NationStates Jolt Archive

The war in Iraq could be about oil and about the war on terrorism. I have said before we could hamstring Saudi terrorism if we embargoed all oil imported from Saudi Arabia. However, if we control the Iraqi oil fields -- and how do you know we don't or won't? -- then we could "encourage" American oil companies to buy Iraqi oil instead of Saudi oil. Some say the price of oil is a global price. This is true. The world market sets it, though some cooperative bodies, such as OPEC, have a large effect on prices. But local gas prices in my city are affected by the same market forces. Set aside for a moment the differences in gas prices, and why this might be. If you buy gas at a BP gas station, then you are not buying gas at a Citgo gas station. Citgo suffers the loss of potential profits. The same basic economics could be applied here. If we successfully install a democracy in Iraq and root out terrorism there, and if we can persuade American oil companies to buy their oil from Iraqi sources, then we will be depriving Saudi terrorist interests of money.

That is a lot of ifs, and this is all speculative on my part. Another question I asked myself about the so-called global oil price settings -- if this is so, then why don't we buy all our imported oil from Canada, Mexico, Venezuala, and other oil-exported countries closer to the United States? (We do, by the way, import more oil from Canada than we import from Saudi Arabia.) Importing from closer countries would cut down on the price of transport, wouldn't it? ~ Michael.

The war in Iraq could be about oil and about the war on terrorism. I have said before we could hamstring Saudi terrorism if we embargoed all oil imported from Saudi Arabia. However, if we control the Iraqi oil fields -- and how do you know we don't or won't? -- then we could "encourage" American oil companies to buy Iraqi oil instead of Saudi oil. Some say the price of oil is a global price. This is true. The world market sets it, though some cooperative bodies, such as OPEC, have a large effect on prices. But local gas prices in my city are affected by the same market forces. Set aside for a moment the differences in gas prices, and why this might be. If you buy gas at a BP gas station, then you are not buying gas at a Citgo gas station. Citgo suffers the loss of potential profits. The same basic economics could be applied here. If we successfully install a democracy in Iraq and root out terrorism there, and if we can persuade American oil companies to buy their oil from Iraqi sources, then we will be depriving Saudi terrorist interests of money.

That's crazy.

1. There were no terrorists in Iraq prior to the stupid invasion of Iraq in March.

2. So, make Iraq a puppet country and steal their oil. :roll:

3. Saudi Arabia is your enemy not Iraq. The US should have invaded Saudi Arabia not Iraq. Even Iran, who supports groups blacklisted by the US such as Hizbullah.

4. But, indeed, the US plans to steal Iraqi oil. That's why they went there when there were other targets who actually have clear ties to 'terrorists', such as SAUDI ARABIA and IRAN and nations like North Korea who have nuclear weapons which can hit the western US coast.

That's crazy.
1. There were no terrorists in Iraq prior to the stupid invasion of Iraq in March.
2. So, make Iraq a puppet country and steal their oil. :roll:
3. Saudi Arabia is your enemy not Iraq. The US should have invaded Saudi Arabia not Iraq. Even Iran, who supports groups blacklisted by the US such as Hizbullah.
4. But, indeed, the US plans to steal Iraqi oil. That's why they went there when there were other targets who actually have clear ties to 'terrorists', such as SAUDI ARABIA and IRAN and nations like North Korea who have nuclear weapons which can hit the western US coast.So then you are on record that the United States should bomb, invade, and occupy Saudi Arabia, Iran, and North Korea. ~ Michael.

The war in Iraq could be about oil and about the war on terrorism. I have said before we could hamstring Saudi terrorism if we embargoed all oil imported from Saudi Arabia. However, if we control the Iraqi oil fields -- and how do you know we don't or won't? -- then we could "encourage" American oil companies to buy Iraqi oil instead of Saudi oil. Some say the price of oil is a global price. This is true. The world market sets it, though some cooperative bodies, such as OPEC, have a large effect on prices. But local gas prices in my city are affected by the same market forces. Set aside for a moment the differences in gas prices, and why this might be. If you buy gas at a BP gas station, then you are not buying gas at a Citgo gas station. Citgo suffers the loss of potential profits. The same basic economics could be applied here. If we successfully install a democracy in Iraq and root out terrorism there, and if we can persuade American oil companies to buy their oil from Iraqi sources, then we will be depriving Saudi terrorist interests of money.

That is a lot of ifs, and this is all speculative on my part. Another question I asked myself about the so-called global oil price settings -- if this is so, then why don't we buy all our imported oil from Canada, Mexico, Venezuala, and other oil-exported countries closer to the United States? (We do, by the way, import more oil from Canada than we import from Saudi Arabia.) Importing from closer countries would cut down on the price of transport, wouldn't it? ~ Michael.

I don't neccessarily agree with this, but i like it

The war in Iraq could be about oil and about the war on terrorism. I have said before we could hamstring Saudi terrorism if we embargoed all oil imported from Saudi Arabia. However, if we control the Iraqi oil fields -- and how do you know we don't or won't? -- then we could "encourage" American oil companies to buy Iraqi oil instead of Saudi oil. Some say the price of oil is a global price. This is true. The world market sets it, though some cooperative bodies, such as OPEC, have a large effect on prices. But local gas prices in my city are affected by the same market forces. Set aside for a moment the differences in gas prices, and why this might be. If you buy gas at a BP gas station, then you are not buying gas at a Citgo gas station. Citgo suffers the loss of potential profits. The same basic economics could be applied here. If we successfully install a democracy in Iraq and root out terrorism there, and if we can persuade American oil companies to buy their oil from Iraqi sources, then we will be depriving Saudi terrorist interests of money.

That is a lot of ifs, and this is all speculative on my part. Another question I asked myself about the so-called global oil price settings -- if this is so, then why don't we buy all our imported oil from Canada, Mexico, Venezuala, and other oil-exported countries closer to the United States? (We do, by the way, import more oil from Canada than we import from Saudi Arabia.) Importing from closer countries would cut down on the price of transport, wouldn't it? ~ Michael.
I guess it's plausible. My personal theory was that installing a democracy in the place in the Middle East that was most ripe for it (Iraq) would encourage other nations to institute democratic reforms, and help to make fundementalism less atractive. But I guess that's another thing as well.
BTW, most of the imported oil does come from Venezuela. Mexico sends about half of it to us. Canada may have as many as 300 million barrels, but at the moment, it takes more energy to extract the oil from their sands than it gives. However, it's much more energy efficient than even ten years ago. So the short answer is that we consume most of the oil in the Americas. However, as the world's leading energy consumer, we need more.

