NationStates Jolt Archive

I need one more endorsement in order to propose my Oil Ban Act. If you like it please endorse me.
It's quite simple. We ban the use of gasoline in cars forcing people to use electric cars. Therefore eliminating the need to purchase millions of gallons of gasoline we all pay. It also helps the environment by eliminating car polution. A drastic change to electric cars may shock the economy so we introduce it slowly limiting the amount of oil sold per year. People will be forced to adapt and buy electric cars. With less oil per year we limit the amount of gas you can purchase a year as well. Each citizen will have to scan in in order to purchase oil. The purchase will be recorded and you will be told how much oil you have left. This also limits driving time forcing people to use public transportation and airplanes more often again helping the economy grow and prosper. :sniper:

Perhaps it would be better to post this in your regional message board, seeing as they're the only ones who can endorse you.

Also, maybe you should write up an official proposal for your "Oil Ban Act". If you're unsure as to how to write one, reading this sticky, UN Resolution Writing Guide (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=342360) could help you out.

Right I'm just getting this out there I didn't mean to copy the please endorse me part. Just let me know what you think.

The whole 'idea' of the resolution seems innocent, however putting a strict ban on cars using gasoline immediately would destroy the world economy. If anything, making a proposal having to do with "Allowing for more research for alternative ways of energy" would seem more feasible. There are nations out there that rely on oil sales for their own economy, and putting an immediate ban on the use of oil in cars would screw things up.

Imagine the effects. Let's say that the ban passed, and it was put into effect today. Everyone wouldn't be able to use their cars in getting to work, without being fined. Companies out there who are doing research on alternative ways to 'energizing' cars don't have nearly enough funding to start mass producing those type of vehicles. Everything would be mass chaos.

Well first of all I forgot to add it's voluntary. Second it is slowly introduced so it limits the amount of gas you can use so slowly people purchase electric cars. As for the countries reling on oik sales they're on their own they better hope not too many peope decide to ban oil. I know it sounds a bit selfish but I am thinking of others as well as myself besides it is voluntary. :sniper:

Where the heck are people supposed to get the ELECTRICITY from? This ban is idiotic. Global warming is an media-induced rage that has little to do with reality, and definitely not worthing of AN OIL BAN.

OH pleace, admin, just delete the above relatively obscene post and don't ban me... I didn't mean it, really...

You use water electric plants and wind power, and what the hell are you talking about global warming?

Those energy sources make up about 1 percent of our current energy supply. We can't possibly reorganize our gridlines like that for less than 1 trillion dollars, and that's just in the US. It also destroys countries whoes economies depend on oil, and it raises our energy costs. It will reduce transportation effeciency, because people will have to wait hours to "refuel". A really, really, bad idea.

That's why it's voluntary and besides we're talking about cars not energy :sniper:

What's with all the snipers?

a) There's no such thing as a 'voluntary' UN resolution. You pass it, it affects all UN members.

b) Oil is used for much more than gasoline. If you say "ban oil" you simultaneously kill the plastics industry. You do immense damage to the fertilizer industry. You utterly destroy a whole series of transporation, infrastucture, mining / drilling, and manufacturing sectors, with a wave of your mighty pen. Not the best of all possible plans.

c) You're talking energy, not just cars. Much power generation in this country is done by burning oil and natural gas. That's not to mention all the other users of various refinery products, such as trucks, trains, and farm equipment.

d) What's with all the snipers?

I think it's safe to say you don't have our support.

What I mean is I don't want to ban oil but just the use of gasoline powered cars. :sniper:

What I mean is I don't want to ban oil but just the use of gasoline powered cars. :sniper:
Then why is it titled "Oil Ban Act"?

And why do you end every post in a sniper smiley?

Why do we need this, when UN resolution #18 "Hydrogen Powered Vehicles" required all UN members to produce hydrogen powered cars?

And as everyone else has asked, What's up with all the snipers?

i agree with Flibblebites :)
no more snipers

First of all I want to BAN gasoline powered cars so you have to use hydrogen powered cars. Plus I like the snipers. :sniper:

Ok so the proposal is up so any delegates who want to vote on it please do so now. :sniper:

First of all I want to BAN gasoline powered cars so you have to use hydrogen powered cars. Plus I like the snipers. :sniper:
Three words: It's been done.

