Argument against high gas prices

"gatt" wrote Yeah, but, I still want to know why the cost of gas has
doubled since 2004.
No new war, Katrina didn't wipe out -that- much...

Doubled. It's fishy.

I don't agree with much of what you say, but I'm with you on this one.

I'm not a Bush Basher, anti oil company, or anything along those lines.

Where is the justification for the prices, other than the fact that gas (and
all oil energy supplies) is NECESSARY to our lives.

It is like a monopoly, but nobody gives a crap, and goes wink-wink, as
prices rise.
--
Jim in NC

"gatt" wrote

"Meanwhile, the cost of diesel fuel continues to head upward, with a
gallon costing on average $2.11 along the West Coast this week. The U.S.
average was about $1.72 a gallon. In West Coast states, diesel has
increased about 9 cents a gallon in the past week and about 51 cents a
gallon from a year ago.

Trucking companies are feeling the pinch.

Is diesel fuel that much cheaper at truck stops, and such?

I saw diesel at wally world (about the cheapest place for gas around here)
just a day or two ago, and it was $2.78.
--
Jim in NC

wrote in message
ups.com...
On Jun 8, 1:07 pm, "Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net
wrote:

Would you feel any better if production peaks in 10 years instead of 5
in the face of increasing demand?

No, but with increases in drilling technology that number might well be
100
years.

Or not.....
If there are 100 years of production, we might have enough time to
find alternative somethings.

Think of technology 100 years ago. Understand, too, that our biggest gains
are in the past generation and technology is accellerating. Geometrically,
not linerally.

Okay,
If there are substantially fewer years, worst case we are already in
deep doo-doo.

So, ya feel lucky???? Or do you think that working on conservation
and increased efficiency might be a good idea.

Given what I pointed out above, I'd say you're full of poop.

After all, there is no
downside to using less fuel to do the same thing now, is there?

Depends on what you cut. BTU's per $GNP has been falling for 20 years.

Fuel use is motive and it's that factor that moves our economy, our
prosperity, and our well being.

There is so much induced waste that could be eliminated, but it would
require politicians and bureaucrats to get off their asses.

Having said that, I notice a lot of people hotrodding away from traffic
lights. At the same time, I see cities and towns stiffling traffic flows to
produce traffic fine revenue and gridlock. In case you haven't figured that
last one, inducing gridlock gives the bureaucrats a great media ploy for for
money, resources, authority.

I'll mention (again) that studies going wayyyy back have shown we waste 15%
and more of our fuel with streets clogged due to fouled traffic controls.
That doesn;t even bring into account the tens of thousands killed due to
poorly planned/executed systems.

If you answer to nothing above, answer just this: given governments
propensity to create shortages, what would you propose?

I'm guessing more government regulation and coersion. See my remarks about
"gridlock" above.


--
Matt Barrow
Performace Homes, LLC.
Cheyenne, WY

wrote in message
ups.com...
On Jun 8, 11:03 am, "Matt Barrow"
wrote:

I use my SUV to go to the corner store to buy tooth picks...one at a
time.

I'd like to think that this was sarcasm, but I'm afraid you might be
telling the truth.

Then you're an idiot not worth discussing serious issues with.

[FLUSH}

On Jun 8, 9:11 pm, "Matt Barrow" wrote:

Think of technology 100 years ago. Understand, too, that our biggest gains
are in the past generation and technology is accellerating. Geometrically,
not linerally.

Certainly our technology has grown in a century.
However, frequently in the past, civilizations and societies have
collapsed because they have outstripped the natural resources upon
which they depended. Maybe water, maybe wood, whatever.
It can happen again. But now it could also be widespread, as in
worldwide, because of our communications and transportation links.
(Refer for example, to Jared Diamonds very readable book "Collapse",
about the way civilizations fall.)
I'm surely optimistic that we can avoid major problems, by more
quickly developing solar, etc. However, if we don't there could be
huge problems. Primarily I am aware that huge amounts of (primarily)
oil allow us to get food and water to cities. RAPIDLY cut the oil,
and stuff can't get in and people can't get out. Food production
itself is highly oil-dependent.


Given what I pointed out above, I'd say you're full of poop.
I doubt that. But given the enormous stakes, I would hope we do
enough soon enough to avoid the major problems.
After all, there is no
downside to using less fuel to do the same thing now, is there?

Depends on what you cut. BTU's per $GNP has been falling for 20 years.

Fuel use is motive and it's that factor that moves our economy, our
prosperity, and our well being.

There is so much induced waste that could be eliminated, but it would
require politicians and bureaucrats to get off their asses.
They want to stay in office. They will primarily support what we want
them to. And most of the citizenry in this country don't care.
Furthermore, we can act without them. I work to lower my power and
water use, but my neighbors and some family think I'm crazy. They
might be right, but efficiency and conservation are still excellent,
immediately available, low-tech, low-investment ways to stretch our
resources until alternatives are more accepted.

Having said that, I notice a lot of people hotrodding away from traffic
lights. At the same time, I see cities and towns stiffling traffic flows to
produce traffic fine revenue and gridlock. In case you haven't figured that
last one, inducing gridlock gives the bureaucrats a great media ploy for for
money, resources, authority.
I might agree with your "result" but not generally with your motive.
There's just a heckuva lotta cars out there.
Refer to rec.autos.driving for a whole lotta people who agree with
your government conspiracy ideas.