The war in Iraq could be about oil and about the war on terrorism. I have said before we could hamstring Saudi terrorism if we embargoed all oil imported from Saudi Arabia. However, if we control the Iraqi oil fields -- and how do you know we don't or won't? -- then we could "encourage" American oil companies to buy Iraqi oil instead of Saudi oil. Some say the price of oil is a global price. This is true. The world market sets it, though some cooperative bodies, such as OPEC, have a large effect on prices. But local gas prices in my city are affected by the same market forces. Set aside for a moment the differences in gas prices, and why this might be. If you buy gas at a BP gas station, then you are not buying gas at a Citgo gas station. Citgo suffers the loss of potential profits. The same basic economics could be applied here. If we successfully install a democracy in Iraq and root out terrorism there, and if we can persuade American oil companies to buy their oil from Iraqi sources, then we will be depriving Saudi terrorist interests of money.

That's crazy.

1. There were no terrorists in Iraq prior to the stupid invasion of Iraq in March.

2. So, make Iraq a puppet country and steal their oil. :roll:

3. Saudi Arabia is your enemy not Iraq. The US should have invaded Saudi Arabia not Iraq. Even Iran, who supports groups blacklisted by the US such as Hizbullah.

4. But, indeed, the US plans to steal Iraqi oil. That's why they went there when there were other targets who actually have clear ties to 'terrorists', such as SAUDI ARABIA and IRAN and nations like North Korea who have nuclear weapons which can hit the western US coast.
Gee whiz, that's the smartest thing I've heard in years. Bomb Saudi Arabia! Forget that it'll seriously disrupt the global economy, we need to do it. We need to bomb where these guys live: in Riyadh, Jiddah, and in one of the highest concentrations, Mecca. Yeah, bomb Mecca. Be sure to hit the Great Mosque if they are hiding in there. And occupy the country, while large portions of the Muslim world demand our withdrawl, or fight us. Perhaps even an organized army or two will oppose us. It sounds great. Bomb Saudi Arabia!

That's crazy.
1. There were no terrorists in Iraq prior to the stupid invasion of Iraq in March.
2. So, make Iraq a puppet country and steal their oil. :roll:
3. Saudi Arabia is your enemy not Iraq. The US should have invaded Saudi Arabia not Iraq. Even Iran, who supports groups blacklisted by the US such as Hizbullah.
4. But, indeed, the US plans to steal Iraqi oil. That's why they went there when there were other targets who actually have clear ties to 'terrorists', such as SAUDI ARABIA and IRAN and nations like North Korea who have nuclear weapons which can hit the western US coast.So then you are on record that the United States should bomb, invade, and occupy Saudi Arabia, Iran, and North Korea. ~ Michael.

Not exactly.

The government of Saudi Arabia is full of puppets. The US could apply the littlest pressure on them and they would fold.

The majority of Iranian people like western ways and the US and an invasion of Iran, instead of Iraq, would have been good since they don't like the ruling conservatives and the such and would welcome liberation but with a quick withdrawal of US forces.

When I come up with a strategy for North Korea, I'll tell you.

[quote=Al Anbar]That's crazy.
1. There were no terrorists in Iraq prior to the stupid invasion of Iraq in March.
2. So, make Iraq a puppet country and steal their oil. :roll:
3. Saudi Arabia is your enemy not Iraq. The US should have invaded Saudi Arabia not Iraq. Even Iran, who supports groups blacklisted by the US such as Hizbullah.
4. But, indeed, the US plans to steal Iraqi oil. That's why they went there when there were other targets who actually have clear ties to 'terrorists', such as SAUDI ARABIA and IRAN and nations like North Korea who have nuclear weapons which can hit the western US coast.So then you are on record that the United States should bomb, invade, and occupy Saudi Arabia, Iran, and North Korea. ~ Michael.

Not exactly.

The government of Saudi Arabia is full of puppets. The US could apply the littlest pressure on them and they would fold.
Like Princess Haifa?
The majority of Iranian people like western ways and the US and an invasion of Iran, instead of Iraq, would have been good since they don't like the ruling conservatives and the such and would welcome liberation but with a quick withdrawal of US forces.
I agree on the part on the Iranians themselves. However, an invasion, at this point, is not warranted. What is needed is what's being done: a few selective sanctions, some dialouge, and TV stations broadcasting democratic views into Iran. There are at least three operating from America, one is actually run by the sun of the Shah. Anyhow, the protests, like we saw in June, the surpressed democracy they have, and international scrutiny should be enough so that--over time--it'll boil into a rebellion.

The war in Iraq could be about oil and about the war on terrorism. I have said before we could hamstring Saudi terrorism if we embargoed all oil imported from Saudi Arabia. However, if we control the Iraqi oil fields -- and how do you know we don't or won't? -- then we could "encourage" American oil companies to buy Iraqi oil instead of Saudi oil. Some say the price of oil is a global price. This is true. The world market sets it, though some cooperative bodies, such as OPEC, have a large effect on prices. But local gas prices in my city are affected by the same market forces. Set aside for a moment the differences in gas prices, and why this might be. If you buy gas at a BP gas station, then you are not buying gas at a Citgo gas station. Citgo suffers the loss of potential profits. The same basic economics could be applied here. If we successfully install a democracy in Iraq and root out terrorism there, and if we can persuade American oil companies to buy their oil from Iraqi sources, then we will be depriving Saudi terrorist interests of money.

That's crazy.

1. There were no terrorists in Iraq prior to the stupid invasion of Iraq in March.

2. So, make Iraq a puppet country and steal their oil. :roll:

3. Saudi Arabia is your enemy not Iraq. The US should have invaded Saudi Arabia not Iraq. Even Iran, who supports groups blacklisted by the US such as Hizbullah.

4. But, indeed, the US plans to steal Iraqi oil. That's why they went there when there were other targets who actually have clear ties to 'terrorists', such as SAUDI ARABIA and IRAN and nations like North Korea who have nuclear weapons which can hit the western US coast.
Gee whiz, that's the smartest thing I've heard in years. Bomb Saudi Arabia! Forget that it'll seriously disrupt the global economy, we need to do it. We need to bomb where these guys live: in Riyadh, Jiddah, and in one of the highest concentrations, Mecca. Yeah, bomb Mecca. Be sure to hit the Great Mosque if they are hiding in there. And occupy the country, while large portions of the Muslim world demand our withdrawl, or fight us. Perhaps even an organized army or two will oppose us. It sounds great. Bomb Saudi Arabia!

Who said anything about bombing? My, what a psychological window has opened to us...interesting.

