Oil Prices At Historic High

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

. . . since you seem to have it out for SUV's.

SUV owners who's vehicles never see conditions rougher than a pothole in the Safeway parking lot (which is most of them) make great poster children for a much larger system of faults in the way Americans throw away gas.

. . =(_8^(1)

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

So how many gallons of your grandchildren's oil have you needlessly pissed away on the ride to altitude?

If I were in here beckoning us all to ride mopeds and move into grass huts for the sake of the environment, there might be some point to your "fair comparison", but that's not the case.

I haven't argued that we shouldn't have fun with oil. Why are you countering an argument nobody made?

. . =(_8^(1)

[BaconStrip 0]

How about tax incentives for energy saving measures, inventions, programs, etc. Tax penalties on gasoline would increase the production costs of everything you buy and, or produce. This would degrade our ability to compete in the global market.

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

Fuel efficient cars will be here in force in the next 5 years, I'm sure of that. Until then I think we're doing just fine with what we've got.

I think we're swilling it down like a bunch of drunken idiots. And I'll bet historians 100 years from now will hold that same view.

. . =(_8^(1)

[PhreeZone 20]

Quote

Say I drive an SUV, and I use it to commute to work, and for whatever else I need. Let's say I put an average of 12,000 miles a year on my SUV.
Then you have someone in a fuel efficient little car, who uses their car the same way, but instead puts 30,000 miles a year on their car.
The little car is wasting alot more fuel than I am. So why should I pay higher taxes???

With a non-hybrid car there is no reason that even with those miles the car should have used less over all gas then your SUV. I get between 35-42 mpg on my Honda Civic. Wonderful little car that has enough room to haul all my and my girlfriends gear plus camping equipment to the DZ or Rantoul for a week plus still gets 38 mpg highway at max loading.

Compare that to your SUV at 18 mpg highway if you are lucky and I'm getting double your milage plus some. If you drive 12000 miles at 18mpg you have used 667 gallons of gas. For me to travel 30000 miles at 38mpg I use 789 gallons of gas.For me to travel only those 12000 miles I only needed 315 gallons of gas.

My car does no where near the wear and tear to a raod that a much heavier car does.

If you are buying a SUV to feel safer then why did you not buy something like a Mac Truck? They are even larger and therefore safer right? The crash statistics for SUV's generally put them in the middle to low end in terms of crash safety since they have the rollover tendency and they do not have a lot of the safety features newer cars have like side curtian airbags, crumple zones, staged airbags and other little things. Third row seating on an SUV in testing has shown to be almost dnagerous in a rear end accident due to the low level of safety devices there. Second row seating in the tests for the Explorer and a few others look almost as bad as the third row options.

My mom drives me nuts, she has an Explorer to feel safer yet the most dangerous thing she does is drive to the grocery store to get 4 bags worth of groceries and a bag of dog food and yet she justifies the need for the full 4*4 option, towing hitch, and every other stupid thing on it by saying it makes her feel safer in case she ever wants to go drive in snow.

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

How about tax incentives for energy saving measures, inventions, programs, etc. Tax penalties on gasoline would increase the production costs of everything you buy and, or produce. This would degrade our ability to compete in the global market.

Yes, yes, and yes. I'm no economist, so my ideas on the best ways of integrating new methods to cut waste are admittedly not that well formed. I probably wouldn't raise taxes on deisel or gasoline used for industrial purposes, just the consumer.

. . =(_8^(1)

[Ron 10]

Quote

My mom drives me nuts, she has an Explorer to feel safer yet the most dangerous thing she does is drive to the grocery store to get 4 bags worth of groceries and a bag of dog food and yet she justifies the need for the full 4*4 option, towing hitch, and every other stupid thing on it by saying it makes her feel safer in case she ever wants to go drive in snow.

I guess this would be a bad time to menton I just bought a Hummer?











Kidding

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[BaconStrip 0]

Quote

I probably wouldn't raise taxes on diesel or gasoline used for industrial purposes, just the consumer.

Cutting into the the consumers bottom line, cuts into industries at the same time. Gas taxes are not the answer.

Also, I would keep your proposed regressive tax, on the DL around your liberal friends(they might think you are insensitive).

[billvon 2,989]

>Say I drive an SUV, and I use it to commute to work, and for
>whatever else I need. Let's say I put an average of 12,000 miles a
>year on my SUV.

>Then you have someone in a fuel efficient little car, who uses their
> car the same way, but instead puts 30,000 miles a year on their car.
>The little car is wasting alot more fuel than I am.

