Sound logic on gas prices

[Perfectlap]

I was just kidding about the Iraq oil. Yet I'm not so sure that it wasn't floated as a justification for a premptive (read NOT an iminent threat) in Washington. Did our oil intelligence fail as well?

We can drill every hole in the world and our fixation with cars and travel will rise with it. Ever go for a drive on the highway and count the number of SUV's, Luxury gas guzzlers, PORSCHES, and pick ups? and once in a blue moon you'll seen one of those hybrid cars.
This country doesn't take well to being told "do you really need a 4 ton automobile?"
Its easier to feed the beast than to get it on a diet. A diet that would make our dollars go longer and perhaps give our children some clean air to breathe.
Humans have been on this planet for Millions of years yet we've done more harm to this little blue planet in the last 100 years than the previous 1000.

[Brucelee]

Well, I not sure where your points are headed?

Humans love being in motion, there is no question about that. From the horse to horsepower, this has cativated our attention for centuries.

Yes, I see no end to our love affair with mobility. In the long run, that love will drive us beyond petroleum products and to who knows what.

While I might think an SUV is a dumb thing, the great thing is that I do not have to buy one. I am free to spend my money on other things. Shoot, I can eschew driving altogether if I want. I love not having anyone else tell me how I should move around or if I should move around.

The key point here is that price IS the mechanism that makes supply and demand intersect. Mess with that mechanism and you are head for trouble. Just ask Jimmy Carter!

Specific to your comments on clean air, I suggest that you look at the modern auto in the US. For example, my wife's Subaru is so clean that the air coming out of the tailpipe is cleaner than the air coming into the intake (if you are driving in LA). IIt actually functions as an air cleaner.

The rap on autos and pollution is outdated at best.

Lastly, if you want to see environmental devastation, I suggest you research the history of floods, earthquakes, typhoons, forest fires, glaciers, ice ages, etc. I think our "fragile" plant has plenty of destruction "built in" and it has survived just fine. The doom and gloom of the 1970s forecasted our end by 1999 but here we are, just doing fine!

Now, if we can only survive the world that the "greens" have in store for us. We would all be riding bikes and wearing Birkenstocks!

IMHO!

Originally Posted by Perfectlap

I was just kidding about the Iraq oil. Yet I'm not so sure that it wasn't floated as a justification for a premptive (read NOT an iminent threat) in Washington. Did our oil intelligence fail as well?

We can drill every hole in the world and our fixation with cars and travel will rise with it. Ever go for a drive on the highway and count the number of SUV's, Luxury gas guzzlers, PORSCHES, and pick ups? and once in a blue moon you'll seen one of those hybrid cars.
This country doesn't take well to being told "do you really need a 4 ton automobile?"
Its easier to feed the beast than to get it on a diet. A diet that would make our dollars go longer and perhaps give our children some clean air to breathe.
Humans have been on this planet for Millions of years yet we've done more harm to this little blue planet in the last 100 years than the previous 1000.

[Perfectlap]

The rap on autos and pollution outdated?

There are a Billion Chinese who are buying cars at an alarming rate. And those cars are not beholden to the strict pollution standards that we impose.
A single mainland province of China has more people in it than all of the USA.
Add to that their commercial trucks, factories and their heavy reliance on coal for home heating and you have a giant hole in the ozone. Not to mention India and other highly populated countries and their outdated autos. We're not the only country with cars.


and THe rest of the USA isn't California. our environmental standards are much much less. Just travel to Texas which has some of the most polluted cities in the country.
ANd here in New Jersey we have more cars than people. Anyone who thinks that doesn't have an effect on air standards needs to read up on some of the recent EPA findings that forced the previous comissioner(and former NJ governor) to resign from the Bush Adminstration.
Even if our autos run at lower levels of pollution, people are driving more, walking less and more people own cars than at any point since the car was invented. All that consumption ads to gloabl warming. If you believe in that or as the current administration refers to it "gloabl climate change".

[JackG]

Originally Posted by Perfectlap

There are a Billion Chinese who are buying cars at an alarming rate. Add to that their commercial trucks, factories and their heavy reliance on coal for home heating and you have a giant hole in the ozone.

and THe rest of the USA isn't California. our environmental standards are much much less. Just travel to Texas which has some of the most polluted cities in the country.

There are a billion Chinese, but there are not "a billion Chinese who are buying cars". There are, however, many more Chinese now able to afford cars, and you can thank everyone who walks into Walmart for that. They now have jobs, and more expendable income due to those jobs. Two distinct reasons for that...

1. Our labor unions have priced the American worker right out of their jobs.

2. Americans want clean air, water, and soil, but are unwilling to pay for goods manufactured under those restrictions.

And maybe you haven't been to LA recently, but I've spent significant time there and in the DFW area recently, and LA seemed hands-down much more polluted than DFW. If California didn't have tougher pollution standard there would no longer be any freeway shootings there... because you wouldn't be able to see the car next to you!

[Brucelee]

All that and the air quality in the USA is markedly cleaner than it was in the 1970s.

China and India will deal with their air quality issues also.

Next disaster in the making?

Of course, we COULD have less air pollution if we want. We simply need to incur the costs. Drive less (a cost) mandate fuel economy standards that are higher (a cost) make the engines even cleaner (a cost) etc. etc.

Which cost would you incur and for how much cleaner air?

All of us are FOR things like cleaner air (even if we can't define that) esp if it seems to cost others vs our selves. If we had to pay for additional air pollution devices on our cars voluntarily, how many of us would (I wouldn't).

Re: global warming, give me a break!

The recent data suggests the polar ice caps are getting THICKER!