Purly Euclid is right. It's not exactly feasible to attack Saudi Arabia. Personally I think that good is being done in Iraq, though probably for the wrong reasons (oil). I also don't think that a puppet government or stealing Iraqi oil will happen because if in November the Democrats win they'll pull out of Iraq directly and if the Republicans win they'll be suspected by people like Al Anbar to the point that no matter how much money they get from oil companies it won't be worth it, the people would be turned against them. I am also sure that Iraq did have terrorists in it (most nations of the world have some, especially Middle Eastern nations because of the region's conflicts), though not nearly so many as some of its neighbors. Trouble was that it was more politically sound to go into Iraq so this was our target, not Iran, mostly because we could feasibly say that Iraq had WMDs because they used them on the Kurds. Until we went in I would have thought that they still had them just because it didn't seem that Saddam would give up such an advantage as chemical weapons. And Euclid already mentioned the problem with invading Saudi Arabia. So Iraq was the target.

Someone else just alluded to another fact. We don't get much oil from the Persian Gulf. Actually, Japan is the biggest importer of Persian oil.

Here's a crazy idea. Why don't we force US and foreign car companies to raise the efficiency of the vehicles they sell, thereby making us less dependent on fuel? Why don't we actually explore other methods of energy creation that don't involve fossil fuels so we can get away from having to import as much as we currently do? How about we try, for once in our stinking existence, to use some foresight?

And Purly, don't give me that stuff about how there's all this oil we still haven't drilled--we're on the bad side of this hill. Consumption is going up and production is coming down on a global scale.

Like Princess Haifa?

They will bend to your policies or die. It's simple.

I agree on the part on the Iranians themselves. However, an invasion, at this point, is not warranted. What is needed is what's being done: a few selective sanctions, some dialouge, and TV stations broadcasting democratic views into Iran. There are at least three operating from America, one is actually run by the sun of the Shah. Anyhow, the protests, like we saw in June, the surpressed democracy they have, and international scrutiny should be enough so that--over time--it'll boil into a rebellion.

Then the same should have been done for Iraq, but noo. You had to invade, kill thousands, steal their oil, and continue to occupy their country.

That's crazy.
1. There were no terrorists in Iraq prior to the stupid invasion of Iraq in March.
2. So, make Iraq a puppet country and steal their oil. :roll:
3. Saudi Arabia is your enemy not Iraq. The US should have invaded Saudi Arabia not Iraq. Even Iran, who supports groups blacklisted by the US such as Hizbullah.
4. But, indeed, the US plans to steal Iraqi oil. That's why they went there when there were other targets who actually have clear ties to 'terrorists', such as SAUDI ARABIA and IRAN and nations like North Korea who have nuclear weapons which can hit the western US coast.So then you are on record that the United States should bomb, invade, and occupy Saudi Arabia, Iran, and North Korea. ~ Michael.Not exactly.By the way, if Iran supports Hezbollah, and Hezbollah is our enemy, then why don't we invade Lebanon (again) and Palestine, to kill Hezbollah terrorists directly?The government of Saudi Arabia is full of puppets. The US could apply the littlest pressure on them and they would fold.What kind of pressure would you suggest? And if the monarchy folded, who would replace them? And wouldn't the replacement just be another American puppet? And is an American puppet so bad if the people can live free from genocide and terrorists can be kept from killing us? And if the Saudis are an American puppet, why don't we just use them to kill Saudi terrorists?The majority of Iranian people like western ways and the US and an invasion of Iran, instead of Iraq, would have been good since they don't like the ruling conservatives and the such and would welcome liberation but with a quick withdrawal of US forces.Then why don't the people in Iran rise up and get rid of the mullahs?When I come up with a strategy for North Korea, I'll tell you.I hope our real military commanders come up with one before a nuclear-tipped missile can be deployed that really can reach Honolulu, Anchorage, or Los Angeles. ~ Michael.

Here's a crazy idea. Why don't we force US and foreign car companies to raise the efficiency of the vehicles they sell, thereby making us less dependent on fuel? Why don't we actually explore other methods of energy creation that don't involve fossil fuels so we can get away from having to import as much as we currently do? How about we try, for once in our stinking existence, to use some foresight?

And Purly, don't give me that stuff about how there's all this oil we still haven't drilled--we're on the bad side of this hill. Consumption is going up and production is coming down on a global scale.Although I see, and agree to a point, with this, I have to ask: Why should the size of my car be dictated by fear of terrorism? Are you willing to clamp down on porn to cater to fundamentalist Muslims who want women to be modest? ~ Michael.

Here's a crazy idea. Why don't we force US and foreign car companies to raise the efficiency of the vehicles they sell, thereby making us less dependent on fuel? Why don't we actually explore other methods of energy creation that don't involve fossil fuels so we can get away from having to import as much as we currently do? How about we try, for once in our stinking existence, to use some foresight?

And Purly, don't give me that stuff about how there's all this oil we still haven't drilled--we're on the bad side of this hill. Consumption is going up and production is coming down on a global scale.

Actually, I'm a big proponent of increasing efficiency, mostly by using hydrogen fuel cells. The trouble is that the energy to do water electrolosys and produce the hydrogen fuel has to come from somewhere and you're right back to fossil fuels. Unless you have alternate means of electrical generation, and here the commonly discussed options are:

1) hydroelectric: limited areas can use it, while in my area it gives us cheap power the option just doesn't exist in most of the world.
2) tidal power: see number 1, and this does have huge potential in areas like the Bay of Fundi.
3) geothermal: see number 1
4) wind: this option is only fairly reliable in a handful of areas. It's also inneficient and very loud (if applied on a large scale noise pollution would be a problem). Plus you need a way to store lots of energy during times when there's little wind.
5) solar: again, only reliable in a handful of areas and very inefficient. In Arizona it's a very good option, though again you need to be able to store energy.
6) nuclear: this one isn't going to happen because of a large amount of fear of it and waste disposal. However, I am a proponent of nuclear power because it's much safer than people believe (experimental reactors have been built where all safeties were shut down and it cooled off on its own without any incident, plus the two examples of nuclear accident, Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, can be dismissed as demonstrations of danger. After Three Mile Island there have not been adverse effects detected as almost all radiation was contained and Chernobyl was using inferior safety standards; the gas wouldn't have escaped in the US). Also, the vast majority of nuclear waste can be converted back into nuclear fuel and what is left decays to harmless levels within a matter of months.

*Whew*

I know many people will say I'm crazy, but I've researched this topic thoroughly. We've got plenty or Uranium in the US and a whole lot more that Australia is willing to export (an ally, they even had units in Iraq), so we don't need to support terrorism with our oil. If anyone wants me to I can get you a ten page term paper I wrote on it, about half of which consists of my arguments in favor of nuclear energy.

