Pages: 1 2 3

 

2008-08-02 15:51:04
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6605|132 and Bush

Turquoise wrote:

Lotta_Drool wrote:

fuck oil, no more refineries or drilling.  Pass legistlation today that no new vehicles under 5000lbs can be sold in amerca unless powered by something other than gasoline or diesel.

Ethanol, Natural Gas, Electric

who needs greater amounts of fucking oil production capacity when it needs to start its downward trend in use.  Oh wait, I guess the oil companies do which is why people are debating stupid shit resigned to the fact that oil is the only solution just like the idiots in washingto want.

sheeple.
While I like your idea here, be prepared to be labeled as a liberal hippie.  Al Gore and Ralph Nader have made similar suggestions about this sort of thing.

I'm not sure if I'd support something like that, but...  it is worth noting that Reagan started the stagnation of fuel standards in the auto industry.  For a while, we had a staggered system of fuel standards that would raise the average mpg required for selling cars in the U.S.  This stopped around 1985, I believe.

Now, people are suggesting that we should bring back this concept, mostly because it's still in effect in most prosperous countries (particularly in Western Europe).  I support this idea, but there is a lot of lobbyist opposition to it coming from the auto industry.
Turq didn't we just pass legislation demanding a minimal standard?

The new fuel economy standards will take effect in 2011, gradually rising to the establishment of a 35 mpg fleet average by 2020.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/22/us/22energy.html

TBH it's the consumers who are really going to dictate a higher standard. It's already happening. GM has already began laying off workers and shutting down their SUV plants. No law was needed for that.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2008-08-02 16:01:05
jsnipy
...
+3,276|6527|...

Not that I care if the drill or not; but drilling in Alaska won't make any real difference. Unless oil is nationalized in the US that oil goes on the world market and would affect prices at home minimally.
2008-08-02 19:48:53
Schittloaf
not fulla schit
+23|5908|MN
maybe we should all check the air in our tires and spend 4 x as much to give our automobiles a tune up like the messiah Obama thinks lol
2008-08-02 19:53:24
argo4
Stand and Deliver
+86|5938|United States
why don't you all shove a tailpipe up your asses ...offshore drilling is gonna lower gas prices like a couple of cents. Maybe you should ask Bush to crack down on oil companies making record profits.
2008-08-02 20:24:02
Catbox
forgiveness
+505|6721
the rocket scientists are out now...lol...  "Offshore oil driling is only going to lower gas prices a couple of cents.."  please explain?

"Not that I care if the drill or not; but drilling in Alaska won't make any real difference. Unless oil is nationalized in the US that oil goes on the world market and would affect prices at home minimally."     huh?   It's in Alaska... it's our oil...lol
Love is the answer
2008-08-02 20:59:54
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6410|North Carolina

Kmarion wrote:

Turq didn't we just pass legislation demanding a minimal standard?
"The research from the Civil Society Institute, a not-for-profit think tank that focuses on energy and ecological issues, shows a growing “fuel-efficient car gap.”

CSI found that the number of vehicle models sold in the United States that achieve combined gas mileage of at least 40 miles per gallon actually has dropped from five in 2005 to just two in 2007 — the Honda Civic hybrid and the Toyota Prius hybrid.

Overseas, primarily in Europe, there are 113 vehicles for sale that get a combined 40 mpg, up from 86 in 2005. Combined gas mileage is the average of a vehicle’s city and highway mpg numbers.

Adding insult to injury is the fact that nearly two-thirds of the 113 highly fuel-efficient models that are unavailable to American consumers are either made by U.S.-based automobile manufacturers or by foreign manufacturers with substantial U.S. sales operations, such as Nissan and Toyota.

'These cars sold in Europe meet or exceed U.S. safety standards, so there is no reason why they shouldn’t be made available to U.S. consumers,' said CSI President Pam Solo.

