Apology accepted. And to clarify, in my parent post, I wasn't asking why peopke harass me or anyone else about SUVs. I was debating that SUVs kept us in bondage to Middle Eastern oil despots and that SUVs, in and of themselves, are bad.
The only problem I have with yet another tax is two fold. The first side is that there are already taxes being imposed (and tax breaks being given) that are supposed to encourage and build research for alternative fuels. If something that already exists isn't working, I begin to question when something else is proposed which is supposed to do almost the same thing. The second side is that change ought to occur by the people. Government isn't a parent who, when the people are foolish, rises up and spanks them. Instead, Government is meant to be a mentor who gently moves the student, but seeks to get the student to move first. (Does that make sense? I hope so.) Therefore, it ought to be through education, or other such means, that we bring the people to a knowledge of the problem and, consequently, a willingness to pay a bit more for the benefit.
I think the Free Market can do this. I believe in the Free Market. It's more a matter of educatiion and understanding than government. Why have I not spent my dimes to buy more efficient vehicles? Mainly because I have yet to see enough evidence that it is worth the price. If I went out and bought a hybrid to try and conserve gas and save the environment, the cost to benefit ratio is against me. I have wasted my money. Now, if that comes up, I think there are plenty of people who will buy. Heck, I know scores of people who would buy such vehicles, but the development costs are just beginning to wear off, and until they do, few people will buy.
And, honestly, I think this is a large reason why such hybrids have not been purchased. However, development costs don't last forever. They will wear down, and we will begin to see economical vehicles which can handle our daily efforts, and they will be bought. Then, we'll get right back into this rut in another 30-100 years and we'll have a different problem with cars.:)
Dog gone it, AGMW! You had me in complete agreement until you began to attack me.
Presuming those numbers to be true (and they probably are, it sounds plausible). Now, you have appropriately showed that opening up the Alaskan Wildlife Refuge is not the entire answer, though it is a part of it. However, I never argued that SUVs were efficient or couldn't be improved. If you'll note my comment to the first person who commented on the original slashdot article, I said that we should let free market make SUVs more efficient. And it will! My point is that "my Government" shouldn't be the one legislating or making us pay for it. FREE MARKET should.
Now, I know that free market is a unique concept to most of the people in our now socialistic schools. But that is how things have always progressed. Conversely, things have almost always degenerated when the government tries to legislate it (be it morality, environmentalism, conservation, welfare, etc.).
I know that my gpm matters. I never said it didn't. My point was regarding oil despots in the Middle East. SUVs are not to blame for that alone. But, they are necessary for some folks and in some areas. As well, charging folks who own them is NOT the answer! It never has been. It never will be!
As well, I know WHY you harp on it. My point is that it is not the issue to harp on. There are bigger issues to harp on. There are better ways to harp on it. Why have things not changed? Not because legislation hasn't tried, but because the people don't want it. If free market doesn't demand it, it can't happen. And any other way to make it happen is worse than the problems we have now.
Well, yes, but from the research I have seen, it is such a small percentage that it is not going to do nearly enough.
That being said, the other problem I see with running down that corridor is that anytime we go down that, it seems that the people in that corridor blame those of us that use gas as if we are the anti-Christ and are trying to kill the world. So, minus that often paired downside, I would agree. Getting us to have less pollution is good.
Last thing, what do I have to pay to have less pollution? What is the ROI (not just financially, but honestly)? Do we get a return on our investment or is it wasted effort and cost? Do we spend a lot of money just to leave the world as is? Or do we spend money which turns things to a better side? And what about us in the mountains? Will we still have the vehicle clearance and horsepower to get through the snow? Or are we stuck? Just some thoughts.
refining shale oil is a very different beast and requires different refineries than oil that comes out of a well. One can't be used for the other.
My point was that few new refineries are built, if they are built at all, and with such a record, it is not likely we will get around to building refineries for shale. It's so difficult for the oil industry to get through the red tape that it's going to be just as expensive, if not more, to get them built.
Are you volunteering to have one of each in your backyard?
