Thank An Enviromentalist / Democrat

On 4 May 2006 16:57:52 -0700, "Ed Pirrero" > wrote:

>
>Dave Head wrote:
>> On 4 May 2006 16:09:59 -0700, "Ed Pirrero" > wrote:
>>
>> >> THAT'S WHY WE HAVE TO IMPORT IT!!!! DUH! If we'd just
>> >> drill where the oil is in our own country, then we wouldn't have this
>> >> problem...
>> >
>> >LOL. The lunatic right thinks that all we have to do is chuck every
>> >little bit of livability that exists and drill everywhere, that gas
>> >would be too cheap to meter. Man, you can't make this stuff up...
>> >
>>
>> And we hear from the loony left again...
>
>LOL - everyone who disagrees with you is "loony left". That's a great
>perspective you've got.
>
>> Yeah, everywhere there's enough oil to be profitable... drill! "The
>> environment" will be just fine.
>
>You don't know that. It's just what propaganda you've been fed.

Place where I hunt deer near Traverse City is / has been for a long time
networked with oil and gas wells. Environment does just fine. There's more
impact from the logging than anything else.

>BTW, there are companies that want to go after the fossil fuels in
>Yellowstone National Park. I guess that's OK, too.

What fossil fuels in Yellowstone? The thing is a supervolcano... doubt if
there's any fossil fuels there. But if there were, yeah... it might be
convenient to do some landscaping to hide the goings-on, but once drilled,
you'd be pressed to know that anything was there - the trees are generally
taller than the pumps, and unless they're right along the road, then who knows
they're there? Nobody. Bury the oil lines and there's no scenic degredation.
>
>Here's a clue for you idiot right-wingers - it would be a heck of lot
>easier to get people to go along with your "drill anywhere" if you'd
>stand behind conservation or alternative fuels proposals as well.

I f'n _love_ alternative fuels. Sooner the better. Alcohol - do it now! E-85
- makes sense. Bio-diesel - same thing. Hydrogen - hope you figure out how to
generate and store it, but its looking a bit bleak. Nuclear - get it done now,
the better to make electric cars work. Oil shale - figure it out sooner,
rather than later. Anything and everything - full throttle - the sooner we can
use them to tell the f'n Arabs to go pound sand, the better.

>Hell, I'd be all for the "drill anywhere" thing myself if light trucks
>were included in CAFE.

We may not have to worry about light trucks soon... There's a really strong
_rumor_ that Ford will be out with a hydraulic hybrid F-150 that gets 60 mpg
city rated mileage in 2008. This is from an industrial spy - hope he's right.
A little more official information is that they had an Expedition SUV doing 32
mpg a couple years ago with the same system - the cost of installing that
system was $600 more than a regular system. Technology is about to solve our
problems in this regard... maybe...

Dave Head

>
>E.P.

In article . com>, Ed Pirrero wrote:

> BTW, there are companies that want to go after the fossil fuels in
> Yellowstone National Park. I guess that's OK, too.

There are no fossil fuels there, but it is the perfect place for nice
green and clean hydrothermal electical generation plant

> Hell, I'd be all for the "drill anywhere" thing myself if light trucks
> were included in CAFE.

They have a separate CAFE. And it's CAFE that gave us SUV. Trying to
force people into fuel efficent cars by limiting market choices
backfired. The whole of CAFE should be scrapped. If we want to encourage
fuel economy, replace income based taxes with taxes on fuel consumption.

Dave Head wrote:
> On 4 May 2006 16:57:52 -0700, "Ed Pirrero" > wrote:
>
> >
> >Dave Head wrote:
> >> On 4 May 2006 16:09:59 -0700, "Ed Pirrero" > wrote:
> >>
> >> >> THAT'S WHY WE HAVE TO IMPORT IT!!!! DUH! If we'd just
> >> >> drill where the oil is in our own country, then we wouldn't have this
> >> >> problem...
> >> >
> >> >LOL. The lunatic right thinks that all we have to do is chuck every
> >> >little bit of livability that exists and drill everywhere, that gas
> >> >would be too cheap to meter. Man, you can't make this stuff up...
> >> >
> >>
> >> And we hear from the loony left again...
> >
> >LOL - everyone who disagrees with you is "loony left". That's a great
> >perspective you've got.
> >
> >> Yeah, everywhere there's enough oil to be profitable... drill! "The
> >> environment" will be just fine.
> >
> >You don't know that. It's just what propaganda you've been fed.
>
> Place where I hunt deer near Traverse City is / has been for a long time
> networked with oil and gas wells. Environment does just fine. There's more
> impact from the logging than anything else.

That's great. That doesn't imply that it'll work in every case. Or
the majority of cases. Or any case but yours.

Like I said - you just don't know that the environment will be fine.
And what *you* consider an acceptable trade-off is universal, either.

> >BTW, there are companies that want to go after the fossil fuels in
> >Yellowstone National Park. I guess that's OK, too.
>
> What fossil fuels in Yellowstone?

DAGS.

> The thing is a supervolcano... doubt if
> there's any fossil fuels there. But if there were, yeah... it might be
> convenient to do some landscaping to hide the goings-on, but once drilled,
> you'd be pressed to know that anything was there - the trees are generally
> taller than the pumps, and unless they're right along the road, then who knows
> they're there? Nobody. Bury the oil lines and there's no scenic degredation.

Yeah, I'm sure that all the trucks and crews and stuff wouldn't be
noticeable.

Dude, this is frickin' *National Park.* You wonder why folks are so
uptight about drilling/mining anywhere? It's because there are people
who think that it's OK to drill anywhere. Is there anywhere that's
off-limits?

> >Here's a clue for you idiot right-wingers - it would be a heck of lot
> >easier to get people to go along with your "drill anywhere" if you'd
> >stand behind conservation or alternative fuels proposals as well.
>
> I f'n _love_ alternative fuels. Sooner the better. Alcohol - do it now! E-85
> - makes sense. Bio-diesel - same thing. Hydrogen - hope you figure out how to
> generate and store it, but its looking a bit bleak. Nuclear - get it done now,
> the better to make electric cars work. Oil shale - figure it out sooner,
> rather than later. Anything and everything - full throttle - the sooner we can
> use them to tell the f'n Arabs to go pound sand, the better.

I prefer the "drain the Arabs dry, while finding out what we have
stored up" approach myself.

But you're a bit unique among folks who vote Red - most of them think
all that's a bit pie-in-the-sky. And some of it is - like hydrogen.

> >Hell, I'd be all for the "drill anywhere" thing myself if light trucks
> >were included in CAFE.
>
> We may not have to worry about light trucks soon... There's a really strong
> _rumor_ that Ford will be out with a hydraulic hybrid F-150 that gets 60 mpg
> city rated mileage in 2008. This is from an industrial spy - hope he's right.

That would be grand. I'd be completely for that, then go ahead and
drill in ANWR. And off the Florida coast.

But there is still gonna be places that should be off-limits.

E.P.

Brent P wrote:
> In article . com>, Ed Pirrero wrote:
>
> > BTW, there are companies that want to go after the fossil fuels in
> > Yellowstone National Park. I guess that's OK, too.
>
> There are no fossil fuels there

Wrong. DAGS.

> > Hell, I'd be all for the "drill anywhere" thing myself if light trucks
> > were included in CAFE.
>
> They have a separate CAFE

Which amounts to almost no regulation. And since you can classify
almost anything as a light truck, it's a monster loophole that renders
CAFE fairly moot.

> And it's CAFE that gave us SUV

It was the exemption that gave us the SUV. EVERYTHING under 10000GVW
should have been covered.

> Trying to
> force people into fuel efficent cars by limiting market choices
> backfired.

Well, considering the huge loophole, it was never really tried, was it?

> The whole of CAFE should be scrapped. If we want to encourage
> fuel economy, replace income based taxes with taxes on fuel consumption.

Actually, a combination of things should be done, including
*tightening* CAFE, such that cars like the PT Cruiser is not classified
as a light truck. But consumption *should* be reduced. If consumption
is reduced enough, and national sources of energy explored and
exploited enough, then we can give the rest of the world the big energy
finger.

But EVERYBODY has to sacifice. Not just the greenies, and not just the
Hummer drivers. Everyone.

E.P.

In article .com>, Ed Pirrero wrote:
>
> Brent P wrote:
>> In article . com>, Ed Pirrero wrote:
>>
>> > BTW, there are companies that want to go after the fossil fuels in
>> > Yellowstone National Park. I guess that's OK, too.
>>
>> There are no fossil fuels there
>
> Wrong. DAGS.

Nothing worth digging for.

However the geothermal properties are far more worth exploiting if one
were to do such a thing.

>> > Hell, I'd be all for the "drill anywhere" thing myself if light trucks
>> > were included in CAFE.
>>
>> They have a separate CAFE

> Which amounts to almost no regulation. And since you can classify
> almost anything as a light truck, it's a monster loophole that renders
> CAFE fairly moot.

Actually the classification bit is fairly new, started with the PT
crusier. Now it is being used to bring back things like fullsize station
wagons which are better options than SUVs. CAFE is a disaster, a
solution that makes the problem worse. Instead of large cars that got
milage in the low 20s we ended up with passenger trucks with milage in
the low teens. The exceptions are actually a good thing since it will
allow large cars again and with them the form can evolve back into the
full size station wagon.

>> And it's CAFE that gave us SUV

> It was the exemption that gave us the SUV. EVERYTHING under 10000GVW
> should have been covered.

Because in 1975 nobody imagined anyone comuting in a truck.

>> Trying to
>> force people into fuel efficent cars by limiting market choices
>> backfired.

> Well, considering the huge loophole, it was never really tried, was it?

Yes it was. In ~1985 there was a mass extinction of large and intermediate
RWD passenger cars. People tried the FWD replacements until about 1989, at
which point they started buying trucks of various kinds. Of course
detroit can read a sales trend and responded. Once upon a time the
average family car could do everything the SUVs do today. But people who
had to tell others what they could drive made sure those choices were
removed from the market place. No there wasn't an 80mpg carburator or
anything of the sort that detroit just wouldn't build to keep making
them.

Also of note, yes, I know there were a couple models that survived the
die off. However one size does not fit all.

>> The whole of CAFE should be scrapped. If we want to encourage
>> fuel economy, replace income based taxes with taxes on fuel consumption.

> Actually, a combination of things should be done, including
> *tightening* CAFE, such that cars like the PT Cruiser is not classified
> as a light truck. But consumption *should* be reduced. If consumption
> is reduced enough, and national sources of energy explored and
> exploited enough, then we can give the rest of the world the big energy
> finger.

Trying to restrict market choice is not going work. That's been tried.
CAFE is idiotic. It has been from the start. It basically just removes
choice from the market, except for the wealthy of course. When choice is
removed from the market people find some suboptimal alternative. Trying
to get someone who thinks they need a full size station wagon into
something the size of a pinto wagon isn't probably going to work. They
are going to find something, anything that does what they want done. If
they have to go up to a box truck they probably will.

The lesson of CAFE is simple, stop trying to control product choice. Stop
being a control freak. If consumption is the problem, tax the consumable
instead of taxing something like income. This gives people great
incentive to consume less, but the market choices remain. Someone can get
their 24mpg station wagon and just pay for the fuel instead of forcing
them into the next biggest thing that they can get.

> But EVERYBODY has to sacifice. Not just the greenies, and not just the
> Hummer drivers. Everyone.

It sounds more like you just want to tell everyone what they must drive.

Brent P wrote:
> In article .com>, Ed Pirrero wrote:
> >
> > Brent P wrote:
> >> In article . com>, Ed Pirrero wrote:
> >>
> >> > BTW, there are companies that want to go after the fossil fuels in
> >> > Yellowstone National Park. I guess that's OK, too.
> >>
> >> There are no fossil fuels there
> >
> > Wrong. DAGS.
>
> Nothing worth digging for.

Which is not the same thing as "no fossil fuels".

And someone thinks it's worth something, if they want to dig there.

> >> > Hell, I'd be all for the "drill anywhere" thing myself if light trucks
> >> > were included in CAFE.
> >>
> >> They have a separate CAFE
>
> > Which amounts to almost no regulation. And since you can classify
> > almost anything as a light truck, it's a monster loophole that renders
> > CAFE fairly moot.
>
> Actually the classification bit is fairly new, started with the PT
> crusier. Now it is being used to bring back things like fullsize station
> wagons which are better options than SUVs.

The point is this: a huge loophole, which renders CAFE moot.

> CAFE is a disaster, a
> solution that makes the problem worse.

In its current state, I agree.

> Instead of large cars that got
> milage in the low 20s we ended up with passenger trucks with milage in
> the low teens. The exceptions are actually a good thing since it will
> allow large cars again and with them the form can evolve back into the
> full size station wagon.

Funny how only large AMERICAN wagons went away. The Germans kept right
on cranking them out. And the Swedes. In RWD, too.

Maybe it's because those American wagons sucked? Naw, blame the damn
gubmint.

> >> And it's CAFE that gave us SUV
>
> > It was the exemption that gave us the SUV. EVERYTHING under 10000GVW
> > should have been covered.
>
> Because in 1975 nobody imagined anyone comuting in a truck.

And of course, the law is static and not subject to amendment. Wait,
that's not true at all!

:roll eyes:

> >> Trying to
> >> force people into fuel efficent cars by limiting market choices
> >> backfired.
>
> > Well, considering the huge loophole, it was never really tried, was it?
>
> Yes it was. In ~1985 there was a mass extinction of large and intermediate
> RWD passenger cars. People tried the FWD replacements until about 1989, at
> which point they started buying trucks of various kinds.

Funny, the Europeans kept cranking out the RWD sedans and wagons. And
they sold.

And I'm sure automaker marketing had nothing to do with the trend,
right?

> Also of note, yes, I know there were a couple models that survived the
> die off. However one size does not fit all.

I don't recall anyone claiming otherwise.

> >> The whole of CAFE should be scrapped. If we want to encourage
> >> fuel economy, replace income based taxes with taxes on fuel consumption.
>
> > Actually, a combination of things should be done, including
> > *tightening* CAFE, such that cars like the PT Cruiser is not classified
> > as a light truck. But consumption *should* be reduced. If consumption
> > is reduced enough, and national sources of energy explored and
> > exploited enough, then we can give the rest of the world the big energy
> > finger.
>
> Trying to restrict market choice is not going work. That's been tried.

You can keep repeating that until you're blue in the face, and it won't
be any more true on the hundredth repetition. It *HAS NOT* been tried
- there have been exemptions from the beginning - loopholes not closed.

> The lesson of CAFE is simple, stop trying to control product choice. Stop
> being a control freak.

Except for that little problem of energy production and consumption.
While it would be grand if we could just pretend there is no problem
and let Adam Smith decide, that's really not going to happen, so let's
at least try and do something. So to start, dial back on consumption.
CAFE, additional fuel tax, research in hybrid tech like hydraulics.

Then, open up more places for exploration and production. Work on both
ends.

> > But EVERYBODY has to sacifice. Not just the greenies, and not just the
> > Hummer drivers. Everyone.
>
> It sounds more like you just want to tell everyone what they must drive.

You don't read the written word so well, do you? When you can read for
comprehension, and can avoid making **** up, get back to me.

E.P.

In article .com>, Ed Pirrero wrote:

>> Nothing worth digging for.
>
> Which is not the same thing as "no fossil fuels".

I suppose you can count bison farts or the droplets of hydrocarbons
coming from some of the vents.... But I wouldn't exactly call those
things 'fossil fuels'. But for your sake I took a wider interpetation to
mean 'hydrocarbon', but hey, if you're going to be ass about it.....

>> >> > Hell, I'd be all for the "drill anywhere" thing myself if light trucks
>> >> > were included in CAFE.

>> >> They have a separate CAFE

>> > Which amounts to almost no regulation. And since you can classify
>> > almost anything as a light truck, it's a monster loophole that renders
>> > CAFE fairly moot.

>> Actually the classification bit is fairly new, started with the PT
>> crusier. Now it is being used to bring back things like fullsize station
>> wagons which are better options than SUVs.

> The point is this: a huge loophole, which renders CAFE moot.

It renders the most destructive thing about CAFE moot. Would you rather
have these SUV cross overs or more truck chasis SUVs?

>> CAFE is a disaster, a
>> solution that makes the problem worse.

> In its current state, I agree.

In any state.

>> Instead of large cars that got
>> milage in the low 20s we ended up with passenger trucks with milage in
>> the low teens. The exceptions are actually a good thing since it will
>> allow large cars again and with them the form can evolve back into the
>> full size station wagon.

> Funny how only large AMERICAN wagons went away. The Germans kept right
> on cranking them out. And the Swedes. In RWD, too.

Because the wealthy buyers just paid the penalties. These companies,
especially BMW pay large amounts of fines and just raise the prices of
their vehicles to make up for them.

> Maybe it's because those American wagons sucked? Naw, blame the damn
> gubmint.

No, it's because detroit knew they couldn't raise the price of a garden
variety ford, chevy, or dodge station wagon by $1500 in 1985 and still
have it sell.

It seems you are totally ignorant of the mechanisms of CAFE law. I put
that comment about wealthy buyers in there for a reason.

>> >> And it's CAFE that gave us SUV

>> > It was the exemption that gave us the SUV. EVERYTHING under 10000GVW
>> > should have been covered.

>> Because in 1975 nobody imagined anyone comuting in a truck.

> And of course, the law is static and not subject to amendment. Wait,
> that's not true at all!
>:roll eyes:

I am telling you why it is the way it is. You're far too ignorant on this
topic to be such an ass about it.

>> >> Trying to
>> >> force people into fuel efficent cars by limiting market choices
>> >> backfired.

>> > Well, considering the huge loophole, it was never really tried, was it?

>> Yes it was. In ~1985 there was a mass extinction of large and intermediate
>> RWD passenger cars. People tried the FWD replacements until about 1989, at
>> which point they started buying trucks of various kinds.

> Funny, the Europeans kept cranking out the RWD sedans and wagons. And
> they sold.

Let me explain this to you again. You can raise the price of a $10,000
garden variety car by $1500 and lose a great number of buyers. You can raise
the price of a $20,000 luxury car by $1500 and lose very few, especially
if the less expensive alternatives have been taken off the market.

> And I'm sure automaker marketing had nothing to do with the trend,
> right?

Ford and GM and Chrysler responded to the CAFE law by downsizing their
entire line of cars and going to FWD for almost everything. They
attempted to meet CAFE. The Europeans took a different route, they said
'**** this stupid american law' and kept selling their product, paying
the fines and probably passing on the cost.

It's yet another reason why CAFE is a dismal failure. I thought you
wanted automakers to actually make cars that complied with CAFE? Guess
not since you are now pushing the european makers' solution which was
just to pay the fines.

>> Also of note, yes, I know there were a couple models that survived the
>> die off. However one size does not fit all.

> I don't recall anyone claiming otherwise.

I've been through these threads before. Some one decides to play the ass
and say, 'well everyone could have still bought a crown victoria.... And
because they could still by a crown vic, you're wrong.' I was cutting you
off at the pass.

>> >> The whole of CAFE should be scrapped. If we want to encourage
>> >> fuel economy, replace income based taxes with taxes on fuel consumption.

>> > Actually, a combination of things should be done, including
>> > *tightening* CAFE, such that cars like the PT Cruiser is not classified
>> > as a light truck. But consumption *should* be reduced. If consumption
>> > is reduced enough, and national sources of energy explored and
>> > exploited enough, then we can give the rest of the world the big energy
>> > finger.

>> Trying to restrict market choice is not going work. That's been tried.

> You can keep repeating that until you're blue in the face, and it won't
> be any more true on the hundredth repetition. It *HAS NOT* been tried
> - there have been exemptions from the beginning - loopholes not closed.

The big three made a major effort to comply in the mid 1980s. It's not my
fault you are totally ignorant of it. The marketplace rejected the
smaller FWD crap that was attempted to be forced on to them when they
wanted larger RWD vehicles.

>> The lesson of CAFE is simple, stop trying to control product choice. Stop
>> being a control freak.

> Except for that little problem of energy production and consumption.
> While it would be grand if we could just pretend there is no problem
> and let Adam Smith decide, that's really not going to happen, so let's
> at least try and do something. So to start, dial back on consumption.
> CAFE, additional fuel tax, research in hybrid tech like hydraulics.

CAFE is a disaster. END IT. 30 years of this crap and you just want to
retool it for another round so people could show up in the 'forincator'
and the like. ( http://tinyurl.com/ewm6w) Which have become reality:
http://www.internationaldelivers.com...Family/rxt.asp

The tiny URL is from a now dead SUV humor website from the late 90s that
is archived at archive.org:
http://web.archive.org/web/200103310...futuresuv.html

>> > But EVERYBODY has to sacifice. Not just the greenies, and not just the
>> > Hummer drivers. Everyone.

>> It sounds more like you just want to tell everyone what they must drive.
>
> You don't read the written word so well, do you? When you can read for
> comprehension, and can avoid making **** up, get back to me.

You sound like you sound like. I am sorry I assumed you knew something
about CAFE, but you've made it clear you are totally ignorant about it
and just another asshole yapping about it on political grounds with no
knowledge of how it has functioned in the automotive marketplace.

On 4 May 2006 21:24:25 -0700, "Ed Pirrero" > wrote:

>
>Dave Head wrote:
>> On 4 May 2006 16:57:52 -0700, "Ed Pirrero" > wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Dave Head wrote:
>> >> On 4 May 2006 16:09:59 -0700, "Ed Pirrero" > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >> THAT'S WHY WE HAVE TO IMPORT IT!!!! DUH! If we'd just
>> >> >> drill where the oil is in our own country, then we wouldn't have this
>> >> >> problem...
>> >> >
>> >> >LOL. The lunatic right thinks that all we have to do is chuck every
>> >> >little bit of livability that exists and drill everywhere, that gas
>> >> >would be too cheap to meter. Man, you can't make this stuff up...
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> And we hear from the loony left again...
>> >
>> >LOL - everyone who disagrees with you is "loony left". That's a great
>> >perspective you've got.
>> >
>> >> Yeah, everywhere there's enough oil to be profitable... drill! "The
>> >> environment" will be just fine.
>> >
>> >You don't know that. It's just what propaganda you've been fed.
>>
>> Place where I hunt deer near Traverse City is / has been for a long time
>> networked with oil and gas wells. Environment does just fine. There's more
>> impact from the logging than anything else.
>
>That's great. That doesn't imply that it'll work in every case. Or
>the majority of cases. Or any case but yours.
>
>Like I said - you just don't know that the environment will be fine.
>And what *you* consider an acceptable trade-off is universal, either.
>
>> >BTW, there are companies that want to go after the fossil fuels in
>> >Yellowstone National Park. I guess that's OK, too.
>>
>> What fossil fuels in Yellowstone?
>
>DAGS.
>
>> The thing is a supervolcano... doubt if
>> there's any fossil fuels there. But if there were, yeah... it might be
>> convenient to do some landscaping to hide the goings-on, but once drilled,
>> you'd be pressed to know that anything was there - the trees are generally
>> taller than the pumps, and unless they're right along the road, then who knows
>> they're there? Nobody. Bury the oil lines and there's no scenic degredation.
>
>Yeah, I'm sure that all the trucks and crews and stuff wouldn't be
>noticeable.

No, ONCE ITS DRILLED, all you have is the pump sitting there, rocking back and
forth, and likely shielded from view by tall tress. If it isn't, then its time
to plant some, or fake some (artificial trees...), or do something else to
landscape them out of view.

>Dude, this is frickin' *National Park.* You wonder why folks are so
>uptight about drilling/mining anywhere? It's because there are people
>who think that it's OK to drill anywhere. Is there anywhere that's
>off-limits?

If some people weren't so damn uptight about drilling anywhere, I'd be able to
accept that in these _FEW_ places, maybe we shouldn't drill. But as long as
people are restricting damn near everywhere in the country from drilling, I
have a tough time accepting _any_ sort of limit, that willl just be twisted by
blue-state people into prohibiting drilling everywhere. So, no, there should
be _NO_ place that has oil that is off limits. We need _American_ oil on the
market, so we can get out from under the political disadvantages of giving
money to terrorists to get _their_ oil.

>> >Here's a clue for you idiot right-wingers - it would be a heck of lot
>> >easier to get people to go along with your "drill anywhere" if you'd
>> >stand behind conservation or alternative fuels proposals as well.
>>
>> I f'n _love_ alternative fuels. Sooner the better. Alcohol - do it now! E-85
>> - makes sense. Bio-diesel - same thing. Hydrogen - hope you figure out how to
>> generate and store it, but its looking a bit bleak. Nuclear - get it done now,
>> the better to make electric cars work. Oil shale - figure it out sooner,
>> rather than later. Anything and everything - full throttle - the sooner we can
>> use them to tell the f'n Arabs to go pound sand, the better.
>
>I prefer the "drain the Arabs dry, while finding out what we have
>stored up" approach myself.

No, there's too many of 'em that are terrorists, sympathize with terrorists,
etc. We should all, as much as possible, avoid giving them money. It would be
_great_ if the world could ban together and simply boycott the sons-a-bitches.
Let them sit in their sandpile and rot.

>But you're a bit unique among folks who vote Red - most of them think
>all that's a bit pie-in-the-sky. And some of it is - like hydrogen.

I think you'd be surprised. The red-state people are conservative because they
reason with, well, reason rather than emotion, and they're more
science-oriented, in spite of the way it appears with the Christian right that
gets in there and mucks things up.

>> >Hell, I'd be all for the "drill anywhere" thing myself if light trucks
>> >were included in CAFE.
>>
>> We may not have to worry about light trucks soon... There's a really strong
>> _rumor_ that Ford will be out with a hydraulic hybrid F-150 that gets 60 mpg
>> city rated mileage in 2008. This is from an industrial spy - hope he's right.
>
>That would be grand. I'd be completely for that, then go ahead and
>drill in ANWR. And off the Florida coast.

We can all stand by and hope that this thing comes to fruition.

>But there is still gonna be places that should be off-limits.

If we'd just not have people try to get every square inch of the USA in the
"Off Limits" category by abusing that concept, I'd agree. But its impossible
to be "reasonable" and agree that there should be a drilling ban in National
Parks, when then someone like Clinton goes and declares an area a National Park
simply for the reason of preventing drilling there - he did that toward the end
of his sad little administration - I can't recall the area that he screwed up
like that, but I remember him doing it. There oughta be a law, as they say...
But anyway, if there _is_ a "no drilling" loophole, then there's a hoarde of
people stepping up to try to get their square peg with some stupid-ass
"endangered" bacterium in it to fit in the round hole that is the drilling ban
category.

Dave Head

>E.P.

Dave Head wrote:
> On 4 May 2006 21:24:25 -0700, "Ed Pirrero" > wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Yeah, I'm sure that all the trucks and crews and stuff wouldn't be
> >noticeable.
>
> No, ONCE ITS DRILLED, all you have is the pump sitting there

Bzzzt. Did you actually look up what stuff they wanted to get out of
YNP?


> >Dude, this is frickin' *National Park.* You wonder why folks are so
> >uptight about drilling/mining anywhere? It's because there are people
> >who think that it's OK to drill anywhere. Is there anywhere that's
> >off-limits?
>
> If some people weren't so damn uptight about drilling anywhere, I'd be able to
> accept that in these _FEW_ places, maybe we shouldn't drill.

This is chicken and egg argument. You're going to have to accept that
there will be places that you consider reasonably drillable that are
placed off-limits. Just like the greenies will have to accept that not
every bacterium is goning to make it to the next decade.


> >> >Here's a clue for you idiot right-wingers - it would be a heck of lot
> >> >easier to get people to go along with your "drill anywhere" if you'd
> >> >stand behind conservation or alternative fuels proposals as well.
> >>
> >> I f'n _love_ alternative fuels. Sooner the better. Alcohol - do it now! E-85
> >> - makes sense. Bio-diesel - same thing. Hydrogen - hope you figure out how to
> >> generate and store it, but its looking a bit bleak. Nuclear - get it done now,
> >> the better to make electric cars work. Oil shale - figure it out sooner,
> >> rather than later. Anything and everything - full throttle - the sooner we can
> >> use them to tell the f'n Arabs to go pound sand, the better.
> >
> >I prefer the "drain the Arabs dry, while finding out what we have
> >stored up" approach myself.
>
> No, there's too many of 'em that are terrorists, sympathize with terrorists,
> etc.

Yes, because if we don't take their oil, our strategic enemies will.
And build their strength. Don't lose sight of the forest for the
trees.

> >But you're a bit unique among folks who vote Red - most of them think
> >all that's a bit pie-in-the-sky. And some of it is - like hydrogen.
>
> I think you'd be surprised. The red-state people are conservative because they
> reason with, well, reason rather than emotion

Oh, bull****. Red voters are just as emotion-driven as anyone else.
Moreso, sometimes.

> and they're more
> science-oriented

More BS. I work in the sciences, and you'd be hard pressed to find
three in ten who are red voters. I hang out with these folks, and I'm
the reddest of them.

> >But there is still gonna be places that should be off-limits.
>
> If we'd just not have people try to get every square inch of the USA in the
> "Off Limits" category by abusing that concept, I'd agree.

I think you'll have to approach it the other way. You'll have to
figure out how much protection you're willing to accept. The wild-eyed
wackos will fade away in the face of reasonable people.

> But its impossible
> to be "reasonable" and agree that there should be a drilling ban in National
> Parks, when then someone like Clinton goes and declares an area a National Park
> simply for the reason of preventing drilling there

Errr, no. National monument. Escalante Staircase, in Utah. And they
wanted to strip-mine for coal.

Having your facts straight makes your argument seem reasonable. For
being a purported "thinker", you sure don't seem to know much about the
subject you're having a public opinion on.

E.P.

Brent P wrote:
> In article .com>, Ed Pirrero wrote:
>
> >> Nothing worth digging for.
> >
> > Which is not the same thing as "no fossil fuels".
>
> I suppose you can count bison farts or the droplets of hydrocarbons
> coming from some of the vents

Hmmm, guess again.

Or, you could actually *look it up.*

But that would mean you would have to admit you were wrong. Can't have
that...


> >> Actually the classification bit is fairly new, started with the PT
> >> crusier. Now it is being used to bring back things like fullsize station
> >> wagons which are better options than SUVs.
>
> > The point is this: a huge loophole, which renders CAFE moot.
>
> It renders the most destructive thing about CAFE moot. Would you rather
> have these SUV cross overs or more truck chasis SUVs?

Neither. I'd rather have cars be cars and trucks be trucks, and CAFE
cover them all, so that creative classification wouldn't gain anything.

> >> CAFE is a disaster, a
> >> solution that makes the problem worse.
>
> > In its current state, I agree.
>
> In any state.

No, not in *any state.* In the state I describe, it could help get to
the energy independence goal.

> >> Instead of large cars that got
> >> milage in the low 20s we ended up with passenger trucks with milage in
> >> the low teens. The exceptions are actually a good thing since it will
> >> allow large cars again and with them the form can evolve back into the
> >> full size station wagon.
>
> > Funny how only large AMERICAN wagons went away. The Germans kept right
> > on cranking them out. And the Swedes. In RWD, too.
>
> Because the wealthy buyers just paid the penalties.

Instead of everyone paying a penalty under your system of punitive gas
taxation. Let the folks who want big, powerful, gas-sucking rigs pay
for 'em. Up front.

> These companies,
> especially BMW pay large amounts of fines and just raise the prices of
> their vehicles to make up for them.

And that could work perfectly well here. Pay up front, or pay at the
pump. I prefer that the people who buy the rigs pay for them.

> > Maybe it's because those American wagons sucked? Naw, blame the damn
> > gubmint.
>
> No, it's because detroit knew they couldn't raise the price of a garden
> variety ford, chevy, or dodge station wagon by $1500 in 1985 and still
> have it sell.

You pulled that figure out of your ass. Try again.

> It seems you are totally ignorant of the mechanisms of CAFE law. I put
> that comment about wealthy buyers in there for a reason.

I know exactly how it works. It seems that your strange political bent
warps your perception of history.