My dad designed a new capacitor for hydrogen fuel cells.

Here's a crazy idea. Why don't we force US and foreign car companies to raise the efficiency of the vehicles they sell, thereby making us less dependent on fuel? Why don't we actually explore other methods of energy creation that don't involve fossil fuels so we can get away from having to import as much as we currently do? How about we try, for once in our stinking existence, to use some foresight?

And Purly, don't give me that stuff about how there's all this oil we still haven't drilled--we're on the bad side of this hill. Consumption is going up and production is coming down on a global scale.Although I see, and agree to a point, with this, I have to ask: Why should the size of my car be dictated by fear of terrorism? Are you willing to clamp down on porn to cater to fundamentalist Muslims who want women to be modest? ~ Michael.The size of your car has nothing to do with it--the efficiency of your car should be dictated by what's in the best interests of the entire planet. I don't want to raise fuel efficiency because I'm scared of terrorists. I want to raise fuel efficiency and find alternate sources of energy because as long as fossil fuels remain a valuable commodity--and they will only get more valuable as time goes on--they will continue to be a source of strife and a focus of people who are willing to perpetrate violence in order to control their sources.

And to answer your second question--no, and the two aren't remotely the same in any case. There's no national demand for porn to be imported from a foreign country because we don't have enough of it in our own country. There's no demand for porn because we need it to produce energy. There's no national reserves of porn that are as jealously guarded as NORAD is.

Here's a crazy idea. Why don't we force US and foreign car companies to raise the efficiency of the vehicles they sell, thereby making us less dependent on fuel? Why don't we actually explore other methods of energy creation that don't involve fossil fuels so we can get away from having to import as much as we currently do? How about we try, for once in our stinking existence, to use some foresight?

And Purly, don't give me that stuff about how there's all this oil we still haven't drilled--we're on the bad side of this hill. Consumption is going up and production is coming down on a global scale.Although I see, and agree to a point, with this, I have to ask: Why should the size of my car be dictated by fear of terrorism? Are you willing to clamp down on porn to cater to fundamentalist Muslims who want women to be modest? ~ Michael.

Yes, we ought to continue to use fossil fuels to spite terrorists. By virtue of our large cars, we will show the terrorists that they cannot win!

How about we let our brains dictate the size of our cars, hmm? We know that we're not doing anything good to the environment and are wholly dependent on a resource that is both limited and hugely exploited for the benefit of some corrupt business fatcats. And yet, some people actually do justify their SUVs by the rationalization above, and have no problem with allowing our civil rights to be dictated by fear of terrorism...hmm.

Here's a crazy idea. Why don't we force US and foreign car companies to raise the efficiency of the vehicles they sell, thereby making us less dependent on fuel? Why don't we actually explore other methods of energy creation that don't involve fossil fuels so we can get away from having to import as much as we currently do? How about we try, for once in our stinking existence, to use some foresight?

And Purly, don't give me that stuff about how there's all this oil we still haven't drilled--we're on the bad side of this hill. Consumption is going up and production is coming down on a global scale.Although I see, and agree to a point, with this, I have to ask: Why should the size of my car be dictated by fear of terrorism? Are you willing to clamp down on porn to cater to fundamentalist Muslims who want women to be modest? ~ Michael.Yes, we ought to continue to use fossil fuels to spite terrorists. By virtue of our large cars, we will show the terrorists that they cannot win!

How about we let our brains dictate the size of our cars, hmm? We know that we're not doing anything good to the environment and are wholly dependent on a resource that is both limited and hugely exploited for the benefit of some corrupt business fatcats. And yet, some people actually do justify their SUVs by the rationalization above, and have no problem with allowing our civil rights to be dictated by fear of terrorism...hmm.Why can't I own the kind of car I want to own? The newer models of cars that come out disgust me. I thought the new Chevy pickup truck looked nice on television until I saw one on the street. Gross! ~ Michael.

Here's a crazy idea. Why don't we force US and foreign car companies to raise the efficiency of the vehicles they sell, thereby making us less dependent on fuel? Why don't we actually explore other methods of energy creation that don't involve fossil fuels so we can get away from having to import as much as we currently do? How about we try, for once in our stinking existence, to use some foresight?

And Purly, don't give me that stuff about how there's all this oil we still haven't drilled--we're on the bad side of this hill. Consumption is going up and production is coming down on a global scale.Although I see, and agree to a point, with this, I have to ask: Why should the size of my car be dictated by fear of terrorism? Are you willing to clamp down on porn to cater to fundamentalist Muslims who want women to be modest? ~ Michael.The size of your car has nothing to do with it--the efficiency of your car should be dictated by what's in the best interests of the entire planet. I don't want to raise fuel efficiency because I'm scared of terrorists. I want to raise fuel efficiency and find alternate sources of energy because as long as fossil fuels remain a valuable commodity--and they will only get more valuable as time goes on--they will continue to be a source of strife and a focus of people who are willing to perpetrate violence in order to control their sources.Exactly...the fear of terrorism. ~ Michael.

Here's a crazy idea. Why don't we force US and foreign car companies to raise the efficiency of the vehicles they sell, thereby making us less dependent on fuel? Why don't we actually explore other methods of energy creation that don't involve fossil fuels so we can get away from having to import as much as we currently do? How about we try, for once in our stinking existence, to use some foresight?

And Purly, don't give me that stuff about how there's all this oil we still haven't drilled--we're on the bad side of this hill. Consumption is going up and production is coming down on a global scale.Although I see, and agree to a point, with this, I have to ask: Why should the size of my car be dictated by fear of terrorism? Are you willing to clamp down on porn to cater to fundamentalist Muslims who want women to be modest? ~ Michael.Yes, we ought to continue to use fossil fuels to spite terrorists. By virtue of our large cars, we will show the terrorists that they cannot win!

How about we let our brains dictate the size of our cars, hmm? We know that we're not doing anything good to the environment and are wholly dependent on a resource that is both limited and hugely exploited for the benefit of some corrupt business fatcats. And yet, some people actually do justify their SUVs by the rationalization above, and have no problem with allowing our civil rights to be dictated by fear of terrorism...hmm.Why can't I own the kind of car I want to own? The newer models of cars that come out disgust me. I thought the new Chevy pickup truck looked nice on television until I saw one on the street. Gross! ~ Michael.