No it hasn't. The 18th resolution of which you speak clearly states that all countries must develop hydrogen powered automobiles. My proposition takes that one step further by over time eliminating gasoline powered automobiles. :sniper:

so does this mean that people are still allowed to drive cars that have diesel fuel? but seriously, this can have an adverce effect on the automotive industry, plus also, with the title, it should be a reflection of the proposal. one look at reading that, and people will instantly think you will be wanting to ban oil.

(OOC: hehe, you can be sure of one approval: WZ Forums approves all proposals! ;) )

P.S. loose the sniper

As one of Vastiva's main industries is the petroleum and petrochemical industry, we most gladly say -

HELL NO.

You have absolutely no idea of the reach and damage you are planning to do with this obscene and ill-conceived half-idea.

We strongly suggest you figure out what you're trying to do, and find a reasonable way to do it. Global bans are rarely the answer.

As to your sniper - is this a call for UN Nations to send assassins into your country to eliminate the writers of such proposals?

rarely is Vastiva and Resistancia in strong agreement on a subject. this one is doomed

No it hasn't. The 18th resolution of which you speak clearly states that all countries must develop hydrogen powered automobiles. My proposition takes that one step further by over time eliminating gasoline powered automobiles. :sniper:
Close enough.

concidering the logistics, and the fact that, unlike my tobacco ban proposal, this one affects more than one industry, this probably wouldnt have the support to make it to a vote, let alone being passed

oh yeah, also, if it is volentary, it just a worthless piece of paper

We asked our spiritual leaders for their take on this resolution.

Here is what they came up with. (http://sinfest.net/d/20010507.html)

We apologize in advance for our illustrating the proposal writer as reading a book, but our Book Publishing Industry insisted.

Has anyone else spotted the slight problem with this resolution? Oil will have to be burnt in order to generate the electricity in order to split water to create the hydrogen needed to run these cars. After all the waste in each stage of this process the net CO2 emission is probably higher. This resolution needs a clause to ensure that the electricity would have to be generated from renewables. However, this is far too expensive so nuclear would be the only alternative – but that will start a whole debate in its self (I would only support if nuclear was to be used in electricity generation but that wont get passed so its doomed).

PS as for Global Warming being just a media invention your blatantly an idiot who just ignores science and thinks what he wants to think (probably also a creationist and death penalty suporter but don't get me started)

It sounds like a good idea we have banned bikes on our major roads but I see a great need to stop wasting my money on oil and start making a better military and send more food to my people. If this becomes a bill I will vote for it.

I need one more endorsement in order to propose my Oil Ban Act. If you like it please endorse me.
It's quite simple. We ban the use of gasoline in cars forcing people to use electric cars. Therefore eliminating the need to purchase millions of gallons of gasoline we all pay. It also helps the environment by eliminating car polution. A drastic change to electric cars may shock the economy so we introduce it slowly limiting the amount of oil sold per year. People will be forced to adapt and buy electric cars. With less oil per year we limit the amount of gas you can purchase a year as well. Each citizen will have to scan in in order to purchase oil. The purchase will be recorded and you will be told how much oil you have left. This also limits driving time forcing people to use public transportation and airplanes more often again helping the economy grow and prosper. :sniper:
Airplanes?
What are these airplanes supposed to run on, pixie dust and happy thoughts?

PS as for Global Warming being just a media invention your blatantly an idiot who just ignores science and thinks what he wants to think (probably also a creationist and death penalty suporter but don't get me started)
Who are you talking to there? The ambassador who proposed the resolution obviously doesn't think global warming is just a media invention - otherwise why propose the phase-out of fossil fuels?

One might, with just as much validity, call you an idiot who just ignores science and thinks what he wants to think. The activists who started the whinging about global warming were screaming about global ice age a few decades ago.

The activism about global warming is corrupted by despicable distortions, exaggerations, and outright lies. There is no overwhelming consensus in the scientific community about it, as is often claimed.

If this was ever passed it would have countless reprecussions including decimating the economies of most countries in the world. We would never support such a foolish act. The shift in world power alone should be enough to scare anyone away from this proposal..

Asside from all of that, a "voluntary ban" is meaningless. The majority of people would ignore the existance of such a ban and continue on manufacturing/using cheaper vehicles that run on fossil fuels.

If this proposal ever comes to a vote, I for one shall vote against it.

Airplanes?
What are these airplanes supposed to run on, pixie dust and happy thoughts?