'We have to face the unpleasant facts here: America is needlessly losing the race to develop the best fuel-efficient technology and then deliver it to the American consumer,' Solo said. 'U.S. consumers say they are willing to buy these cars, so the big U.S. automakers are actually going backwards at a time when it’s possible to make cars that are more fuel efficient.'

A national poll conducted for CSI shows that millions of Americans would welcome the introduction of the fuel-efficient cars now being sold overseas. Nearly nine out of 10 respondents to the survey thought U.S. consumers should have access to these vehicles.

The poll also found that Americans want Congress to boost fuel efficiency standards. Four out of five respondents, including 86 percent of Democrats and 76 percent of Republicans and independents, said that they would support 'Congress taking the lead to achieve the highest possible fuel efficiency as quickly as possible' by raising the fuel-efficiency requirements for U.S. vehicles to achieve the goal of 40 mpg."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17344368/

What the Bush administration has done is a good start, but it's not enough.  The standards should be mandatory by 2009, not 2011.

Kmarion wrote:

TBH it's the consumers who are really going to dictate a higher standard. It's already happening. GM has already began laying off workers and shutting down their SUV plants. No law was needed for that.
To a degree, yes.  However, government standards have the ability to speed up that process.
2008-08-03 11:33:36
Schittloaf
not fulla schit
+23|5908|MN

argo4 wrote:

why don't you all shove a tailpipe up your asses ...offshore drilling is gonna lower gas prices like a couple of cents. Maybe you should ask Bush to crack down on oil companies making record profits.
maybe you should find out how much profits the goverment is making on the record profits..
2008-08-03 11:37:30
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6410|North Carolina

Schittloaf wrote:

argo4 wrote:

why don't you all shove a tailpipe up your asses ...offshore drilling is gonna lower gas prices like a couple of cents. Maybe you should ask Bush to crack down on oil companies making record profits.
maybe you should find out how much profits the goverment is making on the record profits..
We actually tax gas a lot less than most of the First World.  We even repealed capital gains taxes for a while -- we wouldn't want the oil corporations to feel any pain.
2008-08-03 11:47:45
Schittloaf
not fulla schit
+23|5908|MN
not talking about other countries here turq .. we are talking about our country and the billions or maybe trillions of profit for  not doing a damn thing but tax a company for the goods it sells . 

If you don't like big oil then don't buy anything plastic, don't walk on asphalt , live in a grass hut and don't even think about anything modern because pretty much oil is the live blood of our modern day. almost everything around us has to do with oil.  oil companies are owned by shares and if one invests in such shares one would expect a profit.  drilling in the USA which has the most oil reserves would lower the cost at the pump because of free market trade. supply and demand.  fine if you want cars to be more fuel efficient but seriously gasoline or diesel is not the only byproducts of petroleum
2008-08-03 11:56:41
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6605|132 and Bush

Turquoise wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Turq didn't we just pass legislation demanding a minimal standard?
"The research from the Civil Society Institute, a not-for-profit think tank that focuses on energy and ecological issues, shows a growing “fuel-efficient car gap.”

CSI found that the number of vehicle models sold in the United States that achieve combined gas mileage of at least 40 miles per gallon actually has dropped from five in 2005 to just two in 2007 — the Honda Civic hybrid and the Toyota Prius hybrid.

Overseas, primarily in Europe, there are 113 vehicles for sale that get a combined 40 mpg, up from 86 in 2005. Combined gas mileage is the average of a vehicle’s city and highway mpg numbers.

Adding insult to injury is the fact that nearly two-thirds of the 113 highly fuel-efficient models that are unavailable to American consumers are either made by U.S.-based automobile manufacturers or by foreign manufacturers with substantial U.S. sales operations, such as Nissan and Toyota.

'These cars sold in Europe meet or exceed U.S. safety standards, so there is no reason why they shouldn’t be made available to U.S. consumers,' said CSI President Pam Solo.

'We have to face the unpleasant facts here: America is needlessly losing the race to develop the best fuel-efficient technology and then deliver it to the American consumer,' Solo said. 'U.S. consumers say they are willing to buy these cars, so the big U.S. automakers are actually going backwards at a time when it’s possible to make cars that are more fuel efficient.'