BTW- why is it bad that the Chinese are buying cars but it is OK if Americans are.

Originally Posted by Perfectlap

The rap on autos and pollution outdated?

There are a Billion Chinese who are buying cars at an alarming rate. And those cars are not beholden to the strict pollution standards that we impose.
A single mainland province of China has more people in it than all of the USA.
Add to that their commercial trucks, factories and their heavy reliance on coal for home heating and you have a giant hole in the ozone. Not to mention India and other highly populated countries and their outdated autos. We're not the only country with cars.


and THe rest of the USA isn't California. our environmental standards are much much less. Just travel to Texas which has some of the most polluted cities in the country.
ANd here in New Jersey we have more cars than people. Anyone who thinks that doesn't have an effect on air standards needs to read up on some of the recent EPA findings that forced the previous comissioner(and former NJ governor) to resign from the Bush Adminstration.
Even if our autos run at lower levels of pollution, people are driving more, walking less and more people own cars than at any point since the car was invented. All that consumption ads to gloabl warming. If you believe in that or as the current administration refers to it "gloabl climate change".

[tqtran]

Originally Posted by Brucelee

All that and the air quality in the USA is markedly cleaner than it was in the 1970s.

HAHA! Sorry Brucelee, but that was a good laught to start my day. Anyone that thinks the air is clean obviously doesn't look up into the sky.

Sorry but those aren't clouds up there. Also contrails and exhaust doesn't linger in the sky (especially at that high altitude) for that long.
They especially don't spread into a large cloud like this:


Next time you see a checker board up in the sky just ask yourself....."Why are they doing that??..."

Originally Posted by Brucelee

Re: global warming, give me a break!

The recent data suggests the polar ice caps are getting THICKER!

Is that why Bush was given a report two years ago that a large glacier on the polar cap had cracked, one that hasn't moved in hundreds of years??


Sorry guys, I'm not trying to knock anyone but unlike most of you, I have access to a lot of fed info. All I am saying is "There are more important things to worry about, all of this is just a distraction"
Just my two cents from your friendly 986board agent.

[Brucelee]

"HAHA! Sorry Brucelee, but that was a good laught to start my day. Anyone that thinks the air is clean obviously doesn't look up into the sky.

Sorry but those aren't clouds up there. Also contrails and exhaust doesn't linger in the sky (especially at that high altitude) for that long.
They especially don't spread into a large cloud like this:


Next time you see a checker board up in the sky just ask yourself....."Why are they doing that??...""

Boy, I hate it when data gets in the way!

See following!

America's air has become a great deal cleaner over the last generation. Since measurement began in 1970, U.S. emissions have fallen dramatically, even while GDP and travel have more than doubled. America, in other words, is producing much more while polluting less.
Ambient air pollution levels
(1976-2001)

Ozone -33%
Sulfur Dioxides -67
Nitrogen Dioxide -42
Carbon Monoxide -73
Particulates * -27
Lead -97

Note: * 1996-2001

Source: Index of Environmental Indicators, 2003

Production vs. pollution
1970-2000

Vehicular mileage +149%
Economic production +161%
Airborne emissions -25%

Source: Index of Environmental Indicators, 2003

Note: Table made from bar graph.






"Is that why Bush was given a report two years ago that a large glacier on the polar cap had cracked, one that hasn't moved in hundreds of years??"


Well that MIGHT be true but what do you conclude from that. If the polar caps are dynamic and they are growing in mass (which they are) they might acutally crack from time to time. Ice tends to do that when it MOVES and ENLARGES!




"Sorry guys, I'm not trying to knock anyone but unlike most of you, I have access to a lot of fed info"

You may have access but you have not shared any data, just innuendo. We do welcome data!

[tqtran]

Originally Posted by Brucelee

You may have access but you have not shared any data, just innuendo. We do welcome data!

Fine, you asked for it: :ah:


----- SNIP -----
LAB TEST SUMMARY
08.13.2002
EDMONTON, ALBERTA, CANADA
.
.
.
Edmonton recieved approx. 2.5" of snow/ice rain precipitation between Nov. 8-12, 2002.
A sterilized container as directed by nw labs was placed in an open secure area in the north end of the city.

The sample was sealed after the collection period and delivered to the lab. An analysis was performed on Aluminum and Barium only.

Aluminum

0.148 mg/l

Barium

0.006 mg/l

It is the scientific opinion of the lab that the aluminum content of the sample is HIGH and unusual.

Plant material chlorosis, as a result of plant inability to uptake nutrients may be an indication of metals (aluminum)in our mostly alkaline soils around Alberta.

...
----- END SNIP -----

----- SNIP -----
CBS News reported on bizarre geo-engineering experiments proposed for global warming reduction. The report confirmed that one of the methods advocated by physicist Edward Teller is to fill the atmosphere with metallic particles to "scatter away 1 or 2 percent of the sunlight..."
....
Former military officers used a private jet to obtain a sample of aerosol material being emitted by a military cargo aircraft. Laboratory tests on that sample reportedly confirmed that the effluent contained both aluminum and barium.
....
The toxic effects of barium are confirmed by a 1992 Department of Health and Human Services publication. It states that barium can cause breathing difficulties, increased blood pressure, changes in heart rhythm, stomach irritation, muscles weakness, swelling of the brain, as well as damage to the liver, kidney, heart and spleen.
----- END SNIP -----


Next time you see the checker board in the sky, leave an open container to collect rain/snow samples. Thake it to a lab and for under $100 you can get it tested and prove to yourself.

Brucelee: PM me if you want more details, I will provide an much info as I can without getting into trouble. I will not post more specifics on an open forum.