Own whatever you want (I personally have a fondness for older cars, particularly a primer-grey 50's Caddy I've had my eye on), but I think CA's example should be followed. Certain emissions standards should be met by these automobiles for them to be street legal (hence why I don't buy the dream car mentioned above, since I'm planning on working in LA). Newer cars certainly ought to be held to these standards, regardless of their model. Don't act shocked at the suggestion - there are plenty of things you can't do with cars now despite what you may want. In my opinion, this argument is so petty and vain that it's not even funny, especially in light of the civil rights infringements we've been subject to lately.

In my opinion, if you must have your classic dream car, you should have to pay to have it modified to acceptable levels to drive it legally.

I think a good use of alternative energy would be to retrofit established apartment and condominium complexes with rooftop solar panels to produce some of the electricity for the complexes. The complexes already hire maintenance and landscaping crews. Why not a solar power crew? My complex lost power for seven days during Hurricane Isabel, too. It would have been nice if there were some kind of communal back-up power. ~ Michael.

The size of your car has nothing to do with it--the efficiency of your car should be dictated by what's in the best interests of the entire planet. I don't want to raise fuel efficiency because I'm scared of terrorists. I want to raise fuel efficiency and find alternate sources of energy because as long as fossil fuels remain a valuable commodity--and they will only get more valuable as time goes on--they will continue to be a source of strife and a focus of people who are willing to perpetrate violence in order to control their sources.Exactly...the fear of terrorism. ~ Michael.Nope--I'm not scared of terrorists. Of energy conglomerates? Maybe a little--I feel more of a threat from Exxon or Royal Dutch than I feel from al-Qaeda.

I think a good use of alternative energy would be to retrofit established apartment and condominium complexes with rooftop solar panels to produce some of the electricity for the complexes. The complexes already hire maintenance and landscaping crews. Why not a solar power crew? My complex lost power for seven days during Hurricane Isabel, too. It would have been nice if there were some kind of communal back-up power. ~ Michael.

There's not much sun during Hurricane Isabel, nor would there be solar power for a few days since the maintenance crew would need to put quite a bit of time into it. It's not reliable and it is inefficient.

That's why I go for nuclear. :D

Own whatever you want (I personally have a fondness for older cars, particularly a primer-grey 50's Caddy I've had my eye on), but I think CA's example should be followed. Certain emissions standards should be met by these automobiles for them to be street legal (hence why I don't buy the dream car mentioned above, since I'm planning on working in LA). Newer cars certainly ought to be held to these standards, regardless of their model. Don't act shocked at the suggestion - there are plenty of things you can't do with cars now despite what you may want. In my opinion, this argument is so petty and vain that it's not even funny, especially in light of the civil rights infringements we've been subject to lately.

In my opinion, if you must have your classic dream car, you should have to pay to have it modified to acceptable levels to drive it legally.We have already given up plenty of civil rights. The choice of cars and how they are manufactured is just one point. The horrendously difficult to understand tax code is another example. Zoning laws are another. There is a family in the next county over whose house burned down, so they parked a camper trailer on the lot while they rebuild their house. The neighbors complained to the county government, which wanted to force them to move into a hotel or an apartment because people are not allowed to live in campers in the county. You mean I can't live in what I want to live on my own land?!?!? Fortunately for the family, the county issued a temporary permit. But it never should have happened. Plenty of our civil rights are gone, and you may not even realize it. Yes, you have freedom of speech and the press ... until you try to exercise it to an extent that reaches more than, say, a few people on the street or the readers on this messageboard. The new anti-spam laws and measures being taken on by the government hand-in-hand with corporations has kept poetry I email out from reaching friends who want to read it! And so forth. You don't really know what your rights should be until you try to exercise ones you haven't exercised yet ... such as when you try to start your own small business, or if you want to open your own non-profit soup kitchen or homeless shelter, or if you want to have a hippie commune living in your house in the suburbs. ~ Michael.

I think a good use of alternative energy would be to retrofit established apartment and condominium complexes with rooftop solar panels to produce some of the electricity for the complexes. The complexes already hire maintenance and landscaping crews. Why not a solar power crew? My complex lost power for seven days during Hurricane Isabel, too. It would have been nice if there were some kind of communal back-up power. ~ Michael.There's not much sun during Hurricane Isabel, nor would there be solar power for a few days since the maintenance crew would need to put quite a bit of time into it. It's not reliable and it is inefficient. That's why I go for nuclear. :DThe skies were blue and sunny before and after the storm. ~ Michael.

But the solar panel would need some time and money before they got it working again.

But the solar panel would need some time and money before they got it working again.You climb up the ladder, detach the panels, put them in a storage closet, and put them back on the roof ASAP after the storm. ~ Michael.

But the solar panel would need some time and money before they got it working again.You climb up the ladder, detach the panels, put them in a storage closet, and put them back on the roof ASAP after the storm. Plus in an emergency situation, you can bring them down to ground level, set them out, and wire them together. I think neighbors without power wouldn't mind the mess it would make if we had power. ~ Michael.

Nothing personal, Michael, but you're overblowing the situation when you suggest that requiring automakers to meet raised CAFE standards is somehow a violation of your civil rights. Not allowing you to vote because of the color of your skin is a violation of your civil rights.

And I'm not saying that you shouldn't be able to drive whatever gas-guzzler you want. But let's be realistic--we can't continue to have gas as cheap as we do in this country--and even with the recent hikes in price, we still have it a lot cheaper than the rest of the world by a factor of three to four hundred percent in most cases. So drive what you want--but be prepared to pay through the nose to do it.

multi-post

multi-post

I am willing to pay more for gasoline if we embargoed Saudi oil or even if we embargoed all Middle Eastern oil. But I am not willing to pay three to five dollars a gallon for gasoline if the price hikes are caused by higher taxes or by even more gasoline additives and pollution controls. ~ Michael.

Good idea.

I'd need to find out more about it to see if it's that simple, but it may just be. Good job. :D

But then, if you want a backup generator a more efficient and reliable plan is one that burns hydrogen fuel cells, especially in my plan where they're commonplace because you use them for cars.

Please stay on topic, which is emission laws, not zoning laws. That you type a rant on that and stray completely away from the topic leads me to believe that you do see that a moderate change in vehicle standards is needed, but don't like the idea and cannot defend your opposition to it. It's only intelligent that we implement scientific knowledge that we have. As I said, own whatever you want, so long as you pay to have it updated to the benefit of our nation and planet. I see no reason why it should be vital that you have your cake and eat it, too, at no additional cost. That's just petty greed and selfishness.