> >> >> And it's CAFE that gave us SUV
>
> >> > It was the exemption that gave us the SUV. EVERYTHING under 10000GVW
> >> > should have been covered.
>
> >> Because in 1975 nobody imagined anyone comuting in a truck.
>
> > And of course, the law is static and not subject to amendment. Wait,
> > that's not true at all!
> >:roll eyes:
>
> I am telling you why it is the way it is.

No, you're not. You're pretending that once the law was passed, it was
written in stone and couldn't be changed. The *why* is lack of
backbone, and huge lobbying. It has nothing to do with the fundemental
concept.

> >> >> Trying to
> >> >> force people into fuel efficent cars by limiting market choices
> >> >> backfired.
>
> >> > Well, considering the huge loophole, it was never really tried, was it?
>
> >> Yes it was. In ~1985 there was a mass extinction of large and intermediate
> >> RWD passenger cars. People tried the FWD replacements until about 1989, at
> >> which point they started buying trucks of various kinds.
>
> > Funny, the Europeans kept cranking out the RWD sedans and wagons. And
> > they sold.
>
> Let me explain this to you again.

Actually, since your head is buried deep in your ass, you won't be able
to make a cogent argument.

Let *me* explain. The FWD market got sucked up by the Japanese in the
mid-80s, when they gained huge market share. Why? Not because CAFE
made US automakers suck. US automakers sucked independently, and tried
to do dumb stuff. Then they kept on doing dumb stuff.

If they had wanted to, they could have produced the vehicles that the
Japanese were making. For the FWD market. They would have sold a
boat-load of those to offset the larger family vehicles. But they
didn't.

> > And I'm sure automaker marketing had nothing to do with the trend,
> > right?
>
> Ford and GM and Chrysler responded to the CAFE law by downsizing their
> entire line of cars and going to FWD for almost everything.

And they sucked at it, and gave that market to the Japanese, who, oddly
enough, responded to CAFE very well. Curious, yes?

> They
> attempted to meet CAFE. The Europeans took a different route, they said
> '**** this stupid american law' and kept selling their product, paying
> the fines and probably passing on the cost.

And succeeded. Look at Daimler-Chrysler and VW/Audi.

> It's yet another reason why CAFE is a dismal failure.

CAFE only failed for US automakers because they couldn't adapt. And if
the law had not had loopholes to begin with, the SUV-as-station wagon
would probably not have happened.

> I thought you
> wanted automakers to actually make cars that complied with CAFE?

That would be a perference, but if not, then pass the fines on to the
consumers of the cars that bust CAFE rules.

>
> >> Also of note, yes, I know there were a couple models that survived the
> >> die off. However one size does not fit all.
>
> > I don't recall anyone claiming otherwise.
>
> I've been through these threads before. Some one decides to play the ass
> and say, 'well everyone could have still bought a crown victoria.... And
> because they could still by a crown vic, you're wrong.' I was cutting you
> off at the pass.

I didn't claim that either. So save your strawman tactics for someone
else.


> > You can keep repeating that until you're blue in the face, and it won't
> > be any more true on the hundredth repetition. It *HAS NOT* been tried
> > - there have been exemptions from the beginning - loopholes not closed.
>
> The big three made a major effort to comply in the mid 1980s. It's not my
> fault you are totally ignorant of it.

Their attempt failed, and the Japanese succeeded. This implies not
that CAFE was a failure, but that the US automakers were the failure.

Logic is your friend. Learn it sometime.

> The marketplace rejected the
> smaller FWD crap that was attempted to be forced on to them when they
> wanted larger RWD vehicles.

Yeah, that's why we don't see any Japanese vehicles anywhere.

Ooops.

> >> The lesson of CAFE is simple, stop trying to control product choice. Stop
> >> being a control freak.
>
> > Except for that little problem of energy production and consumption.
> > While it would be grand if we could just pretend there is no problem
> > and let Adam Smith decide, that's really not going to happen, so let's
> > at least try and do something. So to start, dial back on consumption.
> > CAFE, additional fuel tax, research in hybrid tech like hydraulics.
>
> CAFE is a disaster. END IT.

In your mind, anything you disagree with is a disaster. Fix the
loophoes and let the engineers figure out how to make the cars more
efficient.


> >> It sounds more like you just want to tell everyone what they must drive.
> >
> > You don't read the written word so well, do you? When you can read for
> > comprehension, and can avoid making **** up, get back to me.
>
> You sound like you sound like.

When I say I want everyone to sacrifice, that's what I mean. I
understand that MFFY types like you want everyone *else* to sacrifice,
but that seems a bit unfair.

So, everyone sacrifices, and helps out to ease our reliance on foreign
energy to the point where we can tell them to **** off.

So, unless you have a useful suggestion to make, why don't you just do
the same, hmmm?

E.P.