If you answer to nothing above, answer just this: given governments
propensity to create shortages, what would you propose?
I'm guessing more government regulation and coersion. See my remarks about
"gridlock" above.
Not so much MORE regulation, as a shift in what they do, to things
that make more sense.

1. Stop subsidizing energy and resource consumption.
2. Shift some tax burden to fossil energy consumption, and use the
funds to subsidize clean energy, such as solar. (A side benefit of
having solar panels on every house is that the generation is
distributed, and therefore less susceptible to disaster/sabotage/
terrorist events.) Note that I don't want more total tax, just a
shift.
3. Very gradually, but persistently, raise the taxes on gas and
diesel. Use the proceeds to correct the diminishing road funds (they
need to be corrected for inflation), and make sensible fuel-efficient
mass transit. Make it clear that this will happen so that people and
companies can make plans and develop alternatives in good order.
4. Plan cities so that people can live, work, and shop all in close
proximity. We are currently forced to drive to get just a quart of
milk. Many standards actually preclude people from doing this. A few
cities are wising up.
5. Raise the energy standards for home construction. I live in
Phoenix, and the walls in this oven have the same insulation standard
as coastal California: R13 batts from the 1950s, improperly
installed. Raise the minimum standards for air conditioning
efficiency. Most homes being built here now could not be designed to
consume MORE energy if you really tried.
I firmly believe that we could reduce out energy consumption by about
50% with little or no real change in lifestyle. But here energy is so
cheap that we don't care.

Matt Barrow
Performace Homes, LLC.
Cheyenne, WY

On Jun 9, 12:24 am, "Matt Barrow"
wrote:
wrote in message

ups.com...

On Jun 8, 11:03 am, "Matt Barrow"
wrote:

I use my SUV to go to the corner store to buy tooth picks...one at a
time.

I'd like to think that this was sarcasm, but I'm afraid you might be
telling the truth.

Then you're an idiot not worth discussing serious issues with.

[FLUSH}

Hmm. Perhaps I shoulda put the smiley in there; I didn't think it was
necessary. You didn't put one in your comment either.
Then again, I've seen lots of large vehicles idling for the longest
time in parking lots, on very nice days. Out there SOMEwhere is a
person who WOULD do something as stupid as buy toothpicks one at a
time.

In article .com,
wrote:

... and make sensible fuel-efficient
mass transit.

I wonder if the people who are so hot for user fees for us rich pilots
and aircraft owners also support mass transit that is self-funding.

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

On Sat, 09 Jun 2007 18:37:22 -0700, wrote:

(Refer for example, to Jared Diamonds very readable book "Collapse",
about the way civilizations fall.)

It's certainly very readable, but I happened to read it after visiting
Greenland and reading everything I could lay my hands on about the
Norse settlements in the southwest of the island. (They existed from
about 900 to about 1300, during the Medaeval Warm Period, however
spelled.) My conclusion was that Mr Diamond didn't have a clue what he
was talking about. He was just trying to stuff the Norse into a
formula he'd already created.

The Norse ran sheep and cattle in Greenland, and they survived as long
as they had contact with Europe. But about 1300 the North Sea iced up,
the Inuit moved south, and the climate of Greenland got too cold to
support a European lifestyle. There was probably also some erosion
caused by the Norse. Anyhow, they died out. But here's the kicker:

The Danish/Greenland government in the 1950s successfully
re-introduced sheep to the southwest, and within the past ten years
they've been able to re-introduce cattle. So if there is indeed global
warming, what it has created so far--at least in the semi-Arctic
north--is a climate very like that of Europe in the year 1000.
(Apparently the records aren't good enough to say "the world".)



Blue skies! -- Dan Ford

Claire Chennault and His American Volunteers, 1941-1942
forthcoming from HarperCollins www.flyingtigersbook.com

On Jun 9, 7:41 pm, wrote:
On Jun 9, 12:24 am, "Matt Barrow"
wrote:





wrote in message

oups.com...

On Jun 8, 11:03 am, "Matt Barrow"
wrote:

I use my SUV to go to the corner store to buy tooth picks...one at a
time.

I'd like to think that this was sarcasm, but I'm afraid you might be
telling the truth.

Then you're an idiot not worth discussing serious issues with.

[FLUSH}

Hmm. Perhaps I shoulda put the smiley in there; I didn't think it was
necessary. You didn't put one in your comment either.
Then again, I've seen lots of large vehicles idling for the longest
time in parking lots, on very nice days. Out there SOMEwhere is a
person who WOULD do something as stupid as buy toothpicks one at a
time.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Don't worry, Matt Barrow is just an ass...

On Jun 10, 10:54 am, wrote:
On Jun 9, 7:41 pm, wrote:



On Jun 9, 12:24 am, "Matt Barrow"
wrote:

wrote in message

oups.com...

On Jun 8, 11:03 am, "Matt Barrow"
wrote:

I use my SUV to go to the corner store to buy tooth picks...one at a
time.

I'd like to think that this was sarcasm, but I'm afraid you might be
telling the truth.

Then you're an idiot not worth discussing serious issues with.

[FLUSH}

Hmm. Perhaps I shoulda put the smiley in there; I didn't think it was
necessary. You didn't put one in your comment either.
Then again, I've seen lots of large vehicles idling for the longest
time in parking lots, on very nice days. Out there SOMEwhere is a
person who WOULD do something as stupid as buy toothpicks one at a
time.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Don't worry, Matt Barrow is just an ass...

He probably thinks that of me as well.
We might both be right...