A national poll conducted for CSI shows that millions of Americans would welcome the introduction of the fuel-efficient cars now being sold overseas. Nearly nine out of 10 respondents to the survey thought U.S. consumers should have access to these vehicles.

The poll also found that Americans want Congress to boost fuel efficiency standards. Four out of five respondents, including 86 percent of Democrats and 76 percent of Republicans and independents, said that they would support 'Congress taking the lead to achieve the highest possible fuel efficiency as quickly as possible' by raising the fuel-efficiency requirements for U.S. vehicles to achieve the goal of 40 mpg."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17344368/

What the Bush administration has done is a good start, but it's not enough.  The standards should be mandatory by 2009, not 2011.

Kmarion wrote:

TBH it's the consumers who are really going to dictate a higher standard. It's already happening. GM has already began laying off workers and shutting down their SUV plants. No law was needed for that.
To a degree, yes.  However, government standards have the ability to speed up that process.
The auto market has already been "shocked" to the point thousands of job losses and plant shut downs. Speed up the process any more and you might as well completely fold. You must be under the impression that reshaping the entire US auto industry is as easy as flipping a switch. This should have been happening over the last 3 decades (With both Democratic and Republican presidents). To say what Bush is doing isn't enough without mentioning the total failure of every preceding president just shows how completely biased you are. To blame Detroit without considering the fact people didn't want these cars prior is also unreasonable.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2008-08-03 11:59:14
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6410|North Carolina

Schittloaf wrote:

not talking about other countries here turq .. we are talking about our country and the billions or maybe trillions of profit for  not doing a damn thing but tax a company for the goods it sells . 

If you don't like big oil then don't buy anything plastic, don't walk on asphalt , live in a grass hut and don't even think about anything modern because pretty much oil is the live blood of our modern day. almost everything around us has to do with oil.  oil companies are owned by shares and if one invests in such shares one would expect a profit.  drilling in the USA which has the most oil reserves would lower the cost at the pump because of free market trade. supply and demand.  fine if you want cars to be more fuel efficient but seriously gasoline or diesel is not the only byproducts of petroleum
Where did I say we should ditch oil altogether?  I was just pointing out that gas taxes here aren't very high compared to most other wealthy countries.

And if you're bothered by how much the government makes for "doing nothing", then maybe you should look into how much people in the upper management of corporations make for doing relatively little work.

The amount of money you make from something is rarely a direct correlation to how much you work.  It's more like who you know, how much someone wants or needs your product, and how clever you are.
2008-08-03 12:02:40
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6410|North Carolina

Kmarion wrote:

The auto market has already been "shocked" to the point thousands of job losses and plant shut downs. Speed up the process any more and you might as well completely fold. You must be under the impression that reshaping the entire US auto industry is as easy as flipping a switch. This should have been happening over the last 3 decades (With both Democratic and Republican presidents). To say what Bush is doing isn't enough without mentioning the total failure of every preceding president just shows how completely biased you are. To blame Detroit without considering the fact people didn't want these cars prior is also unreasonable.
Oh I agree.  Clinton definitely dropped the ball, as did the first Bush.

Reshaping the auto industry is definitely a slow process, but it could be done much faster via ending all corporate welfare to U.S. automakers and raising mpg standards faster.