Really big rubber bands. :rolleyes:

I realise that a similar thing has been mentioned before, but this particular bit hasn't been.
If you are 'banning oil', well, there's a few people who might have something to say to you.
Cooks - olive oil, butter, margarine, ghee, peanut oil, palm oil (though I can understand banning that one) and any of the various other cooking oils.
People involved in the wool textile industry are also going to be extremely unimpressed, as oil is required to spin wool into a thread.

I sincerely hope you now understand the difference between gasoline and oil by now. By calling your planned proposal 'Oil Ban Act', you are doing far more than just stopping petrol-powered cars.

If you cook, palm oil is occasionally a necessity for flavor (Some of us don't care about "eating healthy").

If you cook, palm oil is occasionally a necessity for flavor (Some of us don't care about "eating healthy").
It was the flavour I was referring to, actually.

A debate I'd someday like to see would be on exactly how we can preserve the environment at all, ever. Especially since in NationStates, the environment includes space colonies, alternate dimensions and one very, very, very big planet (or very, very tiny nations with far too many people).

But this proposal isn't a good place to put that forth, as it's really not all that useful and, as the others said, is doomed. Keep trying.

i agree with Flibblebites :)
no more snipers

Emoticons in general scare me. I'm convinced they'll lead to the downfall of civilized society.

Ah, there's another one!

Who are you talking to there? The ambassador who proposed the resolution obviously doesn't think global warming is just a media invention - otherwise why propose the phase-out of fossil fuels?

One might, with just as much validity, call you an idiot who just ignores science and thinks what he wants to think. The activists who started the whinging about global warming were screaming about global ice age a few decades ago.

The activism about global warming is corrupted by despicable distortions, exaggerations, and outright lies. There is no overwhelming consensus in the scientific community about it, as is often claimed.

I was referring to Talose's post not the ambassador.

I also don't understand what you are disputing about global warming. This is like saying there is not a scientific consensus on evolution because people blinded by religious belief refuse to listen to the facts. The only scientists that do not accept global warming tend to be in the employment of Oil companies or the US government.

It is really very simple - so please tell me which statement you disagree with:

i) Burning oil, coal and gas releases CO2 into the atmosphere.
ii) This increases CO2 concentration in atmosphere.
iii) Atmospheres with higher CO2 concentrations inhibit the radiation of IR into space.
iv) A decrease in loss of IR will cause an imbalance in current thermodynamic equilibrium.
v) This will cause an increase in temperature.

If you can come up with a better explanation for why the earth is not 250K (the temperature it would be if there were no greenhouse effect) or why Venus is hotter than Mercury even though it is significantly closer to the sun then let me know (and I will pretend I thought of it and get myself a Nobel prise). If not, then please don't state uneducated opinions that will do nothing to help change the US's current environmental policy and everything to flood large parts of the third world (not to mention increase Hurricanes in Florida increase desertification of north Africa and the eradication of many species of animals).

If you do have a good counter argument I am very pleased to hear it (I am more interested in the truth than being right) so please prove me wrong - it would be a great relief.

In my opinion, the question isn't that global warming is going on, the question is whether it will be more harmful than beneficial. The Earth was warmer in the 14th century, and back then Greenland was descriptively named.

The more important thing is that, speaking in real-life terms, we are extremely reliant on oil. Besides the obvious need for transportation, we need it to grow food (tractors). Much of the increased ability to produce food depends on oil as fuel. And, of course, think of how much plastics do for you. All this is depending on a chemical which is going to be exhausted. No one disputes that we're eventually going to use up all the oil. There's some debate over this, but generally experts predict that we'll use up the oil in about a hundred years, factoring in the growth in consumption as China and India industrialise. It's absolutely imperative we find a new, better energy source.

So basically, bringing things back on topic, any proposal I see on oil, I want to focus on the problem of oil depletion. Not something straight from an environmentalist pamphet.

Very good points. I agree with you on a lot of what you say. However, we are causing the earth to heat up against its natural cycle so think how hot the hot periods will be. We may heat the earth beyond 14th centaury levels and at an unprecedented speed which in turn will have a massive impact on wildlife (not to mention the poor Bangladeshi).

