Advertisement

Archive for Sunday, June 8, 2008

Oil producers urged to boost output

June 8, 2008

Advertisement

— Leading energy-consuming nations urged oil producers Saturday to boost their output to counter soaring prices threatening the world economy, while they pledged to develop clean energy technologies and improve efficiency.

The five nations - the United States, China, Japan, India and South Korea - differed, however, on how urgently oil subsidies should be phased out, with Washington backing bold movement while India and China warned of political and economic instability.

Cabinet ministers from the five countries, which account for more than half the world's consumption of energy, agreed that the sharp surge in oil prices was a menace to the world economy, and that more petroleum should be produced to meet rising demand.

"It's not good for producing nations to see the U.S. struggling economically. They depend on us to be a significant engine in world economic activity," U.S. Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman said.

The current president of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, Chakib Khelil, has said that the cartel will make no new decision on production levels until its Sept. 9 meeting in Vienna.

Oil prices made their biggest single-day surge on Friday, soaring $11 to $138.54 on the New York Mercantile Exchange, an 8 percent increase. That followed a $5.50 increase the day before, taking oil futures more than 13 percent higher in just two days.

World oil production has stalled at about 85 million barrels a day since 2005, while global economic growth - boosted by spectacular surges in China and India - has pushed demand to unprecedented levels.

Analysts also have cited the decline of the U.S. dollar, fears about the long-term supply of oil and aggressive speculation as factors in rising prices.

The five consumer countries, meeting before an energy conference of the Group of Eight industrialized nations and Russia today, argued that the unprecedented prices were against the interests of both producers and consumers, and imposed a "heavy burden" on developing countries.

The ministers also vowed to diversify their sources of energy, invest in alternative and renewable fuels, ramp up cooperation in strategic oil stocks in case of a supply shortage, and improve the quality of data on production and inventories available to markets.

The group diverged somewhat over oil subsidies. The International Energy Agency has estimated that oil subsidies in China, India and the Middle East totaled about $55 billion in 2007.

The United States, which has its own energy subsidies, urged countries such as China to lower its oil supports, which enable domestic consumers to enjoy cheaper gasoline. Subsidies shield consumers from higher prices, meaning consumption does not decline despite rising expenses.

But China and India, while signing onto a statement recognizing the need to eventually phase out such subsidies, argued that removing such supports quickly could trigger political and economic instability.

"We are taking very precise and delicate measures so we will not destabilize the government," said Zhang Guibao, China's delegate. "If we face such problems in a country such as China, with a large population ... there would be adverse impacts felt throughout the world."

India is already facing such effects. The government on Wednesday hiked gasoline and diesel prices, triggering protests by consumers who blocked rail tracks and roads and shut down businesses.

Comments

JackRipper 5 years, 10 months ago

Oh nota, surely you must understand that being an adult means sometimes you don't always get what you want and are mature enough to know it isn't always good to get everything we want. When you use the power of government rather the the free market it is important that a lot of thought goes into it. That means looking ahead as best one can. Did it help the car companies to give tax breaks for the excessively large vehicles and encourage Ford and GM to concentrate on making those gas guzzlers? Now that the game is up they once again are struggling, jobs are being cut, and just adding to the already big problems we face. Now that is an example of looking into the future, now let's try some history again. People wouldn't have gone out and bought all those 250million vehicles if the government didn't build all the roads. When they did build the roads the free market railroads had to compete with the gov. Selective socialism is still socialism. It doesn't matter if the people want it or not, it is the government taxing and building it. People also want a car to drive on that road, how come the government doesn't buy everybody a car? Are you connecting the dots yet?

0

notajayhawk 5 years, 10 months ago

(continued)Despite your delusional version of history, that the 'government' built the roads before there were any cars and the boom in private automobile ownership followed the increase in roads instead of vice versa (an old guy like you should know a little more about the history of this country, jackie), there are 250,000,000 registered passenger vehicles in this country and (despite the temporary blip in ridership) less than 1% of long distant travel in this country is over the rails. Why? Becausethat'swhatpeoplewanted.Even in your small-town socialist paradise of Lawrence, jackie, they can't keep the bus system alive unless they let it be absorbed by the University's, since KU can force their students to pay $130/year (whether they use it or not) to keep the buses afloat. But they are finally building the SLT. Why? Becausethat'swhatpeoplewanted.Keep on deluding yourself, jackie. Keep on trying to convince yourself that I'm the only person around here that doesn't want your choice of lifestyle foisted on us. Keep on pretending that the overwhelming number of people in this country don't want to give up their freedom because an old fogie dinosaur like you wants his relics of the past back, because you think life is too fast (and getting away from you too fast after having past you by long ago). We're still buying gas for our cars, not flocking to mass transit, at $4/gal., jackie. We'll still be doing so at $7/gal. Then we'll be driving hybrids and electric vehicles and alternatively-powered cars, not riding the rails and the buses, jackie. Why? Becausethat'swhatpeoplewant.

0

notajayhawk 5 years, 10 months ago

JackRipper (Anonymous) says: "a situation which we brought on ourselves."See, how easy that was, jackie? And here I thought you were completely stupid. But it appears that while you refuse to accept the truth, you do at least recognize it.Yes, jackie, we chose this for ourselves. And that's what really irks you, isn't it? We are in the situation we're in not because of some vast conspiracy or because the government forced us into a particular lifestyle (as you are attempting to get the government to do again, to force your chosen lifestyle on the rest of us), but because that'swhatpeoplewanted.Yes, jackie, in the 70's they lowered the speed limit and enforced other mandatory restrictions, although it wasn't because the price went up, it was because there was an embargo and oil was less available at any price. But we repealed those restrictions, didn't we? And why? Becausethat'swhatpeoplewanted.(continued)

0

bandito 5 years, 10 months ago

Bottom line is that Americans are going to have to change their lifestyles. No more gas guzzling SUV's, vans, etc. No more long distance trips. No more urban sprawl. Buying a new hybrid is not economically feasible for most people, many should take steps like in this book The World's Most Complete Guide to Saving Gas and Money very cheap on ebay or wherever. Regards,Bandito

0

JackRipper 5 years, 10 months ago

Is there a point in thinking we really need to exploit ANWR and other places right now? One could say compared other countries that gas is still a bargain. The only problem is we created over the last 15 years a situation which we brought on ourselves. To drill for oil only to be able to go back to that kind of wasteful and really quite unproductive use of oil just isn't logical. Why not hold off using those resources until we are really in a pickle and have actually changed a few things in the way we live.

0

Pilgrim 5 years, 10 months ago

The game is over, log. You invoked Godwin's Law. You lose. Give it up.

