22 Sep 08
Leave it to the elitist, over-paid, big-brother, hack journalists at the Washington Post to find the Dark Cloud to the silver lining of falling oil prices. It seems that our real energy problem is not that oil is too cheap but rather that it soon may not be expensive enough! Who knew? Why the people at the Sierra Club and the Natural Resources Defense Council, of course:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/20/AR2008092001762.html?wpisrc=newsletter
22 Sep 08
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterWhat exactly in this article do you disagree with? Don't you think consuming less oil is better
Leave it to the elitist, over-paid, big-brother, hack journalists at the Washington Post to find the Dark Cloud to the silver lining of falling oil prices. It seems that our real energy problem is not that oil is too cheap but rather that it soon may not be expensive enough! Who knew? Why the people at the Sierra Club and the Natural Resources ...[text shortened]... /www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/20/AR2008092001762.html?wpisrc=newsletter
than consuming more oil? Do you seriously think that every soccer mom who has a hummer
needs one?
If oil is cheaper, people will consume more of it. That's the main point of the article. If it's
more expensive, they will be more careful. Without changing the amount of driving, Americans
could consume less oil in the amount of Iraq's annual output just by driving more fuel-efficient
cars.
What's to debate here? Do you disagree with the finding?
And what's your beef with renewable energy, anyway? You seem to stroke out every single
time someone mentions the concept, or that a building is 'green' or whatever. Let's grant just
for the sake of argument that global climate change is a myth; what objection to you have to
the idea that something pollutes less? What objection to you have to the idea of promoting
things that pollute less over things that pollute more?
Nemesio
22 Sep 08
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterThe effect the government's bailout of mortgage security holders and the $700 billion (at a minimum) it's going to cost will probably render this discussion moot. The dollar is likely to plummet as the US government has to fund an even bigger deficit by floating more debt and that will cause oil prices, which are tied to the dollar, to shoot up again (they had the largest one day jump in history today: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12400801/).
Leave it to the elitist, over-paid, big-brother, hack journalists at the Washington Post to find the Dark Cloud to the silver lining of falling oil prices. It seems that our real energy problem is not that oil is too cheap but rather that it soon may not be expensive enough! Who knew? Why the people at the Sierra Club and the Natural Resources ...[text shortened]... /www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/20/AR2008092001762.html?wpisrc=newsletter
22 Sep 08
1 edit
Originally posted by NemesioThis could be at the core of dSR's problems. I don't think that he credits pollution to be a real problem.
Let's grant just for the sake of argument that global climate change is a myth; what objection to you have to the idea that something pollutes less? What objection to you have to the idea of promoting things that pollute less over things that pollute more?
Nemesio
If I were dSR for a minute I would probably be thinking that
if pollution were a problem, then they, the manufacturers, would be making products that didn't pollute wouldn't they, because we the consumer, knowing there to be a problem would demand that they provide the right products that solved the problem. The fact that we the consumer are not particularly interested, suggests that pollution is not really a problem and that any attempts by scientists and legislators to raise awareness of the problem is nothing more than a thin edge of the wedge to increase the size of government, and steal more money from your back pocket.
Now I may have misrepresented dSR's position on this issue, and I apologise in advance and retract my imagining of his way of thinking, if I have erred in my dramatisation of his thought processes.
23 Sep 08
Originally posted by NemesioWhy do you and the Washington Post editorial writers have a problem with people getting to work or picking up their children from soccer practice in privately owned automobiles?
What exactly in this article do you disagree with? Don't you think consuming less oil is better
than consuming more oil? Do you seriously think that every soccer mom who has a hummer
needs one?
If oil is cheaper, people will consume more of it. That's the main point of the article. If it's
more expensive, they will be more careful. Without cha ...[text shortened]... e idea of promoting
things that pollute less over things that pollute more?
Nemesio