Personally I believe that it would not be difficult to drastically reduce carbon emissions. Compare fuel consumption in European and American cars. Compare house insulation in Europe and America etc. The UK produces about a third of as much CO2 per person as the USA. Even factoring in increased transport need and a slightly large economy per person the USA is still producing way too much. Small changes can make huge differences - the UK is making great progress in fuel efficiency (with as simple things as using energy saving bulbs etc.) and is by far the most healthy first world economy at present. It really can be done. America is the most powerful country in the world – you will be able to afford the cost of global worming’s devastation – though it will be incredibly high. In the third world they wont - millions of people will die.

The USA gave less than a third of as much in both personal donations and state donations as France, Germany and UK to the Asian Tsunami distaster even though you have 60 million more people. Should the world think that you really don’t care? The cry from the world is now please “don’t step on me”.

I would suggest that the author of this proposal consider writing a more detailed UN resolution proposal on this, and then paste it here for us to discuss.

This is a big subject he is addressing and, quite frankly, the brief descriptive paragraph of what he is proposing does not do it justice. If I were to write a proposal on oil, I might consider establishing a UN central agency for the distribution of world oil - rather like the recently passed world organ donation centre?

In other words, take oil out of the hands of private individuals, and into a central body. Or is that just a crap idea?

i) Burning oil, coal and gas releases CO2 into the atmosphere.
ii) This increases CO2 concentration in atmosphere.
iii) Atmospheres with higher CO2 concentrations inhibit the radiation of IR into space.
iv) A decrease in loss of IR will cause an imbalance in current thermodynamic equilibrium.
v) This will cause an increase in temperature.
6. Which will cause more water to evaporate.
7. Thereby increasing the number of clouds.
8. The increased clouds will block more of the sun's energy.
9. thereby decreasing the temperature.

In other words, take oil out of the hands of private individuals, and into a central body. Or is that just a crap idea?

IMO, yes. :)

Fair enough. Just out of interest though, why?

Fair enough. Just out of interest though, why?

Creating an international organization of the size necessary to perform such a task would be incredibly expensive and inefficient, as well as a really annoying organizational nightmare for nations to implement. :)

:headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang:
You evidentely understand as much about the uses of oil as the man in this photograph http://www.dumpalink.com/i/u/N9mM2kpm.jpg

i) Burning oil, coal and gas releases CO2 into the atmosphere.
ii) This increases CO2 concentration in atmosphere.
iii) Atmospheres with higher CO2 concentrations inhibit the radiation of IR into space.
iv) A decrease in loss of IR will cause an imbalance in current thermodynamic equilibrium.
v) This will cause an increase in temperature.
6. Which will cause more water to evaporate.
7. Thereby increasing the number of clouds.
8. The increased clouds will block more of the sun's energy.
9. thereby decreasing the temperature.
The earth naturally goes through periods of warmer and colder weather. Someone has already referenced the time (14th century, I believe it was?) when the early was much warmer, with reference to Greenland being *green* (rather than very cold and icy like it is now). Anyone ever heard of the Ice Age? It's not like "global warming" already was happening back then to heat the globe to the point it's at now.

The only scientists that do not accept global warming tend to be in the employment of Oil companies or the US government.
First word of advice, don't make all inclusive statements - they're too easy to disprove.

Second comment - my biology professor freshman year (at a *private* university that includes research for all faculty - so he was a scientist, employed by an institution of higher education, but was not working for the government in any way, shape, or form) was highly skeptical of global warming. He didn't say it wasn't possible, but he specified that he (and other American scientists that he knew) weren't sure that global warming was happening.

We're depleting the Ozone layer, true enough, but you (and this proposal) have made no mention of the effects of oil usage on that. (and while there is a limited amount of effect from cars and the like, the majority of the problems are from things like CFC's and such)

ETA: My apologies again, Flibbleites, for the inappropriate crediting of you for a particular quote! :eek:

Creating an international organization of the size necessary to perform such a task would be incredibly expensive and inefficient, as well as a really annoying organizational nightmare for nations to implement. :)

Oh well then, I guess we'll just have to leave oil in the hands of oil barons. Still you can't blame me for being an idealist.

Who controls world oil supply, well, controls the world, to a certain extent - such is our realiability on it. As you have said though, a UN central body controlling world oil suppy could prove difficult to put into practise.

What about proposing a resolution that would require that all UN nations nationalise their private oil companies? It is my belief that, oil, being the most important commoditiy to all nations of the world, should not be in the hands of private individuals, but should be owned by the state, or better still, a UN World Oil Centre.