I am willing to pay more for gasoline if we embargoed Saudi oil or even if we embargoed all Middle Eastern oil. But I am not willing to pay three to five dollars a gallon for gasoline if the price hikes are caused by higher taxes or by even more gasoline additives and pollution controls. ~ Michael.Okay--let's assume that prices go up because of an embargo, or because of restricted supply. Would you be willing to change your choice in the car you drive as a result?

One thing you need to realize is that part of the reason gas prices in the US are as low as they are is because of federal subsidies given to oil and gas companies. We're paying higher prices for gas --we just don't always see it at the pump.

I say we just bypass fossil fuels for electrical generation, just use them for things like medicine and plastics. Fossil fuels have many uses and are in limited supply. Other fuel sources occur in much greater quantities and don't have all of these alternate uses. It seems to me that the best plan is to get away from fossil fuels.

Please stay on topic, which is emission laws, not zoning laws. That you type a rant on that and stray completely away from the topic leads me to believe that you do see that a moderate change in vehicle standards is needed, but don't like the idea and cannot defend your opposition to it. It's only intelligent that we implement scientific knowledge that we have. As I said, own whatever you want, so long as you pay to have it updated to the benefit of our nation and planet. I see no reason why it should be vital that you have your cake and eat it, too, at no additional cost. That's just petty greed and selfishness.You started talking about civil rights, so I ran with it. :lol: I try to see the whole picture, not just how emission laws affect civil rights. ~ Michael.

I am willing to pay more for gasoline if we embargoed Saudi oil or even if we embargoed all Middle Eastern oil. But I am not willing to pay three to five dollars a gallon for gasoline if the price hikes are caused by higher taxes or by even more gasoline additives and pollution controls. ~ Michael.Okay--let's assume that prices go up because of an embargo, or because of restricted supply. Would you be willing to change your choice in the car you drive as a result?

One thing you need to realize is that part of the reason gas prices in the US are as low as they are is because of federal subsidies given to oil and gas companies. We're paying higher prices for gas --we just don't always see it at the pump.I want to drive whatever I want to drive. I saw an old car once that looked so easy to work on, I could probably even fix it. But the cars are getting so compact and computerized now that only the mechanics can work on it. One of my friends said last night that there was a certain car out now with such a compact engine that the only way it could be worked on was for the mechanic to hoist it out of the hood. That may raise fuel efficiency and lower pollution, with all the new gadgets and compactness, but you also have a tradeoff. You (and the poor people who will buy your new cars used down the road) will have to pay more and more to get the cars fixed. I am a firm believer in unintended consequences, and I also believe that once the government gets something, it won't want to let it go. We could raise gas prices with more taxes and no embargo, but if the Middle East threat passed, it would be more likely for the government to lift an embargo than to lower taxes. ~ Michael.

Please stay on topic, which is emission laws, not zoning laws. That you type a rant on that and stray completely away from the topic leads me to believe that you do see that a moderate change in vehicle standards is needed, but don't like the idea and cannot defend your opposition to it. It's only intelligent that we implement scientific knowledge that we have. As I said, own whatever you want, so long as you pay to have it updated to the benefit of our nation and planet. I see no reason why it should be vital that you have your cake and eat it, too, at no additional cost. That's just petty greed and selfishness.You started talking about civil rights, so I ran with it. :lol: I try to see the whole picture, not just how emission laws affect civil rights. ~ Michael.

Please stay on topic, which is emission laws, not zoning laws. That you type a rant on that and stray completely away from the topic leads me to believe that you do see that a moderate change in vehicle standards is needed, but don't like the idea and cannot defend your opposition to it. It's only intelligent that we implement scientific knowledge that we have. As I said, own whatever you want, so long as you pay to have it updated to the benefit of our nation and planet. I see no reason why it should be vital that you have your cake and eat it, too, at no additional cost. That's just petty greed and selfishness.You started talking about civil rights, so I ran with it. :lol: I try to see the whole picture, not just how emission laws affect civil rights. ~ Michael.

Actually, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt in assuming that you had some kind of substance in the form of legal backing to your argument, but if not, fine. In that case, it is petty greed and selfishness, sounding like nothing more than, "But I want it!"

The days of the backyard mechanic are gone, get over it. Just because you don't like that is no reason to continue to allow archaic machines to pollute the nation and drive up our bills when they could be modified at a slight expense to the owner.

I agree on the part on the Iranians themselves. However, an invasion, at this point, is not warranted. What is needed is what's being done: a few selective sanctions, some dialouge, and TV stations broadcasting democratic views into Iran. There are at least three operating from America, one is actually run by the sun of the Shah. Anyhow, the protests, like we saw in June, the surpressed democracy they have, and international scrutiny should be enough so that--over time--it'll boil into a rebellion.

Then the same should have been done for Iraq, but noo. You had to invade, kill thousands, steal their oil, and continue to occupy their country.
That's what I was getting at, but forgot to add it in. Hussein had years of warning that the West was disatisfied in him. Iran, well after Aylotollah Kohemeini died, things in Iran quited down a lot. We need to give them a chance to see how they respond. Invasion is an option, but it'll be at least a few years before we see that.

Please stay on topic, which is emission laws, not zoning laws. That you type a rant on that and stray completely away from the topic leads me to believe that you do see that a moderate change in vehicle standards is needed, but don't like the idea and cannot defend your opposition to it. It's only intelligent that we implement scientific knowledge that we have. As I said, own whatever you want, so long as you pay to have it updated to the benefit of our nation and planet. I see no reason why it should be vital that you have your cake and eat it, too, at no additional cost. That's just petty greed and selfishness.You started talking about civil rights, so I ran with it. :lol: I try to see the whole picture, not just how emission laws affect civil rights. ~ Michael.

Actually, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt in assuming that you had some kind of substance in the form of legal backing to your argument, but if not, fine. In that case, it is petty greed and selfishness, sounding like nothing more than, "But I want it!"

The days of the backyard mechanic are gone, get over it. Just because you don't like that is no reason to continue to allow archaic machines to pollute the nation and drive up our bills when they could be modified at a slight expense to the owner.Slight expense? Do you know how much it costs to replace computer chips in car engines? My car is over ten years old. The last time I had it worked on, the main computer module was cracked. It cost over $600 to have it replaced. A friend of mine had a bad starter in his Japanese pickup. The engine compartment was so tight, he almost could not get the old starter out so he could replace it with one he got out of the local junkyard. What cost him about $80 would have cost him over $200 if he had needed a mechanic to take apart enough things to replace the starter. ~ Michael.