0

logrithmic 5 years, 10 months ago

Well we're in agreement that this is what the oil companies want.And yes, I think that some Americans will buy in to the rightwing propaganda that suggests drilling in the Alaska Wildlife Refuge will solve all our energy problems. Look at how many still believe that Saddam and Al Queda were working together to attack us on 9-11.The oil reserves in ANWR are miniscule and are hardly worth destroying a place of pristine beauty.http://www.unc.edu/~money/geography/anwr2.htmlFrom link:"Oil opponents also advocate that the oil reserves within the ANWR region will not be enough to sufficiently lower our dependence on foreign oil. Estimates of oil reserves conclude that there approximately around 7 billion barrels of oil that can be economically recovered. With this estimate, the oil reserves would only produce enough oil to supply the United States for about 200 days (http://www.alaskawild.org/). At best, the oil and gas drilling in the ANWR region would decrease our current dependence on oil from 55% to 50% (www.protect-the-artic.com). This low amount of recoverable oil leads many to feel that the gains from drilling in the ANWR region just won't be enough to justify harming the plant and animal life."

0

JackRipper 5 years, 10 months ago

A reach? I didn't say the end result was that the oil would be sold here but the high gas prices will cause Americans to demand that we drill for the oil. That's what the oil companies want. We don't have any reason to think they will sell it to us.Definitely agree with the conserving what we have. We are already selling $billions to the Chinese that we may wish we kept for the future. This urgent need to burn it all up as soon as we can without moving to conserve will leave us in a desperate situation. This is more a strategic concern then figuring out how to continue the same wasteful lifestyles many have chosen.

0

compmd 5 years, 10 months ago

Marion,"Auto makers always destroy experimental vehicles after they are finished with them as such cars cannot be insured" Are you interchanging the Chevrolet Volt with the GM EV1? The Volt hasn't been built yet. They are completely different vehicles. I knew someone who had an EV1 back in the day, it was pretty neat, I have to say. The fact that GM destroyed them was a travesty. And no, automakers do not destroy all their experimental cars. The whole point of experimental cars is they have to learn something from them. GM didn't do anything with the EV1s prior to crushing and destroying almost every single one. Those that escaped the crusher were "permanently" disabled. You most certainly can insure experimental vehicles. How did all the EV1s get on the road in the first place? My dad had an experimental vehicle based on a production model from Ford for several years (one of six made for a contract which was lost to GM) and we never had a problem registering or insuring it, and he drove it to and from work daily. And really, a Mercedes buff such as yourself should know that experimental cars are not destroyed. Remember the C111?

0

repaste 5 years, 10 months ago

bizarre image - George in crawford few months a go - holding hands with saudi prince- picture worth many words. Not Dem or Rep, just Gov. for the rich.

0

jafs 5 years, 10 months ago

The best thing we can do is to be mindful of our use of resources - if we all do that, we can make a significant impact.Government is a blunt tool, and often ineffective - it also tends to create large unintended consequences.A free market is only possible given a number of conditions, most of which are not in effect at this time.

0

logrithmic 5 years, 10 months ago

Jack,That seems like a reach to me. In my opinion, Big Oil wants access to that oil, not for any patriotic concern or concern about Americans, but to sell it to the highest bidder. My understanding is that any oil from the Artic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska would be sold to Asia (Japan & China). We simply must get to the point where we conserve energy and generate energy from renewable sources. The only way to do this is to let peak oil work its magic. At $12 to $15 a gallon, people will either sink or swim.It will not be easy. Just yesterday, I read an article about how rural America is suffering so much that when some run out of gas, they simply abandon their cars on the road:http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/09/business/09gas.html?pagewanted=2&hpWelcome to the new world order....

0

Marion Lynn 5 years, 10 months ago

Daytrader23 wrote:"Go ahead, blame someone other than the person who drives a Ford truck that has a 454 V8 with a 12 inch lift kit and 38 inch tires."Marion writes:A 454 would be a Chevy.A Ford might have a 302, 351, 428, 429 or 460.I notice that no one chides those who use gas powered leaf blowers, gas powered bass boats, gas powered lawn mowers, gas powered "personal watercraft", gas powered, unburned hydrocarbon spitting, 2-cycle weed eaters or chain saws."chain saws, mowers and the like have always escaped notice because they are outnumbered by cars. But collectively these and other outdoor engines are a big source of pollutants. The California Air Resources Board estimated that in its state, the annual hydrocarbon emissions of such devices equaled the output of 3.5 million 1991-model cars, each driving 16,000 miles."http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0CE4D61238F935A3575BC0A964958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all"Chain saws are worse: the California Air Resources Board says a chain saw operated for two hours emits as many hydrocarbons as a new car driven 3,000 miles.""Mark P. Mills, an energy consultant, estimates that the United States has 18 million walk-behind lawn mowers, and that if all of them were converted to electricity, oil consumption would fall 2.2 million barrels a year."

0

Pilgrim 5 years, 10 months ago

So now one of the three smartest people in the world gets up on a Monday morning in little ol' Lawrence, KS and promptly puts Godwin's Law into effect.Good job, log. You lose.ROFL!!!!

0

JackRipper 5 years, 10 months ago

Log, isn't it odd how in the 70's we did things like lower the speed limit and turned down the heat or turn up the air conditioning? I haven't heard a darn thing about what we should be doing but then it dawned on me. The only reason the politicians are allowing this to go on is to get people to demand drilling in all those places that were off limit. We'll do that and burn it all up like the oil fields that were found in the 70's and 80's and then back to square one again.With the large commuter culture we have today if we lowered the speed limit we would hear a howl that would terrify the politicians. It is just insane that we have to relive this all again when it was beat by our changes we made in the 70's and 80's.

0

logrithmic 5 years, 10 months ago

This article has another interesting aspect.How can Herr Bush authorize his emmissaries to "urge" or beg the oil producers to step up their production of oil while keeping such "urging" or begging from the American people.The fuhrer has yet to come forward and say honestly to the American people that he has been forced to get down on his knees in front of the Saudi Royal dictators and beg for oil to keep our economy going. Instead, he glibly preens in front of the cameras as if nothing's wrong!Another bizarre image - yesterday, watching Bushette, who is touring Afghanistan, standing in front of Afghan soldiers doing exercises. Yes, the war president and the war presidentess.... HA HA HA HA.

