My facts on oil are 100% correct. Google the topic and do the research. For example, the US Gov't estimates that Canada has over 180 billion barrels of PROVEN oil reserves WHEN YOU INCLUDE THE SANDS OF ALBERTA (Source: Dow Jones Newswire, 2003). This is SECOND in the world behind Saudi Arabia. So, if current US consumption is roughly 18 billion barrels per year, my 100 year figure is spot on!!!
(FYI: The official Canadian govenment figure is 311 billion barrels. http://www.energy.gov.ab.ca/115.asp So, whose facts are "dead wrong"? I won't hold my breath for your apology.)
Moreover, oil firms replace their reserves by finding and developing new reserves. The world has had a similar relative amount of reserves for DECADES. Why hasn't the world alrady run out of oil then? Because firms find and develop new reserves to replace the ones used.
Google the topic and READ -- just as you encouraged the other poster to do. Follow your own advice!!!
Oil is at $53 a barrel as I write (roughly double the price 18 months ago) and the economy is chugging right along: manufacturing is expanding, jobs are being created, productivity was up 2.1% last quarter, etc. The economy is not gangbusters partly due to the "tax" of $50 oil, but it is far from being "devastated". Trip to ship something on a railroad. Try to find someone actually worth hiring. The economy has some strength. So, your "devastate the economy" rhetoric does not appear to be correct. (Worry more about Medicare & Soc Sec costs if you want to worry about "devastation".)
Basic supply & demand will cure much of the energy issues. Otherwise, why do people propose even higher taxes on gasoline? Higher prices lead to lower consumption. Higher oil prices lead to more drilling and more oil. Higher energy prices lead to more conservation & more research. We using oil today that we could not even get at 10 years ago. There's nothing quite like R&D driven advancements. These are all results of a well functioning marketplace.
One big improvement would be charging more for electricity during the day in CA and less at night. Discourage use when the supply is tight and vice-versa. What a novel idea! (They have this in and around Phoenix.) Again, people & businesses respond to prices. Markets often do work.
As to my use of the term "liberal", you are the one who insulted the previous poster and used the term "Republican" in a negative fashion. So, you can use political terms but I cannot? Get real. If you FIRST drop the use of such terms, I will consider it as well.
You are correct that small cars are not safe in collisions with big cars nor with trees or guard rails. An unfortunate side effect of the mandated mileage increases you love has been an increase in vehicular deaths. Uncomfortable, but true.
Moreover, many of these PREVENTABLE deaths were not from collisions with big SUVs, but rather single vehicle accidents (trees, guard rails, etc).
You use the word "need" when referring to SUVs, pickups, etc. when mentioning "bankers" and "soccer moms". Who are you to decide what these people need? Who are you to decide how much pollution is "necessary"? You don't have the right to make such decisions. If you desire this right, first get yourself elected to public office. Then you'll at least have some say -- assuming you get elected of course. Let me know when you run so that I can contribute to your opponent.
Government intervention is appropriate in cases where the object being abused is not "owned". For example, air quality. No one "owns" the air, but we all need it to live. Therefore the cost of polluting is zero and firms will "overpollute" without intervention. So, the government steps in and attaches a "price" to polluting and profit maximizing firms rationally cut back the amount they pollute. This is Econ 101.
Econ 102 involves the trading of pollution credits: firms that can most cheaply reduce pollution are "rewarded" by being able to sell their pollution credits to those firms who face higher costs. The total amount of pollution stays the same, but the economy benefits by a more efficient use of resources.
This can also be applied (in theory) to solving the problems of overfishing, ocean & water pollution, coral reefs, etc. We've had success restoring whale populations (in spite of the Japanese cheating). Why not with cod & lobsters? Or sharks? Answer: We can, we just need to make the poltical decision that it's important enough to do now.
Are you aware that your desire to make people "pay through the nose" for using trucks & SUVs will fall mostly on the backs of the poor and middle class? The libs in Hollywood who ride around in Limos can afford any amount of gas tax you propose, but what about the millions of those Americans who are not so fortunate? Or, don't their lives matter in your world view?
