Nice theory, but it doesn't explain why countries with even less of an
energy policy than we are seeing the cost of oil go up too.
As to oil companies owning the White House and Congress, who would you
rather own them? Rice farmers? Rat Terrier breeders? The AMC Gremlin Fan
At least with oil companies, when you get screwed, you get lubed up first.
email@example.com wrote on 29 Mar 2008 in group alt.home.repair:
Ed Wallace, a commentator in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, pointed out
in a recent column that supply is up, and demand is down, so prices
should be down. He thinks the high prices are driven by speculation and
a weak Dollar. In 2000 there were 9 gigabucks in the oil futures market.
In 2008 the amount is 250 gigabucks.
Here's a link to the column:
feds should loosen smog regulations on gasoline and additives, to help
bring price down a little
temporarily suspend the federal gasoline tax
feds should allow cheap dirty econo car sales in the US for a limited
number of years. low power they wouldnt be allowed on some roads,
lower safety. but say 50 MPG minimum. such cars are sold in other
countries thru out the world
now before you gewt your panties in a wad, people use motorcycles for
transportation too, and by all means any car should be safer than a
all of these would help our short term problem. the cost of in action
is a major recession..........
and most importandly change funding of all national elections
completely. limit 100 bucks per person, no corporate giving to
so our representives arent bought and sold anymore
Loosening any gasoline formulation regulations is only going to bring
the price down a little. Given that gas prices have about tripled,
it doesn't seem to me that any small change in the price is going to
be worth dirty air.
Yeah, they could do that. I think it's about 16 cents. But without
a corresponding decrease in spending, it would add to the deficit,
Where are these cheap dirty cars being driven? Certainly not in
Europe, Japan, Canada, etc. Maybe in China, where they don't give a
damn about the environment. I don't understand why they need to be
dirty. We have reasonable cost cars here getting very good mileage
that also meet all US regulations. The problem is, people haven't
been buying them. They've been buying bigger cars and more
importantly SUV's, so clearly price isn't the problem.
How is allowing cheap dirty cars into the US a short term solution to
You have something like seven different formulations that need to be
changed during the seasons. And most refineries can't do many of the
different types without major changes. Even then, refineries have to be
shut down to make the changeover. If demand is increased in one area, it
is not likely that the refineries in another would be able to easily
Having just one or two (probably even if the one is for California)
could help a bit with using refinery capacity we have now more
Cheap oil was the reason (among others) and the fleet doesn't change
all that quickly. You can see the smaller, cleaner, and more fuel
efficient cars making head way in market now. It will accelerate once
people get convinced that this isn't just another 70s style bounce that
will go away soon.
a little here, a little there. it all adds up in the end. diesel has
soared in cost because of the low sulphur regulations
Unemployment benefits welfare and all the rest to help a recession
costs too. better to start the help at the top.
add a fuel hog tax to any new vehicle getting under 20 MPG. sure car
companies will miss the SUV sales but its important.
they get excellent gas mileage around 50MPG the tata costs 2500 bucks,
so lots of americans could afford a commuter or around home car.
theres lots of rules on fundraising, this would just be more
restrictive........ and great for our country. and necessary, just
look at congress in the last 10 years, they are pathetic
we also need to look at what america can afford to do in the world?
wht should we still have military in europe? japan etc?
pre set hardened bases, with skelton crews, our troops back hme
spending their money here, providing border security etc......
currently our troops are just fiancial aid to other countries, like
definetely keep active bases in s korea etc........
in this day and age we can create a system to get our troops to any
part of the world in a day or two
And again, how is this a SHORT term solution to gasoline demand?
And the problem is most people are buying bigger, more expensive cars
and particularly SUV's, instead of cars like the cheaper Honda Civic,
which gets 30/40MPG then how does offering a $2500 Indian shit box
solve anything? If anything it would likely increase the fuel usage
problem, by putting MORE cars on the road. People would use them as
cheap second, third or fourth cars and we would go back 30 years in
air and safety standards in the process.
Exactly. Fuel use is virtually inelastic. Price goes up, people pay it or
starve, lose their jobs, or suffer other dire consequences. Gone are the
days when people "went for a drive." Virtually all travel is a necessity.
As for using increased tax revenues to fund, say, mass transit. It takes
five years to lay track. So 100% of the drivers in my town would be charged
extra amounts so that five years from now, 2% of the population will have
the opportunity to use rail transit? Really bad trade-off. Really bad.
Five years to lay track, but 10 years to do the engineering studies, 5
to do the enviornmental impact statements, 5 years to get the right of
way figured out.
One of the first things I did in '76 when I was a freshly minted
newspaper reporter was attend the first public hearing for a bypass
around the city I worked in. The final section was opened up 3 years
ago. Took 'em '76 to 95 to put the first shovel in the ground and '95 to
'05 to get it done.
About the only 'mass transit' you can do in a hurry is buses, either
conventional ones or privately run gypsy/jitney ones. Unlike Europe or
the old dense urban areas of east coast, most of US is not mass-transit
friendly. Too spread out, and peoples schedules vary too much. Around
here, they cut the bus routes back to the old part of the city. The
routes to the burbs and large apartment projects were money holes, even
with a buttload of federal subsidies. At work, I suggested they get with
the city bus folks, and try 4-trip a day (early and late to the office,
then the same thing the other way at quitting time) shuttle service from
where employee homes were concentrated to the office complex. The idea
went nowhere, even though several apartment complexes probably account
for a third of the junior-level employees.