And Purly, don't give me that stuff about how there's all this oil we still haven't drilled--we're on the bad side of this hill. Consumption is going up and production is coming down on a global scale.
I'm not against fuel efficiency policies at all, especially since there are hybrids that are, unlike most alternative fuel cars, just as reliable. Anyhow, it's true: there are a lot of places left to explore. No one's bothered to look in the Pacific Ocean yet. How about the tar sands of Canada? Then there are so many places that have undertapped reserves, like Lybia and Iran.

And Purly, don't give me that stuff about how there's all this oil we still haven't drilled--we're on the bad side of this hill. Consumption is going up and production is coming down on a global scale.
I'm not against fuel efficiency policies at all, especially since there are hybrids that are, unlike most alternative fuel cars, just as reliable. Anyhow, it's true: there are a lot of places left to explore. No one's bothered to look in the Pacific Ocean yet. How about the tar sands of Canada? Then there are so many places that have undertapped reserves, like Lybia and Iran.That attitude neglects two major realities--one, that burning fossil fuels is damaging to the environment and needs to be phased out sooner rather than later and two, that fossil fuel--no matter how much more we find--is a finite resource that will eventually--and again, sooner rather than later--cost us more energy to harvest than it will eventually produce. We have to move beyond fossil fuel, and we have to conserve what we have left as well as we can.

And Purly, don't give me that stuff about how there's all this oil we still haven't drilled--we're on the bad side of this hill. Consumption is going up and production is coming down on a global scale.I'm not against fuel efficiency policies at all, especially since there are hybrids that are, unlike most alternative fuel cars, just as reliable. Anyhow, it's true: there are a lot of places left to explore. No one's bothered to look in the Pacific Ocean yet. How about the tar sands of Canada? Then there are so many places that have undertapped reserves, like Lybia and Iran.That attitude neglects two major realities--one, that burning fossil fuels is damaging to the environment and needs to be phased out sooner rather than later and two, that fossil fuel--no matter how much more we find--is a finite resource that will eventually--and again, sooner rather than later--cost us more energy to harvest than it will eventually produce. We have to move beyond fossil fuel, and we have to conserve what we have left as well as we can.This assumes the human race is too stupid to invent more energy-efficient ways of extracting fossil fuels from places where it is harder to extract. I believe we can invent new ways of extracting fossil fuels, even from under the ocean. I want, of course, sources of energy less dependent on polluting fossil fuels, but really, the Holy Grail of the quest for renewable resources is how do we invent a car (and eventually tractor trailers) that can drive long distances on renewable resources? ~ Michael.

And Purly, don't give me that stuff about how there's all this oil we still haven't drilled--we're on the bad side of this hill. Consumption is going up and production is coming down on a global scale.
I'm not against fuel efficiency policies at all, especially since there are hybrids that are, unlike most alternative fuel cars, just as reliable. Anyhow, it's true: there are a lot of places left to explore. No one's bothered to look in the Pacific Ocean yet. How about the tar sands of Canada? Then there are so many places that have undertapped reserves, like Lybia and Iran.That attitude neglects two major realities--one, that burning fossil fuels is damaging to the environment and needs to be phased out sooner rather than later and two, that fossil fuel--no matter how much more we find--is a finite resource that will eventually--and again, sooner rather than later--cost us more energy to harvest than it will eventually produce. We have to move beyond fossil fuel, and we have to conserve what we have left as well as we can.
So you're saying that even if I'm right, I can't assume I'm right?

Please stay on topic, which is emission laws, not zoning laws. That you type a rant on that and stray completely away from the topic leads me to believe that you do see that a moderate change in vehicle standards is needed, but don't like the idea and cannot defend your opposition to it. It's only intelligent that we implement scientific knowledge that we have. As I said, own whatever you want, so long as you pay to have it updated to the benefit of our nation and planet. I see no reason why it should be vital that you have your cake and eat it, too, at no additional cost. That's just petty greed and selfishness.You started talking about civil rights, so I ran with it. :lol: I try to see the whole picture, not just how emission laws affect civil rights. ~ Michael.

Actually, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt in assuming that you had some kind of substance in the form of legal backing to your argument, but if not, fine. In that case, it is petty greed and selfishness, sounding like nothing more than, "But I want it!"

The days of the backyard mechanic are gone, get over it. Just because you don't like that is no reason to continue to allow archaic machines to pollute the nation and drive up our bills when they could be modified at a slight expense to the owner.Slight expense? Do you know how much it costs to replace computer chips in car engines? My car is over ten years old. The last time I had it worked on, the main computer module was cracked. It cost over $600 to have it replaced. A friend of mine had a bad starter in his Japanese pickup. The engine compartment was so tight, he almost could not get the old starter out so he could replace it with one he got out of the local junkyard. What cost him about $80 would have cost him over $200 if he had needed a mechanic to take apart enough things to replace the starter. ~ Michael.

Again, what you're citing is not going to change with vehicle emission laws being modified. That's how technology has been progressing. Quite frankly, if you want such a car, it would become your responsiblity to make sure it is up to code. That's the way it is for any vehicle now, but it knocks the bar up a notch higher. As I see it, if you want the dream car, you have to pay for it. Liking old cars myself, that also affects me, but I have no problem with it. It's a responsiblity as a consumer buying a luxury that I'm willing to accept (and no, I am not rich by any means).

Of course it could be more about one thing, but there will always be something that dominates what it will be about...

So you're saying that even if I'm right, I can't assume I'm right?No, I'm saying that your current attitude is short-sighted.

So you're saying that even if I'm right, I can't assume I'm right?No, I'm saying that your current attitude is short-sighted.
I see why you feel my atitude is short-sighted. But convince me, why should I care about the environment?

So you're saying that even if I'm right, I can't assume I'm right?No, I'm saying that your current attitude is short-sighted.
I see why you feel my atitude is short-sighted. But convince me, why should I care about the environment?

So you're saying that even if I'm right, I can't assume I'm right?No, I'm saying that your current attitude is short-sighted.
I see why you feel my atitude is short-sighted. But convince me, why should I care about the environment?Because it is currently being affected negatively, and while you and I will have to live with some of the consequences, our children and future generations will have to live with all of them. And while it's understandable to expect new technologies to handle some of the problems we cause, it's more forward-looking to try to avoid causing some of those problems in the first place, or at the very least, mollify some of the effects of our actions by taking steps to reduce the damage now.

