If it gets to $120/barrel, I imagine that bugaboo everyone has had at the back of their minds will come true: $4/gallon gas! At least, here in California. :-(
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
It's an old Tecumseh 4 horse horizontal shaft running a Troy-Bilt made just before Troy-Bilt went banko and got bought out by ... MTD? It was a freebie when a neighbor moved but I'm about ready to Craigslist it for parts, since the carb bowl tends to leak, even after new needle, float, gaskets, etc. The Troy-Bilt part of it has its own set of problems. I bet a Chinese one from Harbor Freight would run better. :P
I'm well aware of the visions of distributed generation (I spent 23 years as an engineer in the utility industry). Unfortunately, most of these visions suggest that local, even individual, generation will supply an increasing amount of energy needs while assuming that a common distribution system remains in place to address availability. There's nothing wrong with that so long as the cost of the network is considered and I've not seen that in popular discussions. Nor can one base that cost on existing minimum service rates since those rates were based on a system intended to supply energy, not provide a back-up source with minimal energy sales. If the public is willing to accept a distributed generation system without interconnection and the intermittent power supply that represents, then that's another story, but I don't think so.
Sorry, can't buy that. More efficient vehicles can make those "other reasons" that are increasing miles driven more feasible.
Ok your opinion is noted. However the study specifically quantified what were the causes of increased Vehicle Miles Travelled ( VMT ) for the period from 77-2000. CAFE was not one of the causes. ..increased population ..more drivers on the road ....more women in the work force ....more younger drivers ....more older drivers ..more trips for each of us, likely due to more working couples ..more vehicles on the road, reflected by increased auto production, due to fewer multi-passenger trips ( i.e. more driver-only vehicles )
For example, if people live 50 miles away from work, as opposed to 10 miles away, I doubt that they will say that more efficient vehicles were the driving force behind that decision.
They almost always say that the reason for living farther away from work is better neighborhoods, better schools, larger houses available at more reasonable prices, etc.
The bottom line is that more efficient vehicles make driving less expensive, and thus make it feasible to locate 50 miles away from work in pursuit of those other goals.
(And while people may say that they hate commutes, from what I've seen, they hate small houses and iffy schools even more, especially if they have children.)
Yes this is hard to quantify or to show any causal relationship. However It was not the more efficient vehicles of the 80's and 90s that might have caused the 'rush to the suburbs'. Consider that for a large segment of new vehicles the SUVs and big trucks there was almost NO improvement in fuel economy over the 70s. The key factor if there is one here was the ultra ultra ultra low cost of fuel relative to our sudden riches from other sources. You note this below.
Interestingly, for all of the complaints about high gasoline prices, today gasoline takes a smaller percentage of household income - even with higher prices - than it did in 1962, when gasoline was supposedly so cheap.
Agreed here. From the late 80s through to the present we have been fat, dumb and happy with first a soaring stock market that made gobs of millionaires on paper, followed by the surge in housing that gave nearly everyone their own personal ATM at home. In addition fuel was historically low so the concept of fuel conservation was a non-runner.
It wasn't so much the fact that vehicles were more efficient but that the cost of the fuel to run them, no matter how efficient or inefficient, just didn't matter. BTW, CAFE has already saved billion of gallons of fuel during the 20+ years it's been in effect. Without it being in force from the 80s to today there's absolutely no indication that the vehicle makers would have made any effort to give us the minimally efficient ones that we now have. In fact it's probable from their history of fighting any mandatory improvements that without CAFE we'd have no improvement at all over the 12-14 mpg of the mid 70's.
Well nothing has happened for the last 20 yrs. It's about time again for a new effort especially since we are on the verge of a potential catastrophe.
With oil hitting $95 per bbl I think the whole country can plan on $4.50 to $5.00 next spring. Oil was $60 per bbl on Jan 1 of this year and gas hit $3.25-$4.00 in most parts.
