Survey: $4.50 gas will pull commuters off the road

Bob wrote:

Keep up the good work Red!
Phil is really Phyllis Kahn, a flamer who as a liberal for some reason wants a disaster to run the USA into the ground. If global warming don't work then it's were running out of oil and BTW we cannot drill or gather any more!!
Seems to the the likes of Phil would be best to take a long walk on a short dock if they want to reduce human impact on earth!!
==========
<quoted text>

Another empty excuse for an argument. It's funny when you people get challenged. You ape opinions that are fed to you from TV or AM radio, and when someone points out how wrong you are, you can't defend yourself because you have no real grasp of the issues.

Jerami wrote:

<quoted text>
Why would I want to live in the city? Nicer in the suburbs dont have to worry as much about certain types of people

Oh, you mean minorities, college students and hipsters?

I saw all this coming quite a while ago, so I stopped driving almost completely. If you're crafty, you can greatly reduce your gas consumption.... a little carpooling/park & ride/express busing can help you suburbanites.

It helped me. I actually moved to a new house to be a better commuter, and it WORKED.

Funny- two cars sitting at our house, day after day... I fill up one tank of gas every month or so.

I'm not sure what I like better: saving the $$$, keeping it away from the oil companies, or the smug gloating feeling...

Josh V wrote:

<quoted text>
It is impossible to believe that you are educated by reading your posts. You have no concept of the English language, and your replies have the intellect of a 16 year old. Nice try, though.

Didn't realize on a forum board, I was being policed by some scab who worries about grammar.

ColdRedRain wrote:

<quoted text>
Oh, you mean minorities, college students and hipsters?

I was thinking trouble makers.

Those of us that have not been to sensitivity training (or go but ignore the buffoon)know exactly what you mean. It is the "enlightened," or the "tolerant" that will turn your statement into a racial issue.

Jerami wrote:

<quoted text>
I was thinking trouble makers.

Demand for energy is rising around the world, according to the U.S. Department of Energy and the International Energy Administration. Data show global demand for oil and natural gas will likely grow 45% by 2030 compared with 2006. The Department of Interior estimates there are 112 billion barrels of technically recoverable oil beneath U.S. federal lands and coastal waters. That’s enough oil to fuel 60 million cars for 60 years, when you take into account the average yield of gasoline from a barrel of crude oil and the average number of gallons of gasoline consumed annually by a passenger vehicle.

We all know Phil will disagree with this because he knows more about drill and extraction than the oil companies.

I wonder if he knows more about brain surgery than my doctor.

Cap and Spend
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1212362377892...

As the Senate opens debate on its mammoth carbon regulation program this week, the phrase of the hour is "cap and trade." This sounds innocuous enough. But anyone who looks at the legislative details will quickly see that a better description is cap and spend. This is easily the largest income redistribution scheme since the income tax.

Sponsored by Joe Lieberman and John Warner, the bill would put a cap on carbon emissions that gets lowered every year. But to ease the pain and allow for economic adjustment, the bill would dole out "allowances" under the cap that would stand for the right to emit greenhouse gases. Senator Barbara Boxer has introduced a package of manager's amendments that mandates total carbon reductions of 66% by 2050, while earmarking the allowances.

When cap and trade has been used in the past, such as to reduce acid rain, the allowances were usually distributed for free. A major difference this time is that the allowances will be auctioned off to covered businesses, which means imposing an upfront tax before the trade half of cap and trade even begins. It also means a gigantic revenue windfall for Congress.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...

***EU’s carbon trading fails to cut emissions 4/3/2007 ***

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/e...



The amount of greenhouse gas pumped into European skies rose by up to 30 million tonnes last year despite the EU’s pledge to lead the world in tackling climate change.

A much-heralded emissions trading scheme, which is being copied by California and is seen as the market solution to reducing harmful gases, failed to achieve the cuts in industrial pollution needed to hit Kyoto targets, figures from the European Commission showed.

The Europe-wide increase in CO2 came in the second year of the scheme to allocate emission permits to companies and power generators. Critics described the EU trading system as “botched central planning” because too many permits were granted, enabling polluters to buy them at knockdown prices and carry on producing the gases that cause climate change.

Figures published yesterday for industrial emissions in 18 of the 27 EU countries, showed that European companies and power generators produced 1.79 billion tonnes of greenhouse gas last year. They came less than a month after the EU vowed to set an example to the world by making at a cuts of at least a 20 per cent in greenhouse gases by 2020.

Emissions trading has been hailed as the market solution for cutting harmful gases by making the permission to pollute an increasingly scarce commodity. But officials from the European Commission admit that too many permits were issued in the first phase of the scheme, from 2005 to this year.

They said yesterday that there would be deep cuts in national allocation plans for 2008-12, with Slovakia cut by 50 per cent and Poland by 26 per cent.