Kiyama-Kyoto, I would be very interested in seeing your term paper on nuclear power. I, too, believe that fission power (and eventually fusion) is the answer to our long-term energy woes. I've been looking on information about nuclear reprocessing, but no information that I've found contains whats I really want: The cost and efficiency of reprocessing, and the amount and type of waste material that is left. Why doesn't the USA run a large-scale reprocessing operation? Are the hippies influencing the government to not undertake sensible policies? Well, I know they are, but I don't know about this case. I've always thought Japan and France rather smart for relying on nuclear power for their electrical generation needs, not that they really had any choice, what with their lack of energy resources. When hydrogen production (by nuclear-powered electrolysis, I hope) and distribution infrastructure is developed on a large-scale, I'll bet that it will first be done in Japan. US companies do not have much foresight..

So you're saying that even if I'm right, I can't assume I'm right?No, I'm saying that your current attitude is short-sighted.
I see why you feel my atitude is short-sighted. But convince me, why should I care about the environment?Because it is currently being affected negatively, and while you and I will have to live with some of the consequences, our children and future generations will have to live with all of them. And while it's understandable to expect new technologies to handle some of the problems we cause, it's more forward-looking to try to avoid causing some of those problems in the first place, or at the very least, mollify some of the effects of our actions by taking steps to reduce the damage now.
While that is, more or less, persuasive, I want to ask you which is a higher priority for your children. Would it be more important for your children to live with a damaged environment, or to live in an environment with no electricity, no gas for cars, and most modern systems (e.g: medical, food delivery), are crippled, if not destroyed?

So you're saying that even if I'm right, I can't assume I'm right?No, I'm saying that your current attitude is short-sighted.
I see why you feel my atitude is short-sighted. But convince me, why should I care about the environment?Because it is currently being affected negatively, and while you and I will have to live with some of the consequences, our children and future generations will have to live with all of them. And while it's understandable to expect new technologies to handle some of the problems we cause, it's more forward-looking to try to avoid causing some of those problems in the first place, or at the very least, mollify some of the effects of our actions by taking steps to reduce the damage now.
While that is, more or less, persuasive, I want to ask you which is a higher priority for your children. Would it be more important for your children to live with a damaged environment, or to live in an environment with no electricity, no gas for cars, and most modern systems (e.g: medical, food delivery), are crippled, if not destroyed?

its not either/or--theres always hemp power

So you're saying that even if I'm right, I can't assume I'm right?No, I'm saying that your current attitude is short-sighted.
I see why you feel my atitude is short-sighted. But convince me, why should I care about the environment?Because it is currently being affected negatively, and while you and I will have to live with some of the consequences, our children and future generations will have to live with all of them. And while it's understandable to expect new technologies to handle some of the problems we cause, it's more forward-looking to try to avoid causing some of those problems in the first place, or at the very least, mollify some of the effects of our actions by taking steps to reduce the damage now.
While that is, more or less, persuasive, I want to ask you which is a higher priority for your children. Would it be more important for your children to live with a damaged environment, or to live in an environment with no electricity, no gas for cars, and most modern systems (e.g: medical, food delivery), are crippled, if not destroyed?

its not either/or--theres always hemp power

So you're saying that even if I'm right, I can't assume I'm right?No, I'm saying that your current attitude is short-sighted.
I see why you feel my atitude is short-sighted. But convince me, why should I care about the environment?Because it is currently being affected negatively, and while you and I will have to live with some of the consequences, our children and future generations will have to live with all of them. And while it's understandable to expect new technologies to handle some of the problems we cause, it's more forward-looking to try to avoid causing some of those problems in the first place, or at the very least, mollify some of the effects of our actions by taking steps to reduce the damage now.
While that is, more or less, persuasive, I want to ask you which is a higher priority for your children. Would it be more important for your children to live with a damaged environment, or to live in an environment with no electricity, no gas for cars, and most modern systems (e.g: medical, food delivery), are crippled, if not destroyed?

Can you explain how being environmentally conservative is going to pitch us back to the dark ages? I don't even see this (or fathom this) as a remotely possible consequence.

So you're saying that even if I'm right, I can't assume I'm right?No, I'm saying that your current attitude is short-sighted.
I see why you feel my atitude is short-sighted. But convince me, why should I care about the environment?Because it is currently being affected negatively, and while you and I will have to live with some of the consequences, our children and future generations will have to live with all of them. And while it's understandable to expect new technologies to handle some of the problems we cause, it's more forward-looking to try to avoid causing some of those problems in the first place, or at the very least, mollify some of the effects of our actions by taking steps to reduce the damage now.
While that is, more or less, persuasive, I want to ask you which is a higher priority for your children. Would it be more important for your children to live with a damaged environment, or to live in an environment with no electricity, no gas for cars, and most modern systems (e.g: medical, food delivery), are crippled, if not destroyed?-
I was trying to play devil's advocate, and appearantly, it failed. Incertonia must've refused to answer my questions.

This assumes the human race is too stupid to invent more energy-efficient ways of extracting fossil fuels from places where it is harder to extract. I believe we can invent new ways of extracting fossil fuels, even from under the ocean. I want, of course, sources of energy less dependent on polluting fossil fuels, but really, the Holy Grail of the quest for renewable resources is how do we invent a car (and eventually tractor trailers) that can drive long distances on renewable resources? ~ Michael.

Karl Marx once said that "humankind only sets itself problems when the conditions for their solution have come into existence". This fits well with his view of ordained history, but is no more true than the rest of his historical theories. Sitting around and waiting for the Great God Technology to help us extract fossil fuels from thin air is as sensible as a bankrupt nation waiting for the alchemists to come up with the Philosopher's Stone.

it is perfectly possible to cheaply adjust many current diesel vehicles to run on vegetable oil -- a renewable resource if there ever was one. This would not have a (further) negtive impact on the climate, as the CO2 released in burning the oil would be the same CO2 the plants extracted from the air when they were growing. Why haven't we done this yet to any extent? Partly because the oil industry owns too many politicians, partly because our economies are geared around fossil fuels.

We are dependent on petrochemicals for much more than just fuel for cars -- and we've already severely altered the environment by digging up millions of years' worth of buried fossil carbon and squirted it back into the atmosphere, much of it in the last 50 years. If you don't think that is going to have an environmental impact, you're living in a fantasy world.

Existence comes with no guarantees. It is possible that we are already severely screwed, and haven't noticed yet. The sensible thing to do, though, is not to just cross our fingers and hope that everything will turn out OK, or to launch foreign wars of conquest to feed our addiction to the black stuff, but to get up off our arses and start trying to change the way we live. This may result in some inconvenience to our current lifestyles. If we don't like it, we can always just bloody well lump it.

http://www.salon.com/comics/tomo/2003/01/27/tomo/story.jpg

Micheal I think your little theory bears all the hallmarks of a conspiracy theory. Im not saying it is, But its similar to one in many respects.

My three thousandth and first post.

Good for me.