According to an economist I heard speak on the NPR news late last week, it seems that gas rises roughly $0.25/gallon for every $10 rise in the price of oil. So $95/barrel, comes out to something like $4/gallon next spring. That's assuming OPEC doesn't squabble amongst themselves, we have no more hurricanes that knock out any production, and political probems in Venezuela and Nigeria (to name two) don't rock the oil supply "boat". And of course, those are only two of the many politically unstable situations that could destabilize the oil supply...
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Good article in NY Times about how gains in economy with hybrids are getting more difficult. One key statement from Toyota on the improvement in CO2 emissions with a plugin:
"Cuts in carbon dioxide emissions depend on the source of the electrical power. Toyota calculates that in the United States, with its dependence on coal, the plug-in hybrid would cut carbon emissions 4 percent compared with a conventional Prius; in France, where more nuclear plants generate electricity, the reduction would be 34 percent."
Four percent?!? That's close to zero! You can read more here: NYT hybrids article
kdhspyder: your opinion is noted. However the study specifically quantified what were the causes of increased Vehicle Miles Travelled ( VMT ) for the period from 77-2000. CAFE was not one of the causes. ..increased population ..more drivers on the road ....more women in the work force ....more younger drivers ....more older drivers ..more trips for each of us, likely due to more working couples ..more vehicles on the road, reflected by increased auto production, due to fewer multi-passenger trips ( i.e. more driver-only vehicles )
Note that several of the factors cited by the study - more vehicles on the road, more single-passenger trips, more working women - are all made more feasible when vehicles are more efficient.
When driving costs less, people will do more of it, and place less priority on saving fuel when planning not only their daily routines, but also where to live and where to work.
The problem with your study is that it stopped short of all the questions it needed to ask to get an accurate reason of why vehicle miles are traveled.
Saying, "there are more single-occupant trips" is worthless. We need to know WHY there are more single-occupant trips. If it is because of development patterns, we need to know WHY sprawling development, which requires lots of driving, is now feasible. Your study doesn't answer those questions.
kdhspyder: It was not the more efficient vehicles of the 80's and 90s that might have caused the 'rush to the suburbs'. Consider that for a large segment of new vehicles the SUVs and big trucks there was almost NO improvement in fuel economy over the 70s.
I was there in the 1970s, and this is not accurate. Even the midsized SUVs get better mileage than a typical full-size and intermediate 1970s car.
Prior to the GM downsizing that began in 1977, in the real world, the big boats often got less than 10 mpg around town, and many of the intermediates were lucky to break 15 mpg on the highway.
In the early 1990s, I had a 1972 Oldsmobile Cutlass Supreme with the Olds 350 V-8 (four-barrel carb, dual exhaust) in excellent condition. It was lucky to hit 14 mpg on the highway, cruising steadily at 65 mph, and with the engine in top tune.
Speaking of tuning, most 1970s cars in actual use WEREN'T in top tune, because, if I recall correctly, only California had instituted emissions inspections, and computerized engine controls and reliable fuel injection (on domestics, anyway) were virtually unknown.
kdhspyder: Without it being in force from the 80s to today there's absolutely no indication that the vehicle makers would have made any effort to give us the minimally efficient ones that we now have.
No, when the price of gas rises, consumers shift to smaller cars, and the fleet averages of vehicles sold has EXCEEDED the requirements contained in CAFE.
kdhsypder: Well nothing has happened for the last 20 yrs. It's about time again for a new effort especially since we are on the verge of a potential catastrophe.
We've been on the verge of a potential catastrophe since I was in grade school. Somehow, we've managed to survive.
Here's a good article about how the UK is not seeing the full benefits from increased efficiency because of what they call the 'rebound effect'. It gives two examples of the potential causes 1) people drive more when they have a more-efficient car; and 2) people spend the money they save on energy on other things that also consume energy. rebound effect
We seem to be of the same age so we've experienced the same ups and downs from the 'booms' of the 50s through the 'malaise' of the 60-70s.
Starting from the bottom up, yes we have survived because we've done something to improve conditions or to avoid a catastrophe. This is precisely what is needed right now starting this year; more alternative fuels, more conservation of our current supply, less congestion, less drivers ( very unlikely ), more use of mass transit, less use of petrol-based fuel by each vehicle.