People will want these cars if they are marketed properly and if they slowly become the only affordable choice they have.  Some of that will be accomplished via rising gas prices, but there are things the government can do as well (like ending tax breaks on SUV purchases).
2008-08-03 12:09:11
Schittloaf
not fulla schit
+23|5908|MN
well I know for a fact that Minnesota Politicians want another "Gas Tax" and also the talk about them damn big oil companys should be punished for making profits on goods it sells is nothing but utter bullshit . I agree with you about comapany executives I happen to work for a very large company and I get sickened by the greed . however I am thankful to have a well paying job.  I am a firm believer in Drill Here. Drill Now, Save Now.  this whole lie of 7-10 years before anyone see a drop in prices would be proven wrong . actually 6 months is all it would take to boost supply and around 1-2 years for new oil refineries . however where the problem would lie is with Congress and the Enviromentalists blocking the streamlining of such to be done in a timely manner.  thats the only thing that would make it take 10 years
2008-08-03 12:11:09
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6605|132 and Bush

Turquoise wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

The auto market has already been "shocked" to the point thousands of job losses and plant shut downs. Speed up the process any more and you might as well completely fold. You must be under the impression that reshaping the entire US auto industry is as easy as flipping a switch. This should have been happening over the last 3 decades (With both Democratic and Republican presidents). To say what Bush is doing isn't enough without mentioning the total failure of every preceding president just shows how completely biased you are. To blame Detroit without considering the fact people didn't want these cars prior is also unreasonable.
Oh I agree.  Clinton definitely dropped the ball, as did the first Bush.

Reshaping the auto industry is definitely a slow process, but it could be done much faster via ending all corporate welfare to U.S. automakers and raising mpg standards faster.

People will want these cars if they are marketed properly and if they slowly become the only affordable choice they have.  Some of that will be accomplished via rising gas prices, but there are things the government can do as well (like ending tax breaks on SUV purchases).
Tax breaks on SUVs? I know there are tax breaks on buying hybrids.. I sure as hell haven't heard (or gotten) any on an suv. In fact isn't there Gass Guzzler tax still in effect?
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2008-08-03 12:13:22
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6410|North Carolina

Schittloaf wrote:

well I know for a fact that Minnesota Politicians want another "Gas Tax" and also the talk about them damn big oil companys should be punished for making profits on goods it sells is nothing but utter bullshit . I agree with you about comapany executives I happen to work for a very large company and I get sickened by the greed . however I am thankful to have a well paying job.  I am a firm believer in Drill Here. Drill Now, Save Now.  this whole lie of 7-10 years before anyone see a drop in prices would be proven wrong . actually 6 months is all it would take to boost supply and around 1-2 years for new oil refineries . however where the problem would lie is with Congress and the Enviromentalists blocking the streamlining of such to be done in a timely manner.  thats the only thing that would make it take 10 years
It's not a lie.  The transition takes time.

I'm also in favor of more drilling and especially building more refineries, but again, it's not just Democrats and environmentalists against drilling and refineries.  I can assure you that, say, the majority of citizens in Minneapolis would be against building a refinery right next to them, even if there was a lot of oil there.  People don't want to have to deal with the pollution that comes from refineries, so they often have to find places where few people live or areas where the economy is depressed to lobby for building a refinery.

It's a perfect "not in my backyard" situation.
2008-08-03 12:14:59
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6410|North Carolina

Kmarion wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

The auto market has already been "shocked" to the point thousands of job losses and plant shut downs. Speed up the process any more and you might as well completely fold. You must be under the impression that reshaping the entire US auto industry is as easy as flipping a switch. This should have been happening over the last 3 decades (With both Democratic and Republican presidents). To say what Bush is doing isn't enough without mentioning the total failure of every preceding president just shows how completely biased you are. To blame Detroit without considering the fact people didn't want these cars prior is also unreasonable.
Oh I agree.  Clinton definitely dropped the ball, as did the first Bush.

Reshaping the auto industry is definitely a slow process, but it could be done much faster via ending all corporate welfare to U.S. automakers and raising mpg standards faster.

People will want these cars if they are marketed properly and if they slowly become the only affordable choice they have.  Some of that will be accomplished via rising gas prices, but there are things the government can do as well (like ending tax breaks on SUV purchases).
Tax breaks on SUVs? I know there are tax breaks on buying hybrids.. I sure as hell haven't heard (or gotten) any on an suv. In fact isn't there Gass Guzzler tax still in effect?
At one point, the Bush administration put a tax break on all SUVs beyond a certain weight.  It mostly applied to things like Land Rovers.  I would guess a Ford Explorer would be far too light in weight to apply.