OK, let's check the numbers. Take a 4x4 Durango, standard engine. It gets 18mpg. So you'd use 666 gallons of fuel a year. Compare that to one of the more efficient vehicles out there, say a Prius or a Golf TDI. They get around 50-60mpg. Total fuel used for the lower mileage vehicle is 612 gallons. So the driver of the more efficient vehicle gets a _lot_ more use out of his vehicle and uses less fuel.

>So why should I pay higher taxes???

Because you use more fuel.

>Why is it a waste only when its a driver of an SUV or a Truck??? I still
>need to use my vehicle to get to work. I still need to get myself
>around. So why am I wasting fuel???

Because you are using a very large vehicle designed to go off-road to drive to work on highways.

>A blanket tax on SUV's and Trucks is not proper.

I will agree there. Taxes and CAFE restrictions should apply equally to ALL vehicles.

>Just because it's
>big and has less fuel efficiency, doesn't mean that I am using more
>fuel than somone driving a car that gets 25-30 m.p.g.

Yes it does. With similar driving habits, you're using almost twice as much.

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

. . .your liberal friends

I enjoy reading the words of people who make too many presumptions.

. . =(_8^(1)

[justinb138 0]

Quote

Because you are using a very large vehicle designed to go off-road to drive to work on highways.

Bill, I'm sure you know that most SUVs aren't really designed to go off-road (more than once at least). They're just made to look that way.

With the new hummer coming out soon I think it will only get worse.

[BaconStrip 0]

Sorry, I thought everyone had at least a few liberal friends, especially skydivers.

[Ron 10]

Quote

OK, let's check the numbers. Take a 4x4 Durango, standard engine. It gets 18mpg. So you'd use 666 gallons of fuel a year. Compare that to one of the more efficient vehicles out there, say a Prius or a Golf TDI. They get around 50-60mpg. Total fuel used for the lower mileage vehicle is 612mpg. So the driver of the more efficient vehicle gets a _lot_ more use out of his vehicle and uses less fuel.

612 mpg....? Mis type, or did you get that water powered car working?

Quote

>So why should I pay higher taxes???

Because you use more fuel

Ready for this? I agree.

Quote

>A blanket tax on SUV's and Trucks is not proper.

I will agree there. Taxes and CAFE restrictions should apply equally to ALL vehicles.

Sit down....I agree.

Quote

>Just because it's
>big and has less fuel efficiency, doesn't mean that I am using more
>fuel than somone driving a car that gets 25-30 m.p.g.

Yes it does. With similar driving habits, you're using almost twice as much.

Key being SIMILAR driving habits. If I drive my Hummer 2 miles a day, and you drive your Prius 40...I use less gas.

So he is correct.

You are correct that big ass cars are a waste. I hate SUV's for around town.

SUV's should have to fit all regular economy standards.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[billvon 2,989]

>Mis type, or did you get that water powered car working?

Sorry, 612 gallons.

>Key being SIMILAR driving habits. If I drive my Hummer 2 miles a
>day, and you drive your Prius 40...I use less gas.

Yep. And there are reasons that Hummers make perfect sense. If you run a kid's camp, and need to be able to get anywhere in a forested area to get to injured/lost kids, then it's a great choice - and a much better choice than a Prius. It's just the Ford Expeditions sitting in traffic during rush hour with one driver that get to me.

[DrewEckhardt 0]

Quote

Well, we're going to be paying a lot more for the stuff in the near future, tax increases or not. Got any better idea than increasing taxes early to cut waste?

Do nothing. Just sit back and wait for capitalism to work. Less expensive fuel sources will become available as oil from the ground gets too expensive.

My first bet is on thermal depolymerization because it lets us make gasoline and diesel from biomass and plastic waste. We keep our existing cars, gas stations, etc. Nothing changes except where the oil comes from. There's a plant in Carthage, MO making 400 barrels of oil a day from turkey offal. We don't do this more because the oil's currently more expensive than what comes out of the ground.

Biodiesel made from biomass is also interesting. Existing trucks, locomotives, and other diesel powered vehicles run on biodiesel without modification. We have the infrastructure needed to distribute it. Car makers are already producing reasonably powerful TDI engines - Audi sells their A4 with a 225HP TDI V6 and their A8 with a 325HP V8. We don't have more biodiesel because oil is so cheap.

Biomass can also be converted into alcohol, although biodiesel is a better option because in practice Diesel engines are more efficient than Otto cycle motors, especially at part throttle . Alcohol could run fuel cells although that technology is not yet financially viable.

Raising fuel taxes isn't going to dramatically reduce consumption because people aren't going to sell their suburban homes to move closer to cities where public transportation is viable.

While increased taxes could fund research, tax dollars get allocated for political reasons not scientific ones.

Increased fuel costs do hurt the economy.

Increased taxes on staples are regressive and increase the number of people living in poverty.

