IMHO, I don't see any alternative but to try and prevent a nuclear confrontation no matter what it takes. If oil goes to $100 a barrel so be it. Maybe then the world will wake up to the fact that conservation and alternatives are the future.

Sitting here in the office 20 feet from a major state roadway watching hundreds of cars and trucks drive by each hour......each car with only one person in it -- the driver....where's everybody going?? Let's face it, we're hooked on oil.

 

Actually, Clinton-Gore (or, to be more precise, Gore) was doing something about this...as I allayed to during my very first post on this site:

https://www.greenhybrid.com/discuss/...l?page=2&pp=10

Funny how things come full circle


AzMerf - Yes, you successfully killed the Great Society, and you're well on your way to rescinding the New Deal. But if you think your privatized society, where the corporation is king, is an improvement...oh, hell...why do I even bother ?

If gas goes to $10/gal, that will probably mean that oil will be north of $150/bbl. If (when ?) that happens...

a. The only 'Tuna Helper' will be your sister-in-law helping your brother boat one from a rowboat - because they won't even be able to afford consumer packaged goods any longer.

What do you think is used to produce that cardboard box, the cello wrapper the food is encased in, and the procurement / processing / distribution of the food itself, from the boat that caught the fish, to the combine that harvested the wheat for the noodles (or whatever's in Tuna Helper), to the truck that delivered the box to market ? That's right - petroleum.

b. Believe me, if it gets to that point, you yourself will be greatly impacted, hybrid car or no.

That's what kills me about Repugs - everything in their world ends at the tip of their upturned nose.

tbaleno - you are not far from the truth. Word has been circulating that Israel is getting ready for another reactor run, with the implicit approval of (and covert help from) key Western powers. However, I'm not sure Israel is the best candidate for this, as with the current hostilities in the mideast, it may trigger a (semi-)global arab uprising against them - at which point, we must assist. With our military in its current exhausted / depleted state, I am not optimistic for the future, if this comes to pass.

But...maybe it's time to reap the whirlwind we've been sowing these many years. Better get into survivalist mode, eh ?

Schadenfreude...

 

They are already on an uprising against them!kevin



[QUOTE=Reynolds
tbaleno - you are not far from the truth. Word has been circulating that Israel is getting ready for another reactor run, with the implicit approval of (and covert help from) key Western powers. However, I'm not sure Israel is the best candidate for this, as with the current hostilities in the mideast, it may trigger a (semi-)global arab uprising against them - at which point, we must assist. With our military in its current exhausted / depleted state, I am not optimistic for the future, if this comes to pass.

But...maybe it's time to reap the whirlwind we've been sowing these many years. Better get into survivalist mode, eh ?

Schadenfreude...[/QUOTE]

 

Sir...I am not talking about isolated attacks by Al Qaeda or rock throwers in Palestine.

I'm talking about the full brunt / force of Arab nations, many of them with equipment which we supplied to them, and trained them how to use.

Actual war. On a global scale.

If that happens, 'peak oil' won't occur. Because life as we know it will not end due to the exhaustion of the supply - but the interruption of its continued delivery.

 

This is all true. I simply stated that the President has done absolutely nothing to obviate these problems. And because he has done nothing, the problems have grown worse.

 

AshenGrey - thank you. I had forgotten to rebut lars-ss ' post...

>>> Unless terrorism was invented in the year 2000, then the current administration has nothing to do with enhancing the problem.

Ah, but they have everything to do with enhancing the problem. Or do you subscribe to the 'let's send our solders to Iraq to act as bait' way of thinking ?

>>>Seems like we had gotten attacked by some Saudi nationals sometime before 2000 also, if I recall.

And yet, we're still in bed with them six years after 15 of them acted in tandem to hijack 4 planes and kill thousands of people (note that I don't say 'September 11' - the gop has commandeered that phrase for their own). Meanwhile, they educate future generations of children via their madrassas to hate us, thanks to the kingdom of Saud which has an unholy allegiance with the mullahs in order to maintain their hold on power. Someday, that alliance will end - badly.

>>>There were ridiculously rich Arabs before 2000, as I recall, just like now.

And this is pertinent...how ? Oh, I know! We've made them richer over the last six years - so it's just a matter of degree, huh ?

>>>And there were gasoline vehicles, too, I think, just like now.

Yes, and six years later, the current sop of an 'energy awareness' policy just skims the surface of what's needed. Can't **** off the Pioneers & Rangers, y'know?

>>>And there was a dearth of good alternatives to oil and gas in our future, too, just like now. Clinton had 8 years to plan for the future too.

See my original post in this thread. We'd be well on the way to a solution by now, if the 2000 election hadn't been stolen out from under the electorate, and the legitimate winner been installed in the office. The '04, too, for that matter, although I mention that just for the sake of continuity (hey, what's five million votes betweeen friends ?)
BTW-The word 'Clinton' is like red meat to you guys, isn't it ?

 

Sometimes you guys scare me.

 

On of my ongoing themes is the general American public wants to pretend energy will be plentyful thru their lifetime. Plenty of Republicans drive jumbo SUV's - so does Jesse Ventura - so does the chairman of the Democratic Party. John Kerry did his famous denial that he drove his wife's SUV.

I'll agree that this administration has the worst energy policy, but the Clinton administration was not much better (remember that's when jumbo SUV's got big tax breaks...)

I challenge anyone here to post solid statistics that refute my claim gas-guzzlers (sub 20mpg vehicles) are bought by a large number of Republicans and Democrats and independants.

Detroit is very worried because SUV sales have gone down a little bit - imagine the impact if people seriously went back to sedans and used trucks only as rentals or legitimate business that required it's hauling capacity. Washington would see the political climate and pass serious energy legislation. In such a situation, the energy industry would have to respond to the public or face legislations they would like even less.

 

Politicians emphasize what they think is important to the American people. Americans communicate what's important to them buy how we spend our money. Why should any politican take energy conservation seriously when all they need to do is see how many gas-guzzling vehicles we buy every year. The American buying public is as much to blame as anyone else.

 

You would not believe how much of a liberal Democrat I am. However, nothing seems to faze this administration and frankly I believe the democratic system we knew is over. So the people have to stand up and protect themselves.