And where did that come from? Who's talking about backyards? My original point was the fact that it was not large trucks or the drivers of them that has us in some bondage to the oil despots in the Middle East. Since then, I have been defending that point. I don't see the relevance.
Let's see, the Alaskan oil fields would supply, what, 1% of our oil needs, but won't come on line for a decade or so?
Actually, it would supply at least 10% of our supply, and that is what we know. What we don't know is how much more it could provide. And, if we were to relax legislation on the refineries (something I also advocate), we'd get there a lot quicker, but standing around saying we can't get there tomorrow doesn't help us get to that oil, which will help.
Refineries process oil, they don't produce it, and have jack schitt to do with the oil despots and oil supply. New refineries might marginally lower the cost of gasoline in times of consumer panic, but it won't supply new oil.
Actually, they would have a LARGE impact on the prices. There are two reasons for our current prices: 1) the cost of supply vs. demand and 2) the cost of complying with frivilous legislation. More refineries would mean lower prices. More refineries means greater capacity to refine oil into gas and other such goods. As well, more refineries would allow us to begin refining shale which would provide us with yet another source of oil and gas which is currently untapped. Therefore, more refineries would enable us to drastically reduce our dependence on Middle Eastern oil by both form and function.
Oh! Saudi Arabia is #3 in our suppliers (Mexico and Canada top #1 and #2 respectively). Beside that, we get oil from South America (Venezuela) and Africa, both higher numbers than any other Middle Eastern supplier. So, we have an oil despot, not oil despots in the Middle East. So, yet more reasons why we are not dependant on oil despots. It is a reality. A little more drilling and a some more refineries and we could do a lot better than we are. And why don't we have those? I refer to my last post.
If you want to keep translations going, here's yours: "I didn't actually think this through. I got emotional and just spouted off."
But, as we have seen in things before, it will come back to bite me in the butt. Sure, I need it. But what happens when a politician decides it'll be easier and more economical and, heck, I'm expendable, so he taxes my SUV too? It just never turns out the way it sounds. Let's make them more economical. The free market will work it out if we want it that way.
Agreed! I will go with you on this one. Thank you for making your view more clear. My apologies for thinking less of you in my original post. I rarely see people make a post like yours and then make a post like this. Thanks for showing it can happen. Thanks for being sensible.
Translation: I've got this mother fucking hog of a vehicle, and I want to come up with some outrageous bits of hyperbole to justify me still driving the vehicle that ultimately gives Middle Eastern despots control over my country, pollutes the atmosphere and is starting to make my pocket book and the overall economy crumble.
And would this be your way of saying, "You touched a nerve and you're right?"? Man's got a point. Sad that you can't even admit that, but oh well! I guess that's why you had to try and insult him. Wow! Can I join your cause?
As well, oil despots don't rule this country because of people driving large cars. They rule us because greenies won't let us drill for oil and won't let us build the refineries we need. When you tie our hands, someone else is oging to rule us. As for pollutants, that's mostly bunk. Vehicles are only a SMALL part of the problem. Forest fires (which could be prevented by some thinning of the forests, but, oh!, our hands are tied there too!), explosions and such disasters that can't always be prevented, jet fuel, flatulence, etc. The point? This is one of the smallest areas of pollution and y'all blow it up into the end all be-all.
Not that I have a problem with Enviro-cars, but I know that, personally, if I don't have an SUV, I will not be able to get out of my driveway for at least 3-6 months of the year. Beyond that an SUV will last me 2-5 times longer than any car I could by. The rugged roads that I have to drive (because I live in the mountains, and not the city-would-like-to-think-they-are-mountains, but the dirt roads, acres of land mountains) kill most cars I could own. So an SUV does me better, except for gas. Hence the reason why I still have a car. Anyway, just wanted to put that into the pot on going against SUVs. People like me get banished to our homes most of the year.
Also, free market has always been what this country was built on. So, let's build a better SUV instead of trying to ban them, let's make them better. Why not? Heck, people are going to drive them (including me), so let's make them better, more economocal!
Slashdot Mirror
Apology accepted. And to clarify, in my parent post, I wasn't asking why peopke harass me or anyone else about SUVs. I was debating that SUVs kept us in bondage to Middle Eastern oil despots and that SUVs, in and of themselves, are bad.
:)
The only problem I have with yet another tax is two fold. The first side is that there are already taxes being imposed (and tax breaks being given) that are supposed to encourage and build research for alternative fuels. If something that already exists isn't working, I begin to question when something else is proposed which is supposed to do almost the same thing. The second side is that change ought to occur by the people. Government isn't a parent who, when the people are foolish, rises up and spanks them. Instead, Government is meant to be a mentor who gently moves the student, but seeks to get the student to move first. (Does that make sense? I hope so.) Therefore, it ought to be through education, or other such means, that we bring the people to a knowledge of the problem and, consequently, a willingness to pay a bit more for the benefit.
I think the Free Market can do this. I believe in the Free Market. It's more a matter of educatiion and understanding than government. Why have I not spent my dimes to buy more efficient vehicles? Mainly because I have yet to see enough evidence that it is worth the price. If I went out and bought a hybrid to try and conserve gas and save the environment, the cost to benefit ratio is against me. I have wasted my money. Now, if that comes up, I think there are plenty of people who will buy. Heck, I know scores of people who would buy such vehicles, but the development costs are just beginning to wear off, and until they do, few people will buy.
And, honestly, I think this is a large reason why such hybrids have not been purchased. However, development costs don't last forever. They will wear down, and we will begin to see economical vehicles which can handle our daily efforts, and they will be bought. Then, we'll get right back into this rut in another 30-100 years and we'll have a different problem with cars.
Good day!
Dog gone it, AGMW! You had me in complete agreement until you began to attack me.
Presuming those numbers to be true (and they probably are, it sounds plausible). Now, you have appropriately showed that opening up the Alaskan Wildlife Refuge is not the entire answer, though it is a part of it. However, I never argued that SUVs were efficient or couldn't be improved. If you'll note my comment to the first person who commented on the original slashdot article, I said that we should let free market make SUVs more efficient. And it will! My point is that "my Government" shouldn't be the one legislating or making us pay for it. FREE MARKET should.
Now, I know that free market is a unique concept to most of the people in our now socialistic schools. But that is how things have always progressed. Conversely, things have almost always degenerated when the government tries to legislate it (be it morality, environmentalism, conservation, welfare, etc.).
I know that my gpm matters. I never said it didn't. My point was regarding oil despots in the Middle East. SUVs are not to blame for that alone. But, they are necessary for some folks and in some areas. As well, charging folks who own them is NOT the answer! It never has been. It never will be!
As well, I know WHY you harp on it. My point is that it is not the issue to harp on. There are bigger issues to harp on. There are better ways to harp on it. Why have things not changed? Not because legislation hasn't tried, but because the people don't want it. If free market doesn't demand it, it can't happen. And any other way to make it happen is worse than the problems we have now.
Well, yes, but from the research I have seen, it is such a small percentage that it is not going to do nearly enough.
That being said, the other problem I see with running down that corridor is that anytime we go down that, it seems that the people in that corridor blame those of us that use gas as if we are the anti-Christ and are trying to kill the world. So, minus that often paired downside, I would agree. Getting us to have less pollution is good.
Last thing, what do I have to pay to have less pollution? What is the ROI (not just financially, but honestly)? Do we get a return on our investment or is it wasted effort and cost? Do we spend a lot of money just to leave the world as is? Or do we spend money which turns things to a better side? And what about us in the mountains? Will we still have the vehicle clearance and horsepower to get through the snow? Or are we stuck? Just some thoughts.
refining shale oil is a very different beast and requires different refineries than oil that comes out of a well. One can't be used for the other.
My point was that few new refineries are built, if they are built at all, and with such a record, it is not likely we will get around to building refineries for shale. It's so difficult for the oil industry to get through the red tape that it's going to be just as expensive, if not more, to get them built.
Are you volunteering to have one of each in your backyard?