0

logrithmic 5 years, 10 months ago

The Democraps are not blameless in this. Not only did they roll over and play dead in light of the onslaught of Karl Rove to make support of the war and election issue, under Pelosi, they took impeacment "off the table." As a result, we still have a rightwing leader who now threatens to drop bombs (including nuclear bombs) on Iran, a nation that has never attacked us (and to my knowledge, has never invaded any other nation). When you threaten further war in the Middle East, it naturally has an effect on the price of oil. I understand that if Bush chooses to launch a criminal war of agression against Iran, the price of oil will lurch upward of $200 a barrel and we will all be looking at the price today as the "good old days."Esq suggests that a RepubLICKlan Congress was responsible for $2.00 a gallon. Using that reasoning, I could go back to the Democratic Congress of the sixties and say they were responsible for the 18 cents a gallon we were paying then. LOL!But the problem with Herr Bush's threat and today's Israeli threat against Iran, is that it pushes the price of oil higher. And these threats are bipartisan. Both Clinton and Obama have refused to take any options "off the table" in their threats against Iran.What amuses me, is that the Democraps have said they plan to impeach the Fuhrer if he initiates war against Iran. This is an empty threat. If the Fuhrer decided to wage war against Iran, the U.S. Congress would fall in line and kiss bottom, just like they did with the illegal invasion of Iraq.

0

JackRipper 5 years, 10 months ago

Oh nota, I guess I held out too much hope for you but it is a lost cause. I think you are getting close to one of my points though. Had there not been a massive road system put into place there wouldn't be 250 million cars on the road. Ok, an other dot connecting opportunity for you. Think before you lash out in anger. The problem with thinking everything is peachy fine because people are now switching to gas efficiency instead of the tanks they were driving is missing the point, and Lawrence is a perfect example, that while people thought gas was going to be cheap forever they moved further from work and now are upset and suddenly wanting the government to act to keep their bedroom communities alive. The Lawrence housing boom is now imploding as people have to figure out is it worth it living that far from work but leaving Lawrence stuck with maintaining all the additional infrastructure created when that unsustainable growth died. Now we desperately try to create real jobs here doing things as absurd as building industrial parks all over the place without figuring all the additional costs those will place on the taxpayers.

0

Esq2eB 5 years, 10 months ago

Two years ago a Democrat COngress was installed in Washington and they promised to end the war in Iraq and do something about the price of gas. 2 years later the price of gas has more than doubled, and we are still in Iraq. Thanks, Obama, Claire, Pelosi, Boyda, Clinton and and the rest of you DemocRATS. When we had a Rebublican Congress I was only paying $2.00 a gallon!

0

notajayhawk 5 years, 10 months ago

merrill (Anonymous) says: "The largest contributor to increased gasoline prices is all americans who continue to buy no matter the cost."I'm sure the over one billion people in China and India that are starting to drink the stuff up didn't have anything at all to do with the price of oil. "Americans who refuse to drive fuel efficient automobiles"Then again:http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080603/ap_on_bi_ge/gm_shareholders"General Motors is closing four truck and SUV plants in the U.S., Canada and Mexico : the iconic Hummer brand will be reviewed and potentially sold or revamped : the GM board has approved production of a new small Chevrolet car at a plant in Lordstown, Ohio, in mid-2010 and production of the Chevrolet Volt electric vehicle in Detroit."Gee, looks like we actually are driving more fuel efficient vehicles.I particularly like your statement that one of the problems is Americans who believe that the government can dictate the cost of doing business with the oil companies, followed by your usual drivel blaming the Republican administration. Ah, well. I'm sure merrill's post-bot will toss this one out on every thread that contains the words "gas prices" for the next coupla' years. At least it was semi-amusing the first time.

0

Adrienne Sanders 5 years, 10 months ago

Use less, people. Not just less gas, less everything.

0

notajayhawk 5 years, 10 months ago

JackRipper (Anonymous) says: "I'm mr free market, I want to let the market work"The owners of the 250,000,000 registered passenger vehicles have made a sizable personal monetary investment casting their votes for travel by road. Less than one percent of the American public chooses to do their traveling by train, and that's with half their fare paid for by taxes. The free market has decided, jackie-boy. Nobody wants to play with your choo-choos anymore. But keep pushing for that socialist government you want so bad (even if you don't understand what it is), and maybe you'll get your wish and the government will force us all to give up our individual rights and travel the way you want us to.

0

Richard Heckler 5 years, 10 months ago

The largest contributor to increased gasoline prices is all americans who continue to buy no matter the cost.All americans who honestly believe the USA government can dictate the cost of doing business with oil suppliersAmericans who are living business as usual. Americans who refuse to walk,bike or use public transportation when in fact that is smart dollars and sense.Americans who refuse to drive fuel efficient automobilesAmericans who believe oil products do not pollute in order to justify their desire to drive gas hogs. This is called denial.Americans who say I can afford gasoline no matter what. That my friends drives inflated pricing which screws everyone and makes zero dollars and sense and is dumb.Wars for oil control is not free!All americans who believe it's okay for soldiers to die or become permanently disabled so long as it is not them or their children.It is after all a republican administration who lied to attack and is assisting in taking this economy down the tubes.*Yes folks it is us screwing up our own cost of living instead demanding an end to all of the madness stated above. Instead we believe politicians!

0

Daytrader23 5 years, 10 months ago

I love how some of you idiots blame Soros. He is just one man in a market where trillions of dollars changes hands every day. One man cannot influence an ENTIRE market.I really would like to thank the "Lets blame Soros" idiots. You made me laugh out loud. How about Let's blame the ever wasteful, living like pigs, non conserving Americans. Thats where you will find the real root of this problem. Go ahead, blame someone other than the person who drives a Ford truck that has a 454 V8 with a 12 inch lift kit and 38 inch tires.Yes it must be Soros fault, your right. LOL

0

JackRipper 5 years, 10 months ago

Spend some time looking up what socialism is about. I'm afraid you will be truly surprised.

0

JackRipper 5 years, 10 months ago

Oh boy, you have a long way to go. I'm mr free market, I want to let the market work, you are the one with socialist dreams of using the power of government to fund certain industries. You didn't get the point it looks like. Try again with a little less anger this time and see what I was saying. I doubt it but I believe there is hope for all.

0

notajayhawk 5 years, 10 months ago

I'll save you the trouble of switching back and forth and post this here, too, jackie:Well, jackie-boy, as much fun as this has been, some of us have jobs to get to. It's been a real pleasure watching you make an utter jack___ out of yourself, and as much as I respect your desire to be a card-carrying socialist and impose the will of you 1-percenters on the rest of the country, I think I'll pass on the claptrap you're trying to sell - as, luckily, will the overwhelming majority of the rest of the citizens of this country. Enjoy swimming in your bile, jackie, but when you get over your bitterness at having your choo-choos taken away, you're welcome to join us in the 21st century.

0

notajayhawk 5 years, 10 months ago

Oh, gee, jackie, and I thought you might stay on topic tonight instead of drifting off into your socialist rants.Are you implying by your pointless question, jackie, that the need for roads applies to a minority like the number of people without health insurance? Because it's the whiners like you that cry over the loss of their pet choo-choos that's closer to the people without insurance.But I guess, as a true socialist, you would think that the rest of us owe you something. Or is that everything?