I don't know if that break has been lifted.
2008-08-03 12:20:40
Schittloaf
not fulla schit
+23|5908|MN

Turquoise wrote:

Schittloaf wrote:

well I know for a fact that Minnesota Politicians want another "Gas Tax" and also the talk about them damn big oil companys should be punished for making profits on goods it sells is nothing but utter bullshit . I agree with you about comapany executives I happen to work for a very large company and I get sickened by the greed . however I am thankful to have a well paying job.  I am a firm believer in Drill Here. Drill Now, Save Now.  this whole lie of 7-10 years before anyone see a drop in prices would be proven wrong . actually 6 months is all it would take to boost supply and around 1-2 years for new oil refineries . however where the problem would lie is with Congress and the Enviromentalists blocking the streamlining of such to be done in a timely manner.  thats the only thing that would make it take 10 years
It's not a lie.  The transition takes time.

I'm also in favor of more drilling and especially building more refineries, but again, it's not just Democrats and environmentalists against drilling and refineries.  I can assure you that, say, the majority of citizens in Minneapolis would be against building a refinery right next to them, even if there was a lot of oil there.  People don't want to have to deal with the pollution that comes from refineries, so they often have to find places where few people live or areas where the economy is depressed to lobby for building a refinery.

It's a perfect "not in my backyard" situation.
it is the dems and enviromentalist ..  they decided to take a long vacation insted of even a up/down vote on it. Republicans stayed on the floor to protest it .

actually there is a refinery south of St.Paul that has had several additons to it over the years .. highly unlikely they would want to build a new one in a highly populated area. there is plenty of land to build these refineries but the the Eviromentalist movement Blocks the way.
2008-08-03 12:21:08
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6605|132 and Bush

Turquoise wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Oh I agree.  Clinton definitely dropped the ball, as did the first Bush.

Reshaping the auto industry is definitely a slow process, but it could be done much faster via ending all corporate welfare to U.S. automakers and raising mpg standards faster.

People will want these cars if they are marketed properly and if they slowly become the only affordable choice they have.  Some of that will be accomplished via rising gas prices, but there are things the government can do as well (like ending tax breaks on SUV purchases).
Tax breaks on SUVs? I know there are tax breaks on buying hybrids.. I sure as hell haven't heard (or gotten) any on an suv. In fact isn't there Gass Guzzler tax still in effect?
At one point, the Bush administration put a tax break on all SUVs beyond a certain weight.  It mostly applied to things like Land Rovers.  I would guess a Ford Explorer would be far too light in weight to apply.

I don't know if that break has been lifted.
He changed some vehicles that fell under the guzzler tax so that some businesses could comply with the Americans with disabilities act. In essence if you need a large vehicle because your job demanded it you would not be taxed like the people who drive SUV's for the hell of it.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2008-08-03 12:23:15
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,973|6637|949

Kmarion wrote:

In essence if you need a large vehicle because your job demanded it you would not be taxed like the people who drive SUV's for the hell of it.


Don't you drive a Jeep Cherokee? LOL
2008-08-03 12:23:46
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6410|North Carolina

Schittloaf wrote:

it is the dems and enviromentalist ..  they decided to take a long vacation insted of even a up/down vote on it. Republicans stayed on the floor to protest it .

actually there is a refinery south of St.Paul that has had several additons to it over the years .. highly unlikely they would want to build a new one in a highly populated area. there is plenty of land to build these refineries but the the Eviromentalist movement Blocks the way.
My mistake.  I didn't realize you had a refinery in that area.  Well, let me put it this way.  I also live in a city with a refinery.  The air pollution is some of the worst in the Southeast.  My brother has chronic bronchitis as a result of it.

I may have some liberal views, but it's personal experience as to why I would reject having another refinery built in my city.
2008-08-03 12:25:18
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6605|132 and Bush

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

In essence if you need a large vehicle because your job demanded it you would not be taxed like the people who drive SUV's for the hell of it.