And where did that come from? Who's talking about backyards? My original point was the fact that it was not large trucks or the drivers of them that has us in some bondage to the oil despots in the Middle East. Since then, I have been defending that point. I don't see the relevance.
Ha ha ha ha ha! Funny.
Let's see, the Alaskan oil fields would supply, what, 1% of our oil needs, but won't come on line for a decade or so?
Actually, it would supply at least 10% of our supply, and that is what we know. What we don't know is how much more it could provide. And, if we were to relax legislation on the refineries (something I also advocate), we'd get there a lot quicker, but standing around saying we can't get there tomorrow doesn't help us get to that oil, which will help.
Refineries process oil, they don't produce it, and have jack schitt to do with the oil despots and oil supply. New refineries might marginally lower the cost of gasoline in times of consumer panic, but it won't supply new oil.
Actually, they would have a LARGE impact on the prices. There are two reasons for our current prices: 1) the cost of supply vs. demand and 2) the cost of complying with frivilous legislation. More refineries would mean lower prices. More refineries means greater capacity to refine oil into gas and other such goods. As well, more refineries would allow us to begin refining shale which would provide us with yet another source of oil and gas which is currently untapped. Therefore, more refineries would enable us to drastically reduce our dependence on Middle Eastern oil by both form and function.
Oh! Saudi Arabia is #3 in our suppliers (Mexico and Canada top #1 and #2 respectively). Beside that, we get oil from South America (Venezuela) and Africa, both higher numbers than any other Middle Eastern supplier. So, we have an oil despot, not oil despots in the Middle East. So, yet more reasons why we are not dependant on oil despots. It is a reality. A little more drilling and a some more refineries and we could do a lot better than we are. And why don't we have those? I refer to my last post.
If you want to keep translations going, here's yours: "I didn't actually think this through. I got emotional and just spouted off."
But, as we have seen in things before, it will come back to bite me in the butt. Sure, I need it. But what happens when a politician decides it'll be easier and more economical and, heck, I'm expendable, so he taxes my SUV too? It just never turns out the way it sounds. Let's make them more economical. The free market will work it out if we want it that way.
Agreed! I will go with you on this one. Thank you for making your view more clear. My apologies for thinking less of you in my original post. I rarely see people make a post like yours and then make a post like this. Thanks for showing it can happen. Thanks for being sensible.
Translation: I've got this mother fucking hog of a vehicle, and I want to come up with some outrageous bits of hyperbole to justify me still driving the vehicle that ultimately gives Middle Eastern despots control over my country, pollutes the atmosphere and is starting to make my pocket book and the overall economy crumble.
And would this be your way of saying, "You touched a nerve and you're right?"? Man's got a point. Sad that you can't even admit that, but oh well! I guess that's why you had to try and insult him. Wow! Can I join your cause?
As well, oil despots don't rule this country because of people driving large cars. They rule us because greenies won't let us drill for oil and won't let us build the refineries we need. When you tie our hands, someone else is oging to rule us. As for pollutants, that's mostly bunk. Vehicles are only a SMALL part of the problem. Forest fires (which could be prevented by some thinning of the forests, but, oh!, our hands are tied there too!), explosions and such disasters that can't always be prevented, jet fuel, flatulence, etc. The point? This is one of the smallest areas of pollution and y'all blow it up into the end all be-all.
Not that I have a problem with Enviro-cars, but I know that, personally, if I don't have an SUV, I will not be able to get out of my driveway for at least 3-6 months of the year. Beyond that an SUV will last me 2-5 times longer than any car I could by. The rugged roads that I have to drive (because I live in the mountains, and not the city-would-like-to-think-they-are-mountains, but the dirt roads, acres of land mountains) kill most cars I could own. So an SUV does me better, except for gas. Hence the reason why I still have a car. Anyway, just wanted to put that into the pot on going against SUVs. People like me get banished to our homes most of the year.
Also, free market has always been what this country was built on. So, let's build a better SUV instead of trying to ban them, let's make them better. Why not? Heck, people are going to drive them (including me), so let's make them better, more economocal!