0

JackRipper 5 years, 10 months ago

No, no nota, if you if went total free market then the market truly decides. That is perfect. If you want socialism then we need to balance it across the board so we don't get in the mess that is coming up. I see you have the number for the cars registered. That's real good, have you pondered why when the outcry you describe for cars is met with roads and more roads but when the outcry for insurance for all is made it falls on deaf ears? Ponder that one. I'll give you a hint, who or what benefits most from it?

0

notajayhawk 5 years, 10 months ago

Let's add basic reading comprehension skills to the long list of jackie's educational deficiencies. I have already said I'm fine with the free market deciding, jackie-boy. Now, if you can step outside your little land of delusion for a moment, you wanna' take a shot at predicting which will survive on their own - the roads and airports that 99% of the population have consistently demonstrated for decades that they prefer, or the trains that less than 1% of the population likes to take their trips down memory lane in?I know alzheimer's can be a b, jackie, but you're obviously old enough - well beyond old enough - to have witnessed the result of that free market decision for yourself. Guess what? Trains lost. I'm surprised you missed it, it was in all the news. Just a thought, jackie-boy - but do you think the owners of the almost 250,000,000 registered passenger vehicles in the United States paid their money to purchase those vehicles as a vote for roads or rails?You're always good for a laugh, jackie - here, let me recap: Because the use of airplanes and cars is temporarily trending down for a few months (not because of personal preference but because of increased costs), we should cut back on government spending for roads and air travel - but while train travel has dropped off over several decades to be down to almost non-existant (precisely because of personal preference), the solution is to spend more money and expand the system. Why, you're a true genius, jackie.

0

JackRipper 5 years, 10 months ago

Oh nota, you expose again your inability to connect dots, I gave you a little project to work on to see if you learn how to connect dots how you can find the answers. I'm wondering, how is it the more socialist European countries, even when the socialist are in power still have cars? See just because you like something the government power can provide doesn't make it any less socialist. I suppose you also have no problem with eminent domain being used to take private property for your road building projects. Again it isn't about eliminating roads it is about providing an other option to reduce the pressure on the systems we have now. Please, it shouldn't frighten you so much to say if roads are the only thing people want let's privative it all and let the real free market decide.

0

Marion Lynn 5 years, 10 months ago

logrithmic (Anonymous) says: "In fact, GM destroyed it's workable electric car solution. Trashed it, even as people stood in line to buy it. (See the movie "Who Killed the Electric Car."Marion writes:Ah, Log is again trying to sell you logs of biosolids!The original Chevy Volt was an experimental car and nothing but, limited by the battery technology of the time.The car was NOT intended for production at the time that the experimental units were built and each driver was told that the Volts were only for testing purposes.Auto makers always destroy experimental vehicles after they are finished with them as such cars cannot be insured, were only built as test beds and have served their purpose.Since battery technology has improved significantly since the original Volt, a new Volt is going into production.The movie to which Log refers is a propaganda piece in the tradition of that big, fat ugly Michael Moore.

0

budwhysir 5 years, 10 months ago

thats right, it is just plain common sense to agree with facts that are factual and not misleading such as political speaches of lossing tax dollars to common interests like global warming and french fries. However, the expanding demand for the almighty dollar brings the effect of shiny coins. If one can only demand the change of the past, then the future will only cast a shadow of doubt on the political satire that faces this nation. And then what do we do?? Ride a train the bank? fly a plane to the ballgame? Pay the shortstop and extra 2 million a year? Who in thier right mind would support a guy making millions of dollars playing a game while I struggle to buy 4 dollar a gallon gas? What is this ballplayer to do? buy a hummer and a private jet? Possibly he could buy interests in an oil comapny

0

notajayhawk 5 years, 10 months ago

Lordie you're a dense one, jackie-boy.The fundamental difference which your limited intellectual capacity and just plain delusional obstinence prevent you from seeing is that when the government spends money on roads and airports, it benefits every person in the population as individuals, it follows the will of the people who have chosen the benefits of automobile travel and air travel that trains and buses are simply and completely incapable of providing, and it advances the concepts of personal liberty and choice. Socialism, jackie, is when the choices and freedoms of the individual are subjugated to the government's decisions as to what better benefits the state, like telling someone they don't have the right to drive a car or fly in a plane even when they can afford it because the country needs to reduce its oil consumption, or that everyone has to use mass transit or commute by train instead of by car because it's better for the environment, or that we have to surrender at least part of our individual freedoms and be good little automotons going where the government says we can go when they say we can go how they say we can get there. Sorry you're not capable of distinguishing between the two, jackie, but after all your blabbering on these threads, I never expected any more from you. At least this time you managed to refrain from ranting about how this is all related to imports from China and NAFTA and Social Security - at least you're progressing, even if you still have a long, long way to go (but then, I should have expected someone who prefers train travel to take a lot longer to get there).

0

budwhysir 5 years, 10 months ago

I dont precieve railways and gas stations to be very social. However my views have never stacked up to the every day thinking of voters and politicians in todays modern world. Would we consider the yesteryear books of the rail transportation to be history?? Or a setup to the modern ways of taxation? Im all for making money, however many have found a way to make money from the everyda working mans hard labor. Whats mine is yours and I will make more mentality has placed us in a society of throw away spend more fools calling the shots

0

JackRipper 5 years, 10 months ago

Wow, nota the concept is lost on you what socialism is. Yes, the government takes your money and spends, that part you seem to understand but you get lost not thinking that is socialism. But not only is it socialism but it is called pork barrel spending most the time and you have remember the government is only able to do that right now on a whole bunch of IOU's that we won't be able to pay back. Yes, improving rail will cost money but when the other option is just spending the money to build more roads then I think we need to pause and think a little bit more about it. If you want to believe that all road construction comes only from the gas tax you then you are again delusional and by the way the only way the gas tax works is by burning up more gas. Is that truly what we want? It's like trying to fix health care by taxing cigarettes which we supposedly want people to give up.As Kunstler believes we are living like the way of life we have is guaranteed and there will be a fix for it that lets us go back to the same life we have now. Well let's hope so but what if there is no magic bullet?Everyday you are out there driving on the roads just keep remembering that it is a socialist project, the same as Amtrak. Again, the train system today is not used because it is incomplete. You might look at the history of how the train became the less preferred method of transportation. It isn't quite the way you paint it.So nota by embracing socialism you should also appreciate Amtrak and the bus system.

0

budwhysir 5 years, 10 months ago

So as a business person making record profits on products produced for years, would you increase spending to increase production on a product you are already selling at record high prices? I think not.Until the consumers of oils and fuels find a way to lower our dependency on a product that is being sold at crazy prices. we will be inslaved to the oil barrons for ever. Not to mention that the new hydrogen cars require a purified modified water that will cost upwards of 3 dollars a gallon. No matter where we turn the big guys will find a way to get your money no matter what.While on the subject lets talk about free transportation such as bikes or walking. Should we tax these methods of movement to ensure the profitability of large companies? Dont you feel guilty using these forms of movement without sharing your low valued dollar with someone who has more than you can dream of?????

