Get ready for $4.00 a gallon gas prices in the US.

[The Shadow]

Gotta wonder what the real motivation of the Saudi's are because there isn't an over supply by anymeans.

http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentS...y&c=StoryFT&cid=1079420010822&p=1012571727088

No shit.....Im just glad Im picking up a bike next week

 

[RottenWillow]

Cow belches harm the environment more than cars.

Have a nice day.

yes there's a buttload (pun intended) of methane coming out of those ladies but that's only one pollutant. IC engines provide us with multiple niceties.



Nebulous and dubious? Matt I can SEE the affects of the increased pollution in Atlanta. I-20 East 9:00am every single morning.....that big, fricking haze over the entire downtown area wasnt nearly so thick 15 years ago. And the only time I EVER had any problems with my mild asthma is when I used to attend the "concrete campus" of GSU smack downtown, thanks to the stratospheric ozone concentrations.

 

[bluepeter]

Here;s a better idea: take the idea that you can use some nebulous, dubious threat about the environment to control other people's behavior, and cram it directly up your tailpipe.

Big Brother already has strict controls on fleet MPG and what car makers can build.

Cow belches harm the environment more than cars.

Have a nice day.

Come on Matt, that's bull

Regardless of what controls are in place, you're telling me it is not more environmentally conscious to own a smaller, yet expensive sedan than a gigantic SUV? Are you saying that the 10s of millions of these monstrosities on our roads aren't harmful to the environment? Come on. I respect someones right to own what the want but if it's the greater of 2 evils environmentally speaking and there is no need for it, then why?

 

[Becoming]

Come on Matt, that's bull

Regardless of what controls are in place, you're telling me it is not more environmentally conscious to own a smaller, yet expensive sedan than a gigantic SUV? Are you saying that the 10s of millions of these monstrosities on our roads aren't harmful to the environment? Come on. I respect someones right to own what the want but if it's the greater of 2 evils environmentally speaking and there is no need for it, then why?

you are right dude... yet shipping by semi (truck) continues to be prevalent... where there are way less stringent regulations on emissions (because they get pushed back) I read something where a huge portion of the emissions caused by road vehicles is caused by the trucks, and not passenger cars...

even worse is off-highway engines - they "contribute about 45 percent of the particulate matter from all mobile sources—equivalent to the emissions of more than 17 million new urban transit buses. These engines also release more than one-quarter of the smog-forming nitrogen oxides from all mobile sources—equal to the emissions of about 10.5 million new urban transit buses."

and what about public transportation? PHX is the 5th largest city in the US and has nothing that even resembles a functional public trans system....

so yeah you are right, it is all about the cars...




keep buying what they are selling dude...

 

[MattTheSkywalker]

Come on Matt, that's bull

Regardless of what controls are in place, you're telling me it is not more environmentally conscious to own a smaller, yet expensive sedan than a gigantic SUV? Are you saying that the 10s of millions of these monstrosities on our roads aren't harmful to the environment? Come on. I respect someones right to own what the want but if it's the greater of 2 evils environmentally speaking and there is no need for it, then why?

The issue of 'need' is not a good guideline by which to legislate or develop a society.

Do I 'need' a 6200 square foot house? How about 4 residences? Well, no, don't *need* them, but I can maintain them, so, why not?

Do I need a plasma TV? Nah.

Do I even need a 30 ounce steak for dinner? Nah. A chicken caesar salad would do just fine.

But do we want to disincentivize the mot productive members of society by saying they can only have what they *need*? (Assuming of course, *need* can be measured).

As to need for vehicles; the US government has a regulation in place whereby car makers must average a certain number of MPG on the cars they make.

This is why Ford manufactures the Expedition and the Focus, or why GM makes Suburbans and Saturns.

These guidelines continue to get stricter and stricter.

As an aside it would be amazing what happens if non-gasoline consuming cars were manufactured. One day....but I'd rather see it crushed by oil companies than forced by government.

 

[bluepeter]

you are right dude... yet shipping by semi (truck) continues to be prevalent... where there are way less stringent regulations on emissions (because they get pushed back) I read something where a huge portion of the emissions caused by road vehicles is caused by the trucks, and not passenger cars...

even worse is off-highway engines - they "contribute about 45 percent of the particulate matter from all mobile sources—equivalent to the emissions of more than 17 million new urban transit buses. These engines also release more than one-quarter of the smog-forming nitrogen oxides from all mobile sources—equal to the emissions of about 10.5 million new urban transit buses."

and what about public transportation? PHX is the 5th largest city in the US and has nothing that even resembles a functional public trans system....

so yeah you are right, it is all about the cars...




keep buying what they are selling dude...

What the fuck are you talking about? Who said it's all about the cars? Obviously there are a million other things we are doing that fuck up the environment (thanks for enlightening me) but are you denying that passenger vehicles play a part, whatever size of a part that is? That is the only point I made so I don't need to here your sarcastic bullshit rhetoric that isn't anything to do with what I said

 

[jerkbox]

As an aside it would be amazing what happens if non-gasoline consuming cars were manufactured. One day....but I'd rather see it crushed by oil companies than forced by government.

well....either way, eventually we are going to have to face the reality that the oil is eventually gonna run out, and/or we are going to poisen the crap out of our planet......

i think that places it a little bit above some individual freedoms and the livelyhood of the oil companies in my book....

 

[bluepeter]

well....either way, eventually we are going to have to face the reality that the oil is eventually gonna run out, and/or we are going to poisen the crap out of our planet......

i think that places it a little bit above some individual freedoms and the livelyhood of the oil companies in my book....

Bingo

 

[MattTheSkywalker]

well....either way, eventually we are going to have to face the reality that the oil is eventually gonna run out, and/or we are going to poisen the crap out of our planet......

i think that places it a little bit above some individual freedoms and the livelyhood of the oil companies in my book....[/QUOTE

If *the market* puts oil companies out of business, that's fine. If the government does it, it's wrong.

As for freedoms, you wanna give yours up? Go for it. But not me bro, no f**kin way I want some bureaucrat deciding what I can drive.

Make your statement driving a Prius, not complaining about my car.

 

[bluepeter]

well....either way, eventually we are going to have to face the reality that the oil is eventually gonna run out, and/or we are going to poisen the crap out of our planet......

i think that places it a little bit above some individual freedoms and the livelyhood of the oil companies in my book....[/QUOTE

If *the market* puts oil companies out of business, that's fine. If the government does it, it's wrong.

As for freedoms, you wanna give yours up? Go for it. But not me bro, no f**kin way I want some bureaucrat deciding what I can drive.

Make your statement driving a Prius, not complaining about my car.

Here's a question for you Matt. I tend to agree with your statement you don't want the government telling you what to drive or forcing the oil companies out of business. However, do you not think they should be putting some heavy financing behind those trying to find cheaper, more efficient and enviro friendly alternatives? (I personally would argue that the technology is already possible but the oil companies are in bed with so many partners that they are holding back the advancements but I digress)

and would that not be akin to the government indirectly forcing the oil companies out of business anyway? Now we know this is unlikely to happen for many reasons including my digression above but the point is it should