I agree that freedom is a great thing and that it is not unlimited. However, stupid public policy can cause a great deal of needless suffering.
(FYI: The official Canadian govenment figure is 311 billion barrels. http://www.energy.gov.ab.ca/115.asp So, whose facts are "dead wrong"? I won't hold my breath for your apology.)
Moreover, oil firms replace their reserves by finding and developing new reserves. The world has had a similar relative amount of reserves for DECADES. Why hasn't the world alrady run out of oil then? Because firms find and develop new reserves to replace the ones used.
Google the topic and READ -- just as you encouraged the other poster to do. Follow your own advice!!!
Oil is at $53 a barrel as I write (roughly double the price 18 months ago) and the economy is chugging right along: manufacturing is expanding, jobs are being created, productivity was up 2.1% last quarter, etc. The economy is not gangbusters partly due to the "tax" of $50 oil, but it is far from being "devastated". Trip to ship something on a railroad. Try to find someone actually worth hiring. The economy has some strength. So, your "devastate the economy" rhetoric does not appear to be correct. (Worry more about Medicare & Soc Sec costs if you want to worry about "devastation".)
Basic supply & demand will cure much of the energy issues. Otherwise, why do people propose even higher taxes on gasoline? Higher prices lead to lower consumption. Higher oil prices lead to more drilling and more oil. Higher energy prices lead to more conservation & more research. We using oil today that we could not even get at 10 years ago. There's nothing quite like R&D driven advancements. These are all results of a well functioning marketplace.
One big improvement would be charging more for electricity during the day in CA and less at night. Discourage use when the supply is tight and vice-versa. What a novel idea! (They have this in and around Phoenix.) Again, people & businesses respond to prices. Markets often do work.
As to my use of the term "liberal", you are the one who insulted the previous poster and used the term "Republican" in a negative fashion. So, you can use political terms but I cannot? Get real. If you FIRST drop the use of such terms, I will consider it as well.
You are correct that small cars are not safe in collisions with big cars nor with trees or guard rails. An unfortunate side effect of the mandated mileage increases you love has been an increase in vehicular deaths. Uncomfortable, but true.
Moreover, many of these PREVENTABLE deaths were not from collisions with big SUVs, but rather single vehicle accidents (trees, guard rails, etc).
You use the word "need" when referring to SUVs, pickups, etc. when mentioning "bankers" and "soccer moms". Who are you to decide what these people need? Who are you to decide how much pollution is "necessary"? You don't have the right to make such decisions. If you desire this right, first get yourself elected to public office. Then you'll at least have some say -- assuming you get elected of course. Let me know when you run so that I can contribute to your opponent.
Government intervention is appropriate in cases where the object being abused is not "owned". For example, air quality. No one "owns" the air, but we all need it to live. Therefore the cost of polluting is zero and firms will "overpollute" without intervention. So, the government steps in and attaches a "price" to polluting and profit maximizing firms rationally cut back the amount they pollute. This is Econ 101.
Econ 102 involves the trading of pollution credits: firms that can most cheaply reduce pollution are "rewarded" by being able to sell their pollution credits to those firms who face higher costs. The total amount of pollution stays the same, but the economy benefits by a more efficient use of resources.
This can also be applied (in theory) to solving the problems of overfishing, ocean & water pollution, coral reefs, etc. We've had success restoring whale populations (in spite of the Japanese cheating). Why not with cod & lobsters? Or sharks? Answer: We can, we just need to make the poltical decision that it's important enough to do now.
Are you aware that your desire to make people "pay through the nose" for using trucks & SUVs will fall mostly on the backs of the poor and middle class? The libs in Hollywood who ride around in Limos can afford any amount of gas tax you propose, but what about the millions of those Americans who are not so fortunate? Or, don't their lives matter in your world view?
I agree that freedom is a great thing and that it is not unlimited. However, stupid public policy can cause a great deal of needless suffering.