0

Sean Livingstone 5 years, 10 months ago

Hey guys, what's wrong with making money???

0

notajayhawk 5 years, 10 months ago

JackRipper (Anonymous) says: "Free enterprise means private property which means if it had been free enterprise we would have continued with a turnpike system, especially if it was in so much demand. But you see nota, the government owns the road."You're a tiring old fool, jackie, and I realize coherent thought isn't one of your strong suits, but just out of curiosity: Where does the 'government' get the money it spent on building those roads and continues to spend on their maintenance and expansion? Ya' think maybe - just maybe - it comes from the taxes paid by the 99% of the population who makes use of those roads, jackie? Now, if the tiny segment of the population who rides the trains wants their taxes to be used to pay for the trains, hey, you got my vote - I'm all in favor of cutting funding for rail travel back to that level."Your having it both ways really shows that you aren't discussing this as a national issue but just maintaining your selfish lifestyle."My "selfish lifestyle" is the one preferred by 99% of the population, jackie, the ones who don't want the delusional fringe like you dictating what you think our lifestyle should be, and it's preferred because it benefits the overwhelming percentage of the population, not just a disgruntled fringe like yourself."And again, please, if the trains were what they could be a whole lot of people would be using them."I really am beginning to think your ability to comprehend reality is pathological, jackie, please get some help for your own sake. The part you either keep forgetting, are incapable of comprehending, or just plain deliberately leave out in an attempt to blow smoke is there used to be a rail system such as you describe. It wasn't taken away from us, it isn't being kept from us, it was abandoned because people preferred the flexibility and freedom of cars and the speed of air travel. And all your wishing that wasn't so, all your deluded logic that expanding a system that people aren't using now will get more people to use it, all your bluster and smoke-and-mirrors doesn't change the fact that trains can not and never will be able to provide the advantages that people have chosen over the past century. You seem completely incapable, as evidenced by your belief that it's just me that wants cars and planes and not trains, of accepting that 99% of the American public doesn't think like you do and doesn't want what you're trying to sell.I'm really beginning to think you are Clay Chastain, not just one of his deluded kool-aid disciples.

0

JackRipper 5 years, 10 months ago

Yep, still hasn't sunk in yet has it. Free enterprise means private property which means if it had been free enterprise we would have continued with a turnpike system, especially if it was in so much demand. But you see nota, the government owns the road. Don't confuse those signs saying this group of people clean this mile of road with ownership, maybe that is why you are confused, that just means they pick up the trash that people dump on their precious highways but rest assured, they are owned by the government. That is the reason the government can tell you have to have working blinkers, a horn, lights,etc, which means that the government could really if they wanted to tell you how many miles per gallon your car needs to get. That is why the man with the lights can pull you over when you aren't following the speed limit because he works for the government. Surely you have manners enough when going to someone's house to respect their ownership of it and follow some of their rules? Or do you declare yourself an anarchist at that time and trash their house? Your having it both ways really shows that you aren't discussing this as a national issue but just maintaining your selfish lifestyle. And again, please, if the trains were what they could be a whole lot of people would be using them. If you can't get to your destination then lets not be ludicrous of course they aren't going to be full.

0

notajayhawk 5 years, 10 months ago

One of us apparently doesn't "get it," jackie. No wonder you don't even know you're a socialist, you don't even know what that means.When the government responds to the will of the people, (e.g. by spending their tax dollars to build an infrastructure for the activities those people demand), that's democracy. When the desires of the people are seconded to the will of the state and the people are forced to respond to the will of the government (e.g. by being told where they're allowed to travel and when and how) because it's better for the state even if it's not what the people want, that's socialism.Please try to learn something before trying to argue.

0

Pilgrim 5 years, 10 months ago

So here we are, with the three smartest people in the world right here in Lawrence. If only their omniscience could be placed at the top of the power list so they could tell us all what to do and how to do it and why their way is so much smarter than anybody else's.Merrill (Richard Heckler) -- local government, economic development, and energy.logrithmic -- world economy and energy.Dahlberg (of looneyville fame) -- national security and all issues military (from the lofty perch of hindsight, of course).Lord, all three of these people simply must run for public office and get themselves elected or appointed to posts that will enable them to save us from ourselves. We simply cannot survive without their omniscience and superior intellect. Why they continue to withhold themselves from the world while hiding out in little old Lawrence, KS is beyond comprehension.

0

JackRipper 5 years, 10 months ago

Oh wow, you really don't get it, it doesn't matter if people want it or not when you use the government to build it it is socialism. People want a lot of things but I don't see that happening. Play your games with it but the fact stands.

0

notajayhawk 5 years, 10 months ago

Oh, jackie, it's so tiring to hear your socialist rants. I know the entire concept of a free market is disdainful to you, jackie. I know it irks you to think that people have the audacity to want to go where they want when they want how they want instead of being forced by people like you to give up their freedom and convenience because old fogies like you yearn for the old days.And again, jackie, if you weren't so delusional, you'd realize that if it hadn't been for the fact that people wanted that freedom and convenience that was given to them by the introduction of the automobile (the "horseless carriage" to you), the government (aka the people) wouldn't have built those roads. See, jackie, that's the difference between the form of government most of us in this country want and the socialist system you crave for: The government built the roads in response to the desires of 99% of the population, not the 1% like you who want to force your will on the rest of us.

0

JackRipper 5 years, 10 months ago

Oh nota it is so tiring to hear how you think the free market system is at work. Again, if it hadn't been for the government ie in your terms, socialism, there wouldn't be a road system that we have today that makes car transportation so inexpensive.

0

notajayhawk 5 years, 10 months ago

Gee, I wonder why logrithmic Hasn't posted an equally lengthy and exhaustive (and exhausting) diatribe detailing the efforts of the DemoCRACKs to control the price of oil.logrithmic: "In fact, GM destroyed it's workable electric car solution. Trashed it, even as people stood in line to buy it."Then again:http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080603/ap_on_bi_ge/gm_shareholders"General Motors is closing four truck and SUV plants in the U.S., Canada and Mexico ... the iconic Hummer brand will be reviewed and potentially sold or revamped ... the GM board has approved production of a new small Chevrolet car at a plant in Lordstown, Ohio, in mid-2010 and production of the Chevrolet Volt electric vehicle in Detroit."And why? Because that's what the market is demanding. This is the way it has worked in the past and (in a free society) should continue to work in the future. The price of gas goes up, people start driving more fuel efficient vehicles bringing demand down, the price stabilizes or even drops, people start using more thereby increasing demand, the price goes back up, rinse and repeat.Maybe we don't need the government to tell consumers to do what they're apparently smart enough to figure out for themselves. And maybe we don't need the government forcing the car companies to do what their customers can tell them to do more effectively.