----------

Johnny Appleseed wrote:

Demand for energy is rising around the world, according to the U.S. Department of Energy and the International Energy Administration. Data show global demand for oil and natural gas will likely grow 45% by 2030 compared with 2006. The Department of Interior estimates there are 112 billion barrels of technically recoverable oil beneath U.S. federal lands and coastal waters. That’s enough oil to fuel 60 million cars for 60 years, when you take into account the average yield of gasoline from a barrel of crude oil and the average number of gallons of gasoline consumed annually by a passenger vehicle.
We all know Phil will disagree with this because he knows more about drill and extraction than the oil companies.
I wonder if he knows more about brain surgery than my doctor.

So you've had brain surgery, eh Johnny? That explains a lot.

That 112 billion barrel estimate you posted. Why don't you post a link to the article?

Phil wrote:

<quoted text>
So you've had brain surgery, eh Johnny? That explains a lot.
That 112 billion barrel estimate you posted. Why don't you post a link to the article?

He stole it from the API, bastion of objective notions about petroleum.

http://energytomorrow.org/...

Jerami wrote:

<quoted text>
Didn't realize on a forum board, I was being policed by some scab who worries about grammar.

Yup, there it is again.

I wasn't trying to be the grammar police. You stated your "credentials," and I called you out on it because (based on your posts) I don't believe you have the level of education you claim to have.

toontown wrote:

<quoted text>
He stole it from the API, bastion of objective notions about petroleum.
http://energytomorrow.org/...

OK, then here is another point of view. NOTE: This article mentions the large areas opened for exploration by both Clinton and Bush. This paranoid theory that the Democrats are stopping exploration is total bunk. Exploration is happening. It just isn't finding very much new oil. This makes sense because all the most likely places to find oil have already been explored.

http://www.aspo-usa.com/index.php...

Jerami wrote:

Ever hear of the:
Wage-Price Freeze of 1971

yes, and it's still on..

the average joe in manufacturing (if he still has a job, he's lucky) Is making about the same wage today as he was then, meanwhile, his CEO is raking in tens of millions into his own accounts.

Phil wrote:

<quoted text>
OK, then here is another point of view. NOTE: This article mentions the large areas opened for exploration by both Clinton and Bush. This paranoid theory that the Democrats are stopping exploration is total bunk. Exploration is happening. It just isn't finding very much new oil. This makes sense because all the most likely places to find oil have already been explored.
http://www.aspo-usa.com/index.php...

Phil,

Al Gore,**** and top democrats are leading the march to drill and extract domestic oil as we speak. They just told the environmentalists wacko Sierra Clubbers that global warming is a hoax.

Solid argument in the land of make believe.

Josh V wrote:

<quoted text>
Yup, there it is again.
I wasn't trying to be the grammar police. You stated your "credentials," and I called you out on it because (based on your posts) I don't believe you have the level of education you claim to have.

lol cause I would make that up. If I were to make that up I would make my life seem more glamorous. Re-read the posts and really think about whether I would be lying. I graduated from Winona State University with a 3.15 GPA...granted my gen eds I had about a 2.6 cause I didnt care.

I don't have a background with political science...i had one class and that is it. I don't have a background with grammar either...and when I write on a forum board...i could care less about editing. These are just opinions...no where did I say I was right with anything...my opinions are just that...my opinions. Could they be wrong...absolutely...but instead of saying that I didn't properly state my thoughts...why not disprove my thoughts and convince me otherwise. I don't think you're capable of that. All you do is say no you're wrong...you're an idiot and add nothing to disclaim my thoughts.

I didn't come attack you at all...you have your thoughts and I have mine...you don't have to believe my credentials but I ask why would I lie about what I do? If I was going to lie on this topic wouldn't I say im a Political Science major and not a Computer Science major? Does that make sense to you? If anything I acknowledged that I don't know much about the topic...but since this is a discussion board I decided to say how I felt...right or wrong.

Josh V wrote:

<quoted text>
Yup, there it is again.
I wasn't trying to be the grammar police. You stated your "credentials," and I called you out on it because (based on your posts) I don't believe you have the level of education you claim to have.

Ha...I just re read your posts on this topic...You know what you add nothing!!!!! You don't say a word about the topic at all...you sit and talk smack about me for my opinions...yet you don't have the gull to add any input at all...your pathetic...enjoy your miserable life.

Don't even start pointing out to Jerami spelt with an I is wrong. He'lll probably threaten to kill you.

Josh V wrote:

<quoted text>
Yup, there it is again.
I wasn't trying to be the grammar police. You stated your "credentials," and I called you out on it because (based on your posts) I don't believe you have the level of education you claim to have.

Bleep wrote:

Don't even start pointing out to Jerami spelt with an I is wrong. He'lll probably threaten to kill you.<quoted text>

lol

Boo!

Where our oil imports come from:

U.S. Imports by Country of Origin

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_im...

The top suppliers of crude oil in order are as follows
Canada
Saudi Arabia (OPEC)
Mexico
Nigeria (OPEC)
Venezuela (OPEC)
Iraq (OPEC)
Angola (OPEC)
Algeria (OPEC)

Two words: "Global Market".
Oil is subject to supply and demand just as any other item. Who we buy it from really doesn’t matter. How much we buy is what matters.