Reagarding the CAFE standards they've been stalled for at least 15 yrs due to pressures from all the vehicle makers. The curve since about '92 is almost dead flat. Of course if you overlay the curve of the price of fuel it's perfectly understandable. When fuel is less than an afterthough why 'force' any vehicle maker to improve the efficieny continually?
This then goes to the main difference we have. It's not the fact that vehicles are more efficient that gave rise to the increase of drivers. Just because in the 80s vehicles became more efficient that society decided to accept more working women rather than stay-at-home Moms. It was socio-economic issues far greater than more efficient vehicles that fueled this growth in drivers. Again low fuel prices are IMO far more important.
The two largest factors in the increase of VMT was 1) we as a driving population took one addtional trip per day; 2) there were far more of us in 2000 than in 1977 ( population growth ). However our average trip length only increased by about 1 mi. This data supports that we are not driving longer distances only that we are using our vehicles more often and there's more of us doing that.
The average fuel economy for the national fleet was about 12-15 mpg in the late 70's. After the implementation of CAFE is jumped by 50% to over 20 mpg and it's stayed there ever since.
This all began in '77 and was studied through to the end of the century.
Global warming”: the Left’s last best chance to gain a stranglehold on our political system and economy.
For decades, environmentalism has been the Left’s best excuse for increasing government control over our actions in ways both large and small. It’s for Mother Earth! It’s for the children! It’s for the whales! But until now, the doomsday-scenario environmental scares they’ve trumped up haven’t been large enough to justify the lifestyle restrictions they want to impose. With global warming, however, greenhouse gasbags can argue that auto emissions in Ohio threaten people in Paris, and that only “global governance” (Jacques Chirac’s words) can tackle such problems.
The Left’s manipulation of environmental issues has political purposes— but there is incontrovertible evidence for the fact that catastrophic man-made global warming is just more Chicken-Little hysteria, not actual science., although Al Gore and his cronies among the media elites and UN globalists endlessly bleat that “global warming” is an unprecedented global crisis, they really think of it as a dream come true. It’s the ideal scare campaign for those who hate capitalism and love big government. If global warming really were as bad as the Leftist doomsayers insist it is, then no policy imaginable could “solve” it. According to the logic of the greens’ own numbers, no matter how much we sacrifice there would still be more to do. That makes global warming the bottomless well of excuses for the relentless growth of big government.
The full anti-American, anti-capitalist, and anti-human agenda of today’s environmentalists, “green on the outside, red to the core.” use strong-arm legal tactics—and worse—against those who dare to point out the weakness of their arguments for global warming.
It’s time to stand up to the environmentalist industry and insist human beings are not the enemy. :mad:
You preach it. We do need to get the message across to those that believe everything a politician tells them. When all the major advocates of Global Warming cut their lifestyle to where I am, then I will believe it is more than just big Government zealots wanting to tax us more and grow a Socalist state similar to the old Soviet Union.
The right is awfully good at providing criticism (some of it valid) but is not skilled at creating change.
What change might that be? Should Congress mandate that we all drive a Yugo? Or burn down all the homes bigger than needed, as one wacko liberal group ELF, has done. It is the Left that is advocating regressive changes. And it always ends up with higher taxes for middle class tax payers. Unless you think those Carbon Credits being talked about are going to be passed out at the Presidential campaigns for free.
I personally think the Liberals like to get the have-nots fired up to push more of the Socialist agenda. It is the Democrats that want to tax more and allow less expansion. Expansion that is needed if we are to have jobs for those wanting to work.
I am looking for a big backlash against all these political lies that have gotten most of the world stirred up over nothing.
So the rest of us are trying to figure out what we're going to be driving in the next twenty years. Which is the topic of this discussion.
You know what Big Al wants you to drive. An econobox without an ICE. GW & Arnie figured out it was a way to raise taxes without looking bad. Both of them are big disappointments for conservative voters.
