat separate from the encouragement of fuel efficiency by raising
its cost.
Two problems, two solutions that might be related.
| |
| websurf1@cox.net 2008-04-01, 3:26 am |
| On Mar 31, 3:25 pm, "Stormin Mormon"
<cayoung61**spambloc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> The environmental people closing wells, that hasn't helped. Think Alaska,
> and offshore. I do believe we have oil in the USA that isn't being used.
>
The enviros have helped a lot.
If the oil isn't pumped now, and energy costs therefore rise, we will
have that finite oil a bit longer, while | | |