Schedules are not a problem. Years ago companies and workers adapted to
available transportation or they walked because they lived near the mill
That is probably the only easy part to overcome. The automobile allowed
us to use many other options. Used to be, people did not complain about
taking two busses and a trolley to get to work. Now we complain if our
parking spot is more than 25' from the door. If a train dropped 100 people
off at the entrance to an industrial park, chances are they'd still have to
travel a quarter mile to a mile to their workplace along roads with no
The last time I took public transportation to work was in the 1960's and
where I park at work is only 10' from the door.
Reminds me of years ago I was transfered downtown where I would have to
pay parking. I investigated taking the bus and got all the brochures
from the bus company. Of major interest to me was their giving their
total passenger miles and fuel consumed. A simple calculation revealed
that one gallon of gasoline transported one passenger nine miles - less
than half the mileage I was getting on my car at the time ;)
I'm not sure, but I think we are agreeing with each other. Until July
05, I lived in the apartments about a mile west of here, which was the
turnaround point for the end of that particular bus route (before it was
cancelled.) So, in theory, I could have ridden the bus to work, assuming
I got my lazy ass out of bed in time. However, it was a 20 minute
meandering ride from their to the central bus stop downtown, and then a
20 minute wait for a transfer for the bus that stopped in front of my
office. Call it 50 minutes to an hour, minimum, twice a day.
I'm 51 years old. The insurance company tables say I have maybe 35 years
left, if I'm lucky. I can DRIVE to work in 10-12 minutes. Am I going to
use up 2 hours sitting on a bus every day? Would you? Would anyone
rational, unless they were flat broke and had no other choice? If my
employers and the city had come up with a express shuttle for the
federal installation where I work, so no transfer was involved and it
only took, say, 20 minutes twice a day, the bus would suddenly look a
whole lot more interesting. The apartments where I lived could have
filled half a bus with just the federal employees that lived there. Add
in the other apartments up and down the main drag on this side of town,
it could have worked out. The main drags in the other 3 compass
directions would have similar numbers- hit the big apartment complexes,
and maybe certain subdivisions where you know the employees live.
Hey, I LIKE buses. I rode them a lot in college. But they were cheap,
and went directly from where I slept, to where I needed to be, and there
was one every 15 minutes.
On Sun, 30 Mar 2008 05:01:26 +0000, aemeijers wrote:
Buses aren't a bad solution in a places, but your opinion is poorly
thought out. Huge amounts of fuel consumption could be saved by replacing
the most heavily traveled air commute routes (e.g. L.A. to New York, L.A.
to Las Vegas...) with high speed rail solutions. We wouldn't have to
develop the tech ourselves either, we can look to Germany, France,
Switzerland, China and Japan for examples, and attempt to improve on their
designs. Significant fuel use (and human lives) can be saved by allowing
people to place their cars on trains for transport (this is done is areas
For commuting distances less than 50 miles, another solution is
alternative modes of personal transportation. I personally want a Twike
(www.twike.com). In high sun states, e.g. Utah, Arizona, Nevada,
California, you could commute entirely on solar energy (charging when
parked, not solar cells on twike), _without any new tech_. If more money
gets pumped into such vehicles, improvements will come rapidly. In high
population density areas, improved Bike infrastructure will help. Better
health of the populace, reduced traffic congestion, reduced noise and air
pollution. It would be wonderful. For longer commutes, ride-sharing and
car-pooling can make significant impacts.
In areas where traditional vehicles are needed (farming, development), bio-
diesel is a practical solution, and stricter efficiency regulations are
We're stuck in a rut, and we need to get out of it. Culturally, we seem
to want a simple one-shot magic bullet that cures our woes without any
change of behavior on our part. On the other hand, a few common sense
tactics and a minor shift in our way of thinking, can make huge
differences while we work on further improvements.
Removing our dependence on fossil fuels is an eventual necessity. We can
already make huge dents in it now. The approaches needed will have both
immediate and long term benefits. No one solution is going to work in
every area of such a diverse land mass as the United-States, so regional
approaches have to be taken. What's most important is to avoid knee jerk
'oh that can't work' reactions. Apply careful analysis, and use what
works where it works.
Of course, there's a lot of propaganda out there to sabotage these
efforts, and most of that propaganda comes from the energy and automobile
industries, who are worried about shifting power structures and reduced
profits. The worst nightmare for America's energy industry is more self
reliant America, where the citizens produce a large portion of the energy
they consume themselves. It would reduce their power and profits
On Mar 30, 11:22�am, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
mag lev can do it at 300 miles per hour, with flight delays etc speed
would be a wash.
once terrorists shoot some commercial airliners out of the sky mag lev
they could build a mag lev system with bus sized vehicles leaving
hourly sharing a rail guideway running continiously. all coputer
controlled for spacing
when you want to travel it would be like a bus just go and get on.....
if you want timed reservtions pay a bit more.
capital building costs high, operating costs low, very flexible.
no air pollution except for international flights.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.