0

Centerville 5 years, 10 months ago

Or you could look to that genius, Chuck Schumer: if Saudi Arabia produces 1 million more barrels of crude per day, the cost will drop $20.00 per barrel, if the US produces 1 million more barrels of crude per day, the cost will only drop $.01 per barrel.

0

BigPrune 5 years, 10 months ago

I'm simply pointing out something obvious that (all caps) EVERYONE is ignoring.The election is in the bag. Obama is our next president. You should be happy. Hope the price is worth it!

0

Compy 5 years, 10 months ago

no matter how intelligent you sound, or how many facts you can produce, systematically referring to your enemies with BIG CAPS and "clever" wordplays makes anyone sound like Rush Limbaugh. Nothing will ever be accomplished when people cannot separate their opinions and beliefs froms righteousness.

0

BigPrune 5 years, 10 months ago

They make more money because Soros is driving up the price of crude. They can't help it how the futures market is driven, when the prices go up, they make more money.Makes the plan even more ingenius. He's an evil genius.An even worse recession than the Jimmy Carter years is coming, as foretold by Mr. Soros. At least he will get richer, the poor will get poorer, and he will get Obama elected. You should be happy logrithmic. This election is in the bag baby!Don't forget to vote Obama! Hope the price is worth it!

0

logrithmic 5 years, 10 months ago

And this from the Boston Globe:http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/05/27/getting_big_oil_to_feel_our_pain/From link:"Last year, ExxonMobil made $40.6 billion. In the first quarter of this year, ExxonMobil, Shell, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, and BP America, the five companies that had officials appear before House and Senate committees to cry relative poverty, together made $36 billion in profits. Exxon senior vice president J. Stephen Simon said he made $12.5 million last year. John Lowe, executive vice president of ConocoPhillips, forgot how much he made, saying, "I know it's on page 36 of the proxy."Who is going to be the people's proxy to tell ExxonMobil and the other companies to stop gouging us? You cannot tell by the money. The oil and gas lobby has showered $639 million on Capitol Hill over the last decade, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. In the current election cycle, the industry is in the top 10 of industries that have already swamped politicians with over $20 million of lobbying efforts each.In political contributions, the oil companies still lean heavily Republican, obviously in hopes of blocking Democrat-inspired proposals to help consumers. ExxonMobil and Chevron rank second and third, respectively, among oil and gas companies and have so far made $1 million in 2008-cycle contributions, three-quarters of it going to the Republicans."Three quarters of the contributions going to rightwing Repubs. Is this why the Climate Security Act was stopped by rightwing Repubs? (The only reason one quarter of the contributions are going to the Democrats is because Big Oil needs friends there too, especially when they consider the rout their about to encounter in this year's elections - it's never too late to buy friends....)Enjoy the fruit of your labor....

0

BigPrune 5 years, 10 months ago

They make more money because Soros is driving up the price of crude.Makes the plan even more ingenius. He's an evil genius.An even worse recession than the Jimmy Carter years is coming, as foretold by Mr. Soros. At least he will get richer, the poor will get poorer, and he will get Obama elected. You should be happy logrithmic. This election is in the bag baby! Don't forget to vote Obama! Hope the price is worth it!

0

logrithmic 5 years, 10 months ago

Big Oil's bets in the presidential race. Notice McCain got a nice half million from oil interests:http://pravda-actions.blogspot.com/2008/05/big-oils-ballot-bets-funding-republican.html

0

logrithmic 5 years, 10 months ago

Let's see - Big Prune talks about a fund manager but doesn't mention oil tycoons? http://www.forbes.com/2005/11/15/billionaires_energy_oil_cz_lk_1116energybillionaires.htmlFrom Link:"Record oil and gas prices have fueled many fortunes. We estimate that there are at least 41 billionaires who earn at least some of their money from oil and gas. That is 15 more than there were just two years ago. Twenty-seven of these tycoons reside in the U.S. Some hail from well-known oil families, such as the Rockefellers or Kochs, who just announced plans to use some of their oil profits to buy paper giant Georgia-Pacific for $21 billion. If the deal goes through Koch Industries would become the largest privately held U.S. company."Six Americans made the list (and Soros did not):1) Dan L. Duncan, $6 billion, cofounder, chairman and significant shareholder of Enterprise Products Partners, a massive energy-services company. Transports natural gas, crude oil and petroleum products through 32,500 onshore and offshore pipelines in the U.S. 2) Charles Koch, $4.5 billion, Chairman and chief executive of Koch Industries:.Today, $60 billion (estimated sales) Koch is the second-largest private company in the U.S., with interests in crude oil supply and refining, chemical production, exploration and production, as well as marketing of fuel oil, base oils, petrochemicals, gasoline and other compounds. Also operates 4,000 miles of pipelines, transporting 900,000 barrels of petroleum-based liquids per day. 3) George Kaiser, $4.5 billion, Took over the family's oil business in 1969, expanded into banking, real estate and alternative energy. Latest push is liquefied natural gas. 4) Leonard Blavatnik, $3.5 billion, raised in Russia, immigrated to the U.S. at age 21:.made a fortune setting up TNK-BP, a joint partnership between their Tyumen Oil Company and British Petroleum. Recently bought plastics-manufacturer Basell from Shell and BASF for $5.7 billion. Owns stakes in Siberian-Urals Aluminum (SUAL) and a power company in Kazakhstan.5) Richard Kinder, $2.5 billion, former Enron president wisely left the firm in 1996. Bought Enron pipeline operations with pal William Morgan. Now runs Kinder Morgan, one of the largest energy transportation and storage companies in the U.S., which controls a 35,000-mile pipe network and 145 terminals. Bought Canadian pipeline company Terasen this year for $5.6 billion:.6) Sid Bass, $2 billion, Eldest son runs investments for family's Bass Enterprises....Currently drilling in the western U.S., the Gulf of Mexico and internationally and is planning new deepwater oil wells off Nova Scotia. Family fortune founded by his oil baron uncle, Sid Richardson. Diversified into Disney, John Wiley & Sons Publishing and Human Genome Sciences.