The earth naturally goes through periods of warmer and colder weather. Someone has already referenced the time (14th century, I believe it was?) when the early was much warmer, with reference to Greenland being *green* (rather than very cold and icy like it is now). Anyone ever heard of the Ice Age? It's not like "global warming" already was happening back then to heat the globe to the point it's at now.

I was simply stating another possible outcome, the fact is that nobody really knows what will happen.

The only scientists that do not accept global warming tend to be in the employment of Oil companies or the US government.
And by the way Mousebumples, it was Filchstead who said this, not me.

by the way Mousebumples, it was Filchstead who said this, not me.
I'm sorry - that was completely my mistake. I quoted the above one, using the "quote" button, and just copied the first bit for the second one. I apologize for any improper insinuation, and I will be editing my post to make that correction shortly. :)

The Earth was warmer in the 14th century, and back then Greenland was descriptively named.
ummm, no. it was called Greenland as a sales ploy to get danes to settle there actually.

6. Which will cause more water to evaporate.
7. Thereby increasing the number of clouds.
8. The increased clouds will block more of the sun's energy.
9. thereby decreasing the temperature.


A litle hopeful I feel. Clouds reflect heat in both directions so will also trap heat (why cloudy nights are wormer). Also in the rainforrests there is very large evaporation yet I have been told it can get rather worm there. The real isue is that for all we know we may be entering a worm part of our cycle and ths will make it far worse. If on the other hand we find we are entering an iceage then we will still have time to burn oil as natural geological cycles are very slow. Is it worth playing double or nothing with our plannet?

PS I did use the word TEND about the scientists.

First of all I want to BAN gasoline powered cars so you have to use hydrogen powered cars. Plus I like the snipers. :sniper:

Did the delegate consider the effect of this on the economy of small, automobile producing nations?

The Moravian Counts would revolt against the Confederacy if we were required to shut down all of our gas-powered car factories. Then where would we be? We'd be 17 seperate nations again.

Oh well then, I guess we'll just have to leave oil in the hands of oil barons. Still you can't blame me for being an idealist.

If you were an idealist, I certainly wouldn't blame you. ;)

Also, most of the nations who have oil barons are non-UN nations.

Who controls world oil supply, well, controls the world, to a certain extent - such is our realiability on it. As you have said though, a UN central body controlling world oil suppy could prove difficult to put into practise.

Aha! I was right for once. :D

What about proposing a resolution that would require that all UN nations nationalise their private oil companies? It is my belief that, oil, being the most important commoditiy to all nations of the world, should not be in the hands of private individuals, but should be owned by the state, or better still, a UN World Oil Centre.

Boo! Hiss! If you get such a thing to quorum there are going to be a lot of nations leaving the UN. And I can't blame them. Some people aren't fond of government control. They love freedom too much. :)

Boo! Hiss! If you get such a thing to quorum there are going to be a lot of nations leaving the UN. And I can't blame them. Some people aren't fond of government control. They love freedom too much. :)

What can I say, Texan, I'm a Socialist. Some people aren't fond of government control you say, they love freedom too much, you say. What freedom would that be, Texan, the freedom to exploit other people and nations?

Well said.

PS as for Global Warming being just a media invention your blatantly an idiot who just ignores science and thinks what he wants to think (probably also a creationist and death penalty suporter but don't get me started)

(laughs)

I've been called a left-wing socialist before too.

By the way, I'm an atheist, I've never supported the death penalty in my life, I'm for marijuania legalization, and I hate Bush. Maybe I just question what I've been told. A lot of the "evidence" for global warming can't be backed up, and a lot of the scientist's working for it are out of their field. 99.9% of greenhouse gasses come from the enviroment. I can't say definitively that it doesn't happen, but right now I'm leaning away from it.

A litle hopeful I feel. Clouds reflect heat in both directions so will also trap heat (why cloudy nights are wormer). Also in the rainforrests there is very large evaporation yet I have been told it can get rather worm there. The real isue is that for all we know we may be entering a worm part of our cycle and ths will make it far worse. If on the other hand we find we are entering an iceage then we will still have time to burn oil as natural geological cycles are very slow. Is it worth playing double or nothing with our plannet?

PS I did use the word TEND about the scientists.
Didn't you also use the word ONLY?

I find it amusing that you tried to smear doubters by associating them with people "blinded by religious belief", because in my analysis it is the global warming alarmists who are the religious zealots in this debate.