Waiting will get us cheaper fuel and less dependance on foreign energy without those negatives.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

Well, we're going to be paying a lot more for the stuff in the near future, tax increases or not. Got any better idea than increasing taxes early to cut waste?

Do nothing. Just sit back and wait for capitalism to work. Less expensive fuel sources will become available as oil from the ground gets too expensive.

This "solution" has been tried on numerous ocean fisheries. This is another resource that has known reserves, but unlike oil has a slow growth rate, dependent on how much of it we leave alone. In the vast majority of cases, we fish the resource to near extinction. Swordfish, abalone, sea bass, sturgeon - it's a sad history. We might even manage to wipe out squid (calamari), which has a very short life cycle.

What alternatives have come out - we now have some farmed fish. That form of salmon is a pale version of the wild stuff. Farmed shrimp tastes fine, but requires the destruction of mangrove forests.

Yeah, great plan, Drew. Let's sit on our asses and pray for a technological miracle.

[billvon 2,989]

> Just sit back and wait for capitalism to work.

Capitalism drives individuals to make money. It's a great way to movitate a workforce and apportion non-critical resources, but a poor way to manage critical resources.

For example, capitalist reasons may well drive maximum oil consumption, without alternatives, until the supply suddenly collapses due to dwindling reserves. At that point capitalist forces will cause a recession that will make 1929 look like a minor correction. No one will be able to afford food, cars _or_ gasoline, so demand will drop. That's an example of capitalism _working_ - but is that what we want?

In my opinion, it is better to use those forces (by increasing taxes, CAFE requirements and alternative-energy incentives) to force that to happen over a longer timespan. Artificially drive prices up ahead of the big spike; that way we have some control over how long it takes. If it happens over 20 years, we will be able to develop alternatives. If it happens over 1 year, then we're dead in the water. (Or, more likely, we will start World War III to get control of the remaining supplies.)

>Increased fuel costs do hurt the economy.

Of course. There WILL be increases. There is no way we can avoid them. Gradual increases do less damage than sudden increases.

>Increased taxes on staples are regressive and increase the number
>of people living in poverty.

Increasing CAFE standards will help low income people afford efficient cars. That will cancel out the increased costs of fuel.

[Skolls081102 0]

.>Just because it's
>big and has less fuel efficiency, doesn't mean that I am using more
>fuel than somone driving a car that gets 25-30 m.p.g.

Yes it does. With similar driving habits, you're using almost twice as much.

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

You completley missed the point I was making- if I own an SUV and drive 12,000 miles, I use less gas a year than someone in a car going 30,000 miles. So just because it's less efficient, doesn't mean that I use more gas than you do. Given the exact same mileage, yes I will use more. But why penalize me if I'm not driving that much. Hence, why I said a blanket tax is ludicrous.

Once you introduce different driving distances between vehicle A and vehicle B, your point loses all logic.

If you're not driving that much, you'll be penalzied less no matter what you drive. If you buy something more efficient, you'll be penalized even less.

. . =(_8^(1)

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

Do nothing. Just sit back and wait for capitalism to work. Less expensive fuel sources will become available as oil from the ground gets too expensive.

The downside of capitalism is that it fosters greed and selfishness. That's why our society is tempered with a degree of socialism.

I hope the alternative fuels you mentioned (and/or others) do indeed come to market as smoothly as you suggest.

. . =(_8^(1)

[billvon 2,989]

>You completley missed the point I was making- if I own an SUV and
>drive 12,000 miles, I use less gas a year than someone in a car
> going 30,000 miles.

No. See above. You still use more gas. If you compare you driving 12,000 miles a year and me driving 30,000 miles a year, you use 666 gallons and I use 612 gallons. 666 is more than 612.

>So just because it's less efficient, doesn't mean that I use more
>gas than you do.

Actually, it means exactly that.

>But why penalize me if I'm not driving that much.

Cause you _still_ use more gas.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

>You completley missed the point I was making- if I own an SUV and
>drive 12,000 miles, I use less gas a year than someone in a car
> going 30,000 miles.

No. See above. You still use more gas. If you compare you driving 12,000 miles a year and me driving 30,000 miles a year, you use 666 gallons and I use 612 gallons. 666 is more than 612.

>So just because it's less efficient, doesn't mean that I use more
>gas than you do.

Actually, it means exactly that.

>But why penalize me if I'm not driving that much.

Cause you _still_ use more gas.

But you pollute more than he does.

[billvon 2,989]

>But you pollute more than he does.

True. But I also generate more methane!

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

>But you pollute more than he does.

True. But I also generate more methane!

Try Gas-X

[rwieder 0]

More News Stories Here

See this URL for todays update on the energy situation.

-Richard-
"You're Holding The Rope And I'm Taking The Fall"