0

BigPrune 5 years, 10 months ago

It doesn't matter how much more oil gets produced. The increase might only help a smidgen as it is George Soros and his hedge fund buddies running up the price of oil.Let's see how much more George Soros' hedge fund will manipulate the oil markets and inturn the stock market so he can get his man (Obama) elected. Let's see how much his green companies increase in value, let's see how many people blame the high gasoline prices on Bush trying to make his buddies rich. What a brilliant move by Mr. Soros. How much can the American people take with the high gasoline prices? Enough to elect Mr. Soros' man into office so the gas prices might go down? Will they ever go back down?"The Wall Street Journal has reported that hedge fund operator John Paulson got a visit from Soros after Paulson had made about $4 billion betting on a housing market collapse. Soros wanted to know how he had done it. But Soros wouldn't talk to the Journal about his meeting with Paulson."Soros needs to ask a billionaire like Paulson how he made his money?Isn't it more likely Soros invited Paulson to become a member in one of his private billionaire clubs like Democracy Alliance or into a plan to help sway voters into voting for Obama in the fall elections.According to an article in the New York News & Features the top ten earners in the Hedge Fund Market are:1. John Paulson, Paulson & Co. ($3.7 billion)2. George Soros, Soros Fund Management ($2.9 billion)3. James Simons, Renaissance Technologies Corp. ($2.8 billion)4. Philip Falcone , Harbinger Capital Partners ($1.7 billion)5. Kenneth Griffin, Citadel Investment Group ($1.5 billion)6. Steven Cohen , SAC Capital Advisors ($900 million)7. Timothy Barakett, Atticus Capital ($750 million)8. Stephen Mandel Jr., Lone Pine Capital ($ 710 million)9. John Griffin, Blue Ridge Capital ($625 million)10. O. Andreas Halvorsen, Viking Global Investors ($520 million)Mr. Soros started move on . org, and is a financial backer of Obama's campaign.All on our backs so he gets rich and he gets his man elected.Incidentally, Mr. Soros said oil increases will continue until the United States and Great Britain is in the worst recession, even worst than the Carter years of the 1970's. Goldfinger has to get his man elected. Of course, the recovery will start towards the middle of Obama's presidency so he will look good as dramatic changes to the economy happen by the lowering of gasoline prices. Just in time for his re-election bid.Soros screwed with the economies of France, Russia and he killed the Bank of England. This is par for the course and it is all legal.Don't forget to vote Obama.

0

Rickyonealku 5 years, 10 months ago

75% of the oil and gas profits are made from outside the United States. Let me repeat 75% of the oil and gas profits are made from outside the United States. Devon Energy out of Oklahoma City, Oklahoma made a HUGE discovery off the Gulf cost but will not be in pipeline for another 5 or so years. So for the time being, people walk walk or ride your bike again, we all remember how to ride a bike??? right??? The price of gas in Saudia Arabia is 45 cents that's right only 45 cents a US Gallon.

0

Sean Livingstone 5 years, 10 months ago

We shouldn't totally blame Bush and his government. A lot of the blames has to be on ourselves: Why didn't we reduce oil consumption in the first place? Why didn't we buy a home that we can afford? Why didn't we buy responsibly, and make sure our products are made responsibly? Corporations are there to earn profits, and guess what? We profit when they profit, like it or not. Those of us who own stocks and bonds, know that these are tied intimately to the profits of corporations. The only sustainable way to make our growth sustainable, is through the power of the people. That's real democracy. It's not about asking the government or corporation to reduce their benefits for the sake of the citizens. You can raise up protectionism for a few years and enjoy the fruits, but the fruits will rot in a few years. Obama gets some messages correct, but there are some flaws to his plans and strategies. Mccain gets other messages correct, but some flaws to his plans. Without knowing the truth, it's always hard to make the right decisions.The very first step to a sustainable world is to live one yourself. The very first step to responsible corporate governance is demand it yourself and as a nation. The very first step to prevent the mortgage crisis is not to be engaged in such mortgage yourself. The very first step in making the economy sustainable, is to be responsible yourself.Take an example, many cities in California, police can get paid as much as $250,000! And get 90% pension after retirement. Ask yourself, is that sustainable? While we kept complaining about gas prices, why are we buy huge LCD TV all these times when we have the opportunities to save and live responsibly? When the crisis comes, we blame the government and corporations, and NEVER OURSELVES!Good luck folks, Good evening!

0

BigPrune 5 years, 10 months ago

It doesn't matter how much more oil gets produced. The increase might only help a smidgen as it is George Soros and his hedge fund buddies running up the price of oil.Let's see how much more George Soros' hedge fund will manipulate the oil markets and inturn the stock market so he can get his man (Obama) elected. Let's see how much his green companies increase in value, let's see how many people blame the high gasoline prices on Bush trying to make his buddies rich. What a brilliant move by Mr. Soros. How much can the American people take with the high gasoline prices? Enough to elect Mr. Soros' man into office so the gas prices might go down? Will they ever go back down?"The Wall Street Journal has reported that hedge fund operator John Paulson got a visit from Soros after Paulson had made about $4 billion betting on a housing market collapse. Soros wanted to know how he had done it. But Soros wouldn't talk to the Journal about his meeting with Paulson."Soros needs to ask a billionaire like Paulson how he made his money?Isn't it more likely Soros invited Paulson to become a member in one of his private billionaire clubs like Democracy Alliance or into a plan to help sway voters into voting for Obama in the fall elections.According to an article in the New York News & Features the top ten earners in the Hedge Fund Market are:1. John Paulson, Paulson & Co. ($3.7 billion)2. George Soros, Soros Fund Management ($2.9 billion)3. James Simons, Renaissance Technologies Corp. ($2.8 billion)4. Philip Falcone , Harbinger Capital Partners ($1.7 billion)5. Kenneth Griffin, Citadel Investment Group ($1.5 billion)6. Steven Cohen , SAC Capital Advisors ($900 million)7. Timothy Barakett, Atticus Capital ($750 million)8. Stephen Mandel Jr., Lone Pine Capital ($ 710 million)9. John Griffin, Blue Ridge Capital ($625 million)10. O. Andreas Halvorsen, Viking Global Investors ($520 million)Mr. Soros started move on . org, and is a financial backer of Obama's campaign.All on our backs so he gets rich and he gets his man elected.Incidentally, Mr. Soros said oil increases will continue until the United States and Great Britain is in the worst recession, even worst than the Carter years of the 1970's. Goldfinger has to get his man elected. Of course, the recovery will start towards the middle of Obama's presidency so he will look good as dramatic changes to the economy happen by the lowering of gasoline prices. Just in time for his re-election bid.Soros screwed with the economies of France, Russia and he killed the Bank of England. This is par for the course and it is all legal. Don't forget to vote Obama.