Item: several of the leading global warming alarmists were predicting global cooling a couple decades ago.

Item: none of the "models" that predict global warming can predict this year's global weather based on historical data without huge fudge factors.

Item: the consensus among real scientists is that there may be a slight warming occuring, not that some world-threatening oven is going to develop.

Item: the global warming alarmists regularly use normal variations in weather (a heat wave here, a cold snap there) to try to scare people in order to get more funding and advance their anti-industrial political agenda.

I think you've inspired me to propose a Truth In Science resolution.

That post should make a good beginning. I could maybe throw in a couple lines about bogus "scientific" evidence in medical trials denying us our beloved breast implants, add a point about the DDT ban killing millions of people every year...

I thank you sincerely for providing the impetus for my proposal.

Double Dog Dare you to write it up, submit it, get it to queue, and passed.

:D

I could get it approved, but *oh* what a floor fight there'd be when 15,000 members got to vote on it!

If I can stop laughing madly long enough, I'll start a thread for discussion towards the proposal.

Hmmmm. And I'll have to make sure I can do it without interfering with Scientific Freedom, of course.

Let me take this up in my regional forum (which shall not be named, at least until we turn off images for unregistered users) and see what we come up with.

Hmmmm. And I'll have to make sure I can do it without interfering with Scientific Freedom, of course.
I can't see any possible conflict, the scientists can study anything they want, they just have to report their findings truthfully.

Hm. This isn't the General forum. Debates on global warming belong there, not here.

What can I say, Texan, I'm a Socialist. Some people aren't fond of government control you say, they love freedom too much, you say. What freedom would that be, Texan, the freedom to exploit other people and nations?

True freedom always has a high price, Adamsgrad. In most nations, wherever there is freedom, someone abuses that freedom. Some people happen to believe that freedom is worth that price, or any price.

This act continues the siege on the free market by the evil socialists! It is disgusting and has the probability of crushing the economies of many!

True freedom always has a high price, Adamsgrad. In most nations, wherever there is freedom, someone abuses that freedom. Some people happen to believe that freedom is worth that price, or any price.

If that is true freedom, then it is not worth paying for at all. I suggest we consider reducing the price of freedom if it is costing too much.

What is the recommended retail price?

If that is true freedom, then it is not worth paying for at all. I suggest we consider reducing the price of freedom if it is costing too much.

There are only two ways to reduce the price of freedom.

1. Restrict freedoms.
2. Everbody behaves themselves better.

What is the recommended retail price?

Being a capitalist, I would say that the price is determined by the parties involved in the transaction. In the case of a more authoritarian setup, the price might be determined solely on the basis of a governmental edict. Your mileage may vary.

Liberty is worth any price!

Being a capitalist, I would say that the price is determined by the parties involved in the transaction. In the case of a more authoritarian setup, the price might be determined solely on the basis of a governmental edict. Your mileage may vary.

Now the really terrifying thing is, both you and I are capitalists. And we agree on very little.

Gotta love it.

Liberty is worth any price!
what has liberty got to do with the price of oil in the Resistancian province of Tai Lao?

Dictators pay higher prices.

Seriously, they do. Its the nature of the free market.

Now the really terrifying thing is, both you and I are capitalists. And we agree on very little.

Gotta love it.

I actually agree with you (though I may have different reasons for those positions) on issues like abortion and homosexual marriage. I also agree with you on self-defense and gun ownership. I happen to agree with you that capital punishment is an issue should be dealt with by individual nations. I could probably find other areas of agreement if I looked through your post history long enough, but I'll just add that I've found your posts on certain scientific matters to be especially intelligible and helpful. :)

I actually agree with you (though I may have different reasons for those positions) on issues like abortion and homosexual marriage. I also agree with you on self-defense and gun ownership. I happen to agree with you that capital punishment is an issue should be dealt with by individual nations. I could probably find other areas of agreement if I looked through your post history long enough, but I'll just add that I've found your posts on certain scientific matters to be especially intelligible and helpful. :)
Of course, then there's me, the socialist, who agrees with a lot of what you both say. It can take a while, but eventually you'll find something to agree on.

That said,

This proposal shows a definite lack of understanding what oil is used for. While I understand the ideal of petrol-free cars, and to a certain extent agree with it, this is not the best way of going about such action.

You could build an oil-free car. Of course, you wouldn't have any plastic in it whatsoever... which would make it very heavy.