The real money - Wall Street - has it figured out; regardless of the science, there's an environmental gold rush happening. (big spread in the 10/29/07 edition)
"From Capitol Hill to California and Brussels to Beijing, multinational companies are stepping up their lobbying and tweaking their product lines in response to demands that they get more environmentally attuned. New companies -- even new industries -- are challenging the established giants to exploit a growing market for everything from green cars to green fuels."
Unlike the '70's energy spike, rising demand plus GW concerns are going to affect big swaths of our life.
A new grocery just opened up 2 miles away next to the Home Depot, my barber and bank etc. It's a 45 mph collector street to get there, but I could see running most of my errands on a golf cart rig, especially if they toned the speed limit down a notch. There's also a back way to the library and restaurant row another mile further - something with 20 or 30 miles of range would be plenty for that stuff.
I'm not so concerned with GW as I am with gunfire at the pumps. In either event I have my 'insurance policy' already which will allow me to drive pretty much as I please, whenever I want, for about half the cost ( whatever that will be ) than the rest of the population.
If fuel is ever limited by political unrest here or abroad, or the quantity we're allowed to purchase is limited by mandate, or the price goes up off the charts I'll still be OK.
If the price of gas gets too high, it may have an affect on some people's driving habits. Have not seen any change yet. I remember my many trips over the Alaska Highway. Gas was as much as twice what I was used to. I still bought it to get on my journey. I see no indication of shortage. Just high gas prices following along with the high price of Crude oil.
Look at the bright side. It is helping the economy in Alaska, Texas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Mexico and Canada. All friends that can use the money. If you buy ARCO gas it is from domestic crude oil. Buy American OIL!!!!
The article says that all European countries are expected to have one by 2010. I'd say that will shape the European cars we will get in future, anyway...
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
I agree with the article. I think the corn ethanol boondoggle is just more Corporate welfare. Filling the pockets of executives at ADM and Verasun. Making gas more expensive with the ethanol added and raising the price of food. I don't think they can prove it has cut imports by even one gallon. Possibly increased oil imports.
The plants being built for distilling corn ethanol will be worthless piles of tax payers money when they come up with a way to get ethanol cheaply out of switchgrass and wood chips. It is an entirely different process. You would not see any corn ethanol plants being built if not for government loan guarantees.
Coal is a fossil fuel. I think it is best used to generate electricity. It can be used cleanly. I don't see any cut backs in using coal for electric generation in the next couple decades.
He drinks too much soda pop to be considered totally credible I liked his non hysteric approach, better than anything out of Hollywood or Washington DC.
Ok, where do I get a Yugo? Seriously, I think it is best to keep planting trees and not using more fossil fuel than needed. I find World Wide public policy to be counter to what we should be doing. Cutting down forests to grown corn, sugar or palm trees for fuel does not make sense. Building cars that are not worth fixing after the warranty expires or they get in a small crash. More HP to carry the added weight, for what?
If he's right, we'll have to rename this discussion to "How Will Global Warming Mothball The Vehicles We Used to Drive?"
Soda pop - I remember that. High fructose corn syrup, right? :shades: I did have a Jones soda made with cane sugar last week but I'm sticking with ice tea. (And no, that's not one of my usual typos - ice tea is the Southern usage).
I bought a case of Boylan Soda at Costco about a year ago. It is made with only Cane Sugar as well. It is almost half gone. Once in a great while I have an urge for a sugar fix. We look at every package now. If it has HFCS as a major ingredient we don't buy it. We feed hummingbirds to the tune of a gallon of nectar a day through most of the year. If they will get sick on anything but REAL Cane Sugar, it must have some truth to it.
I don't think you will see much movement away from fossil fuel until it is in fact in short supply. OPEC cutting quotas is not an indicator it is in short supply. It is greed and an attempt to bring the US down economically.
I think it is mostly that crack pot in Venezuela that is after US. Though he continues to feed at the US trough. You are right about investment in this country by most of the Middle East countries. Probably more than we should have allowed.
Comments
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Is that one of those little Chinese things on a Ryobi? I had the same problems. Makes me worry about what Chery will stick on theirs!