Don't you drive a Jeep Cherokee? LOL
8 cylinder too. It's paid off.. hardly for the hell of it...lol *18 /mpg
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2008-08-03 12:31:48
Schittloaf
not fulla schit
+23|5908|MN

Turquoise wrote:

Schittloaf wrote:

it is the dems and enviromentalist ..  they decided to take a long vacation insted of even a up/down vote on it. Republicans stayed on the floor to protest it .

actually there is a refinery south of St.Paul that has had several additons to it over the years .. highly unlikely they would want to build a new one in a highly populated area. there is plenty of land to build these refineries but the the Eviromentalist movement Blocks the way.
My mistake.  I didn't realize you had a refinery in that area.  Well, let me put it this way.  I also live in a city with a refinery.  The air pollution is some of the worst in the Southeast.  My brother has chronic bronchitis as a result of it.

I may have some liberal views, but it's personal experience as to why I would reject having another refinery built in my city.
you have to admit the refineries we have now is old technology , perhaps with modern build the polution wouldnt be so bad and alittle more regulated. i agree the smell from that area is aweful .. a city close to where I live there is a garbage landfill the odor from the methane from rotting garbage is terrible . they used to burn it off .. but someone made a way to use that methane from the landfill to make electricity. only problem is with no afterburner on the stacks it stinks to holy hell around that place. 

thing is if some bug or plant is in the way of a place to build a new refinery far away from mass population I can bet the Enviromentalist will have a problem with displacing nature. while they drink from a plastic bottle and get in thier suv.
2008-08-03 12:34:15
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6410|North Carolina

Schittloaf wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Schittloaf wrote:

it is the dems and enviromentalist ..  they decided to take a long vacation insted of even a up/down vote on it. Republicans stayed on the floor to protest it .

actually there is a refinery south of St.Paul that has had several additons to it over the years .. highly unlikely they would want to build a new one in a highly populated area. there is plenty of land to build these refineries but the the Eviromentalist movement Blocks the way.
My mistake.  I didn't realize you had a refinery in that area.  Well, let me put it this way.  I also live in a city with a refinery.  The air pollution is some of the worst in the Southeast.  My brother has chronic bronchitis as a result of it.

I may have some liberal views, but it's personal experience as to why I would reject having another refinery built in my city.
you have to admit the refineries we have now is old technology , perhaps with modern build the polution wouldnt be so bad and alittle more regulated. i agree the smell from that area is aweful .. a city close to where I live there is a garbage landfill the odor from the methane from rotting garbage is terrible . they used to burn it off .. but someone made a way to use that methane from the landfill to make electricity. only problem is with no afterburner on the stacks it stinks to holy hell around that place. 

thing is if some bug or plant is in the way of a place to build a new refinery far away from mass population I can bet the Enviromentalist will have a problem with displacing nature. while they drink from a plastic bottle and get in thier suv.
While it is true that better technology often equals better pollution control, part of what is required is more regulation.  The only way you'll willingly see refineries run cleaner is via higher pollution standards.  That's part of the legitimate worries that environmentalists have.  This sort of thing becomes a public health issue.
2008-08-03 12:39:11
Schittloaf
not fulla schit
+23|5908|MN
but our congress wont build new refineries or nuke power plants which our current plants are generations behind in technology . which is what they should be doing with that tax money that they have made from oil . reinvestment into helping our country be more self dependant .. insted of  middle east dependant
2008-08-03 12:40:11
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6410|North Carolina

Schittloaf wrote:

but our congress wont build new refineries or nuke power plants which our current plants are generations behind in technology . which is what they should be doing with that tax money that they have made from oil . reinvestment into helping our country be more self dependant .. insted of  middle east dependant
For the most part, I agree.  Don't expect oil men with Saudi connections to favor that idea though (like Bush).

 

Pages: 1 2 3

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard