He probably drives a car using gas so I don't know where he gets this "thinking past the gas tank" crap...he doesn't think about it BECAUSE it is so available...

I'm well aware of human nature with all its worts....

I've had to defend myself plenty of times when I was younger, and always did. I don't have a problem with defending oneself.

You aren't picking up any slack for me pal. Pretty fucking big ego eh?

You guys usually fall the hardest.....

yeah, and more for the military than most people.

Yes, I do drive. I also ride a bike....I do think about it. I have personally reduced my energy consumption at all levels of my life. Intentionally.

One doesn't need to be a luddite to espouse positive ideals.

I do however think you need to be a luddite to criticize the necessary defense policies to defend our imperfect world.

But it can change very quickly.

The CAFE standard was enacted in 1975, and went into effect circa 1980:


Note how the oil consumption dropped dramatically as a result:


And you must remember that Reagan was opposed to CAFE and all the other energy economy and alternative energy programs. One of his first action was to order the removal of the solar water heater that Carter had installed on the Whitehouse.

Of course, Reagan benefited greatly from CAFE and the other energy efficiency steps taken by industry in response to the high oil prices, aided initially by government incentives. As consumption dropped, and other production came on line, the price of oil plummeted as the "oversupply" grew faster than Saudi Arabia could cut back, and then around 1988 the Saudis just opened the spigot to take back market share and punish everyone else that was cheating and over producing.

If a concerted effort was made during the 80s to cut imports by become much more efficient in all energy use, for example, but using much better insulation in buildings, developing and deploying high efficiency heat pumps, etc., widespread wind and solar heating and PV, the reductions in oil consumption might be low enough that the US wouldn't currently import oil.

Of course, for Reagan, there was no advantage in promoting a change because he knew he would be dead before there was another spike in energy prices. For Dubya, why should he call for any real change to the status quo - the benefits wouldn't be there until he left office, so why should he suffer the slings and arrows of his party.

There is a strange asymetry in the thinking of Republicans and conservatives. For somethings, they argue that it will be too hard and take too long to change, and man really don't have that much control over the world. Then the next thing you know, they argue that they are going to make the Arab world democratic in a matter of years by invading and letting democracy flower.

Exactly Mulp. & that was int eh late 70's early 80's we SOOO have the technology to change quickly if we put concerted effort into it.

Without much change we can pretty easily have SUV type vehicles getting 150 miles to the gallon with some simple hybrid electric & battery alterations.

There was just recently an engineer who showcased this at the auto show & is trying to work out some deals with Detroit on converting their vehicles. The guy showed it with a Saturn SUV. By altering it slightly & adding some extra existing Lithium batteries they could get the vehicles at 150 miles to the gallon. Now with some of the new battery tech coming online, especially out of a company in Texas we could get batteries with 10 times the life of current batteries shooting up the hybrids to at a minimal, triple the current gas mileage.

It's about vested interests, lack of vision & basic laziness & truth be told too much money being made in the status quo.

__________________
The crows seemed to be calling his name, thought Caw.
- Jack Handy

Crankee Yankee very good posts here- I think it came down to reckless and untrammeled greed.

I didn't register my car in November in large part to see if I could get by without a car. It needed work which based on past experience would have cost about a thousand, or I could have bought another beater for about a thousand, so I figure that I can walk to the store, 5.5-6 miles round trip, and haul things back in a pack, or catch the bus to get further into town and to a few other places, or rent a car for a day or weekend once a month or less, for less than a thousand a year. My sister was visiting for the holidays so I was able to stock up and have just today finished off the refrigerated food from Jan 2nd.

This year has been the worst as far as I can recall for snow, so I've only walked to the store three times - I would have gone more often because I wanted to get out, but walking in the roads with cars in the snow isn't too safe -- I live in "the country" where sidewalks are not found, and even in "the city" those that exist are not plowed.

This is an experiment for me to work through the way things were for my dad who was the first in the family to own a car, circa 1940. His dad did have a company car, but many families didn't have a car. It was after WWII that things started to rapidly change so that by 1960 is was a car per family, and what was luxury was two cars per family. I bought my first car when I was 23, getting by the previous five years with a Honda 50, a bike or walking before that. I would find the Honda 50 sufficient for most of my trips though the size of cars, density of traffic, and the increased speeds that everyone goes makes it a rather different experience today.

One of my ideas for an ideal vehicle for me is a four wheel "bike" frame with a mass of about a hundred pounds with electric power assist and a range of 20 miles plus the distance added by pedaling. I think this would make it easy to make 90-95% of the trips I might take, and increase my mobility significantly even in bad weather so that I could do things like work at a local business.

I know that it has become insane to consider living and working within five miles because that would mean you would have like an hour or two each day that you would need to waste to fill up the time you otherwise spend commuting.

Truth is we are dependent on oil because our Government and Foreign Policy subsidizes it more than anything. Price fixing, procurement, corporate welfare and tax funded efforts all in the name of getting more oil.

Sadly, not even close to the amount of resources has been spent on developing Ethanol, Solar, Wind, Nuclear, Hydrogen and countless other things that would or could get us off the oil addiction.

Companies developing these things can not compete when a Government makes it unprofitable to research and develop other power sources.

We need to stop subsidizing oil. We need to allow the price of oil to get high enough for the free market to develop practical alternatives to oil.

__________________
"It is the Right of the People to alter or abolish the Government"
Declaration of Independence
"Never trouble another for what you can do for yourself."
Thomas Jefferson
"If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand."
Milton Friedman

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.