It's all about cost, and there is NO free lunch.
Ok your opinion is noted. However the study specifically quantified what were the causes of increased Vehicle Miles Travelled ( VMT ) for the period from 77-2000. CAFE was not one of the causes.
..increased population
..more drivers on the road
....more women in the work force
....more younger drivers
....more older drivers
..more trips for each of us, likely due to more working couples
..more vehicles on the road, reflected by increased auto production, due to fewer multi-passenger trips ( i.e. more driver-only vehicles )
For example, if people live 50 miles away from work, as opposed to 10 miles away, I doubt that they will say that more efficient vehicles were the driving force behind that decision.
They almost always say that the reason for living farther away from work is better neighborhoods, better schools, larger houses available at more reasonable prices, etc.
The bottom line is that more efficient vehicles make driving less expensive, and thus make it feasible to locate 50 miles away from work in pursuit of those other goals.
(And while people may say that they hate commutes, from what I've seen, they hate small houses and iffy schools even more, especially if they have children.)
Yes this is hard to quantify or to show any causal relationship. However It was not the more efficient vehicles of the 80's and 90s that might have caused the 'rush to the suburbs'. Consider that for a large segment of new vehicles the SUVs and big trucks there was almost NO improvement in fuel economy over the 70s. The key factor if there is one here was the ultra ultra ultra low cost of fuel relative to our sudden riches from other sources. You note this below.
Interestingly, for all of the complaints about high gasoline prices, today gasoline takes a smaller percentage of household income - even with higher prices - than it did in 1962, when gasoline was supposedly so cheap.
Agreed here. From the late 80s through to the present we have been fat, dumb and happy with first a soaring stock market that made gobs of millionaires on paper, followed by the surge in housing that gave nearly everyone their own personal ATM at home. In addition fuel was historically low so the concept of fuel conservation was a non-runner.
It wasn't so much the fact that vehicles were more efficient but that the cost of the fuel to run them, no matter how efficient or inefficient, just didn't matter. BTW, CAFE has already saved billion of gallons of fuel during the 20+ years it's been in effect. Without it being in force from the 80s to today there's absolutely no indication that the vehicle makers would have made any effort to give us the minimally efficient ones that we now have. In fact it's probable from their history of fighting any mandatory improvements that without CAFE we'd have no improvement at all over the 12-14 mpg of the mid 70's.
Well nothing has happened for the last 20 yrs. It's about time again for a new effort especially since we are on the verge of a potential catastrophe.
Add a 50% increase to that for next spring.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
"Cuts in carbon dioxide emissions depend on the source of the electrical power. Toyota calculates that in the United States, with its dependence on coal, the plug-in hybrid would cut carbon emissions 4 percent compared with a conventional Prius; in France, where more nuclear plants generate electricity, the reduction would be 34 percent."
Four percent?!? That's close to zero! You can read more here: NYT hybrids article
..increased population
..more drivers on the road
....more women in the work force
....more younger drivers
....more older drivers
..more trips for each of us, likely due to more working couples
..more vehicles on the road, reflected by increased auto production, due to fewer multi-passenger trips ( i.e. more driver-only vehicles )
Note that several of the factors cited by the study - more vehicles on the road, more single-passenger trips, more working women - are all made more feasible when vehicles are more efficient.
When driving costs less, people will do more of it, and place less priority on saving fuel when planning not only their daily routines, but also where to live and where to work.
The problem with your study is that it stopped short of all the questions it needed to ask to get an accurate reason of why vehicle miles are traveled.
Saying, "there are more single-occupant trips" is worthless. We need to know WHY there are more single-occupant trips. If it is because of development patterns, we need to know WHY sprawling development, which requires lots of driving, is now feasible. Your study doesn't answer those questions.
kdhspyder: It was not the more efficient vehicles of the 80's and 90s that might have caused the 'rush to the suburbs'. Consider that for a large segment of new vehicles the SUVs and big trucks there was almost NO improvement in fuel economy over the 70s.