0

logrithmic 5 years, 10 months ago

Jack, you mean these tax breaks?http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/invest/extra/P115791.aspFrom link:"How would you like the U.S. government to send you a check that would pay for five years' worth of gasoline?Well, it can be arranged.Not everyone is eligible, of course. But if you use a vehicle 100% for business and purchase it, new or used, from a select list of big-time gas-guzzlers, Uncle Sam is ready to help you out.Yes, I'm talking about the well-publicized special tax break for vehicles with a gross weight of at least 6,000 pounds. Gross weight is the weight of the vehicle including fuel, passengers and payload. Because of this, gross weight can be a good deal more than the empty weight of the vehicle.Forty-one domestic and 15 foreign SUVs qualify for this tax break. The Porsche Cayenne, a notably business-like vehicle, is among them. As a consequence, while the depreciation write-off for any passenger car used for business is limited to only $2,960 in 2005, down from $10,610 in 2004, those claiming 100% business use of these SUVs could deduct 100% of the $89,665 price of the Porsche Cayenne Turbo during 2003 and until late October 2004. For those who bought in time, the write-off represented an immediate income tax savings of $31,383, provided the buyer was in the 35% tax bracket. Think of it as a bagatelle for the non-indigent from the Jobs and Growth Act of 2003."

0

logrithmic 5 years, 10 months ago

And now a word from Neil Young, the lyrics to his song "After the Gold Rush":"Well, I dreamed I saw the knights In armor coming, Saying something about a queen. There were peasants singing and Drummers drumming And the archer split the tree. There was a fanfare blowing To the sun That was floating on the breeze. Look at Mother Nature on the run In the nineteen seventies. Look at Mother Nature on the run In the nineteen seventies. I was lying in a burned out basement With the full moon in my eyes. I was hoping for replacement When the sun burst thru the sky. There was a band playing in my head And I felt like getting high. I was thinking about what a Friend had said I was hoping it was a lie. Thinking about what a Friend had said I was hoping it was a lie. Well, I dreamed I saw the silver Space ships flying In the yellow haze of the sun, There were children crying And colors flying All around the chosen ones. All in a dream, all in a dream The loading had begun. They were flying Mother Nature's Silver seed to a new home in the sun. Flying Mother Nature's Silver seed to a new home."

0

JackRipper 5 years, 10 months ago

Don't forget the tax breaks given for the purchases of those behemoths. Check out the Opus cartoon this morning. Sad but true.

0

logrithmic 5 years, 10 months ago

The United States has since the late 70s had time to prepare for peak oil. But when Rayguns took office, he said there was no need to tie the car producers hands with mandates for fuel efficiency. And what do we have today? All three car companies are in serious trouble and my prediction is they'll likely be bankrupt in five years.If you watch the movie "Who Killed the Electric Car?" you'll see GM undermining its own energy efficient product and lobbying the air quality board of the State of California to do away with its emissions requirement. This sabotage in favor of gas guzzlling SUVs should be a reminder to all citizens... Corporate America, at least those parts that have thrived under Bush, car and oil companies and their minions the trucking and highway construction industry, and their supporters, the developturds, have been lying to America. And we are now spending $1 trilion a year on a Pentagon (which just replaced its Air Force secretary and top military officer for incompetence) that is nothing more than an oil protection service.Meanwhile, the rightwing wants to suggest that the only thing we have to fear is terrorists. And so they suggest TWOT (the war on terror) at the cost of trillions to deal with the problem and let global warming and peak oil, the true threats to America's and the world's well being, fester like hidden boils beneath the rhethoric of their TV-made world.Enjoy the fruits of your labor....

0

logrithmic 5 years, 10 months ago

Are you sure madmike isn't Godot?

0

madmike 5 years, 10 months ago

Are you sure that Logrithmic isn't really Merrill?

0

logrithmic 5 years, 10 months ago

I needed to say one more thing. American car companies over the last eight years gave us the Excursion, the Hummer, the Ford 150 (250 & 350), etc. Where was there any attention to "efficiency" and alternatives? In fact, GM destroyed it's workable electric car solution. Trashed it, even as people stood in line to buy it. (See the movie "Who Killed the Electric Car."Yet here we have Bush officials (and Bush himself) begging our allies, the dicators of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, UAE, Quatar, etc., to produce more oil so we can have time to transistion to better more fuel efficient transportation and lifestyles. We are being forced to change our ways by higher prices. People are going to learn the value of oil. I look forward to higher prices precisely because of the pain they will produce. And that pain should provide motive to throw the rightwing like Roberts and Brownback out of office. What can be done now to generate more energy efficiency? Net metering needs to become national law. The subsidies the rightwing like Bush, Roberts, and Brownback gave to big oil should be repealed immediately, and instead, those subsidies should be applied to homes around America willing to invest in solar and wind power. And we should end the wasteful spending on the Iraq War, a $3 trillion boondoggle that does nothing for energy or any other type of security, and instead, put this money toward energy independence here at home.Enjoy the fruits of your labor.

0

logrithmic 5 years, 10 months ago

This second post deals with the latter part of this paragraph: "Leading energy-consuming nations urged oil producers Saturday to boost their output to counter soaring prices threatening the world economy, while they pledged to develop clean energy technologies and improve efficiency."And later on in this article we have this:"The ministers also vowed to diversify their sources of energy, invest in alternative and renewable fuels, ramp up cooperation in strategic oil stocks in case of a supply shortage, and improve the quality of data on production and inventories available to markets."Well, this is a lie. After years of Bush and RepubLICKlan leadership to make us more dependent upon oil, they now promise to "invest in alternative and renewable fuels?"Just this week, the RepubLICKlans, including both Kansas senators, Roberts (whose up for re-election) and Brownback, shut down debate on the Climate Security Act, an Act whose purpose was to jump start efficiency and increase renewables by limiting the greenhouse gasses through a "cap and trade" program. This program has been discussed for 30 years in academic circles. It finally reached the Senate floor and what does the rightwing do? Shut down debate.See link: http://www.foxbusiness.com/story/obstructionists-block-bipartisan-climate/For those who might want to send a message to Roberts (besides I plan to vote you into retirement in November) and Brownback, go here:http://online.nwf.org/site/PageServer?pagename=ClimateAction_CSAVoteSo in summation, the rightwing begs the oil producing nations for more oil while encouraging its waste here, failing to move on any environmental legislation, and condeming the entire world to global warming and the resulting famine and starvation that will inevitably result.Enjoy the fruits of your labor.

0

logrithmic 5 years, 10 months ago

This news article caught my eye yesterday. It is like bad comedy. Here's the United States, after eight years of Bush and RepubLICKlan failure to do anything about our growing dependence on oil, our wasteful use of oil (after all, Bush and his cronies are oil "barons," and Bush lying us into a war for oil, the United States is now forced to beg - that's right!- beg for oil from the Saudi Royal family and other dicators in the region.Read this article sentence again: "Leading energy-consuming nations urged oil producers Saturday to boost their output to counter soaring prices threatening the world economy, while they pledged to develop clean energy technologies and improve efficiency."Urged means begged! This is what a $3 trillion war and a $1 trillion military budget has brought us - begging. This is what huge tax subsidies to the oil companies (at a time when they are making record profits) has brought us!Enjoy the fruits of your labor.

0

Commenting has been disabled for this item.