I was there in the 1970s, and this is not accurate. Even the midsized SUVs get better mileage than a typical full-size and intermediate 1970s car.
Prior to the GM downsizing that began in 1977, in the real world, the big boats often got less than 10 mpg around town, and many of the intermediates were lucky to break 15 mpg on the highway.
In the early 1990s, I had a 1972 Oldsmobile Cutlass Supreme with the Olds 350 V-8 (four-barrel carb, dual exhaust) in excellent condition. It was lucky to hit 14 mpg on the highway, cruising steadily at 65 mph, and with the engine in top tune.
Speaking of tuning, most 1970s cars in actual use WEREN'T in top tune, because, if I recall correctly, only California had instituted emissions inspections, and computerized engine controls and reliable fuel injection (on domestics, anyway) were virtually unknown.
kdhspyder: Without it being in force from the 80s to today there's absolutely no indication that the vehicle makers would have made any effort to give us the minimally efficient ones that we now have.
No, when the price of gas rises, consumers shift to smaller cars, and the fleet averages of vehicles sold has EXCEEDED the requirements contained in CAFE.
kdhsypder: Well nothing has happened for the last 20 yrs. It's about time again for a new effort especially since we are on the verge of a potential catastrophe.
We've been on the verge of a potential catastrophe since I was in grade school. Somehow, we've managed to survive.
rebound effect
Starting from the bottom up, yes we have survived because we've done something to improve conditions or to avoid a catastrophe. This is precisely what is needed right now starting this year; more alternative fuels, more conservation of our current supply, less congestion, less drivers ( very unlikely ), more use of mass transit, less use of petrol-based fuel by each vehicle.
Reagarding the CAFE standards they've been stalled for at least 15 yrs due to pressures from all the vehicle makers. The curve since about '92 is almost dead flat. Of course if you overlay the curve of the price of fuel it's perfectly understandable. When fuel is less than an afterthough why 'force' any vehicle maker to improve the efficieny continually?
This then goes to the main difference we have. It's not the fact that vehicles are more efficient that gave rise to the increase of drivers. Just because in the 80s vehicles became more efficient that society decided to accept more working women rather than stay-at-home Moms. It was socio-economic issues far greater than more efficient vehicles that fueled this growth in drivers. Again low fuel prices are IMO far more important.
The two largest factors in the increase of VMT was 1) we as a driving population took one addtional trip per day; 2) there were far more of us in 2000 than in 1977 ( population growth ). However our average trip length only increased by about 1 mi. This data supports that we are not driving longer distances only that we are using our vehicles more often and there's more of us doing that.
The average fuel economy for the national fleet was about 12-15 mpg in the late 70's. After the implementation of CAFE is jumped by 50% to over 20 mpg and it's stayed there ever since.
This all began in '77 and was studied through to the end of the century.
For decades, environmentalism has been the Left’s best excuse for increasing government control over our actions in ways both large and small. It’s for Mother Earth! It’s for the children! It’s for the whales! But until now, the doomsday-scenario environmental scares they’ve trumped up haven’t been large enough to justify the lifestyle restrictions they want to impose. With global warming, however, greenhouse gasbags can argue that auto emissions in Ohio threaten people in Paris, and that only “global governance” (Jacques Chirac’s words) can tackle such problems.
The Left’s manipulation of environmental issues has political purposes— but there is incontrovertible evidence for the fact that catastrophic man-made global warming is just more Chicken-Little hysteria, not actual science., although Al Gore and his cronies among the media elites and UN globalists endlessly bleat that “global warming” is an unprecedented global crisis, they really think of it as a dream come true. It’s the ideal scare campaign for those who hate capitalism and love big government. If global warming really were as bad as the Leftist doomsayers insist it is, then no policy imaginable could “solve” it. According to the logic of the greens’ own numbers, no matter how much we sacrifice there would still be more to do. That makes global warming the bottomless well of excuses for the relentless growth of big government.
The full anti-American, anti-capitalist, and anti-human agenda of today’s environmentalists, “green on the outside, red to the core.” use strong-arm legal tactics—and worse—against those who dare to point out the weakness of their arguments for global warming.
It’s time to stand up to the environmentalist industry and insist human beings are not the enemy. :mad:
So the rest of us are trying to figure out what we're going to be driving in the next twenty years. Which is the topic of this discussion. :shades:
What change might that be? Should Congress mandate that we all drive a Yugo? Or burn down all the homes bigger than needed, as one wacko liberal group ELF, has done. It is the Left that is advocating regressive changes. And it always ends up with higher taxes for middle class tax payers. Unless you think those Carbon Credits being talked about are going to be passed out at the Presidential campaigns for free.
I personally think the Liberals like to get the have-nots fired up to push more of the Socialist agenda. It is the Democrats that want to tax more and allow less expansion. Expansion that is needed if we are to have jobs for those wanting to work.
I am looking for a big backlash against all these political lies that have gotten most of the world stirred up over nothing.
You know what Big Al wants you to drive. An econobox without an ICE. GW & Arnie figured out it was a way to raise taxes without looking bad. Both of them are big disappointments for conservative voters.
The real money - Wall Street - has it figured out; regardless of the science, there's an environmental gold rush happening. (big spread in the 10/29/07 edition)
"From Capitol Hill to California and Brussels to Beijing, multinational companies are stepping up their lobbying and tweaking their product lines in response to demands that they get more environmentally attuned. New companies -- even new industries -- are challenging the established giants to exploit a growing market for everything from green cars to green fuels."
Unlike the '70's energy spike, rising demand plus GW concerns are going to affect big swaths of our life.
So what are you going to buy next to commute in?
A new grocery just opened up 2 miles away next to the Home Depot, my barber and bank etc. It's a 45 mph collector street to get there, but I could see running most of my errands on a golf cart rig, especially if they toned the speed limit down a notch. There's also a back way to the library and restaurant row another mile further - something with 20 or 30 miles of range would be plenty for that stuff.
If fuel is ever limited by political unrest here or abroad, or the quantity we're allowed to purchase is limited by mandate, or the price goes up off the charts I'll still be OK.
Look at the bright side. It is helping the economy in Alaska, Texas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Mexico and Canada. All friends that can use the money. If you buy ARCO gas it is from domestic crude oil. Buy American OIL!!!!
http://www.autonews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071106/ANE02/71106009/1170/- emailblast02
The article says that all European countries are expected to have one by 2010. I'd say that will shape the European cars we will get in future, anyway...
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
If I really feel the need to drive, and drive fast I slip Forza2 in the XBox!
-Rocky
P.S. What do you think gagrice ?????
The plants being built for distilling corn ethanol will be worthless piles of tax payers money when they come up with a way to get ethanol cheaply out of switchgrass and wood chips. It is an entirely different process. You would not see any corn ethanol plants being built if not for government loan guarantees.
Coal is a fossil fuel. I think it is best used to generate electricity. It can be used cleanly. I don't see any cut backs in using coal for electric generation in the next couple decades.
"The potential consequences (of GW) are severe enough to make Al Gore look like a sissy Pollyanna with no guts who sugarcoated the bad news."
Most Terrifying Video You'll Ever See (YouTube)
Ok, where do I get a Yugo? Seriously, I think it is best to keep planting trees and not using more fossil fuel than needed. I find World Wide public policy to be counter to what we should be doing. Cutting down forests to grown corn, sugar or palm trees for fuel does not make sense. Building cars that are not worth fixing after the warranty expires or they get in a small crash. More HP to carry the added weight, for what?
I could go on.
Soda pop - I remember that. High fructose corn syrup, right? :shades: I did have a Jones soda made with cane sugar last week but I'm sticking with ice tea. (And no, that's not one of my usual typos - ice tea is the Southern usage).
I don't think you will see much movement away from fossil fuel until it is in fact in short supply. OPEC cutting quotas is not an indicator it is in short supply. It is greed and an attempt to bring the US down economically.
Some alternatives to oil would be nice to have, but it sure looks like crude will continue to drive 80% of our economy for decades to come.