Attorneys general from 17 states (not including Kansas) filed a lawsuit today against the Environmental Protection Agency for not responding to the U.S. Supreme Court ruling last year that carbon dioxide is a pollutant under the Clean Air Act. The states want the EPA to act on regulating CO2 within 60 days. The lawsuit follows the EPA’s announcement last week that it was going to hold off on regulating CO2 and instead receive public comments — which many people interpreted as punting the issue to the next administration.
-
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in. -
Contact us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- outlander on Open thread 10/13
- sunflower5 on Overheard from the 2nd District campaign
- sunflower5 on Three trillion-dollar strikes and you’re out?
- outlander on Three trillion-dollar strikes and you’re out?
- Boxlock on Three trillion-dollar strikes and you’re out?
- newsletter on Three trillion-dollar strikes and you’re out?
- newsletter on Tiahrt gives tanker 50 percent chance
- outlander on Three trillion-dollar strikes and you’re out?
- Boxlock on Open thread 10/12
- LonnythePlumber on Overheard from the 2nd District campaign
94 Comments
Carbon Di Oxide is NOT pollution.
You do not like gasoline prices now??
Wait until Democrats are in charge!
Every single Democrat plan involves the reduction of gasoline supply, increasing prices at the pump.
Every single Democrat plan involves increasing the taxes on fuels, increasing the prices at the pump.
Why? So the states can tax it! A brand new revenue stream! A politicians dream.
Money to blow.
Money from you and me on utility bills.
Paul is bringing out the lies again. The Republicans said not to vote for Gore because a Democratic president will mean higher gas and energy prices. So Bush is in office and oil prices tripled and energy costs continue to rise.
Democrats had such crazy ideas like energy independence through renewables and higher fuel efficiency. Not being dependent on foreign sources of fuel from unstable parts of the globe and not having to fill up your vehicle as often. Pretty reasonable ideas which have been proven to work. Don’t expect common sense from the pro-pollution crowd, they are still on the belief that simply consuming more will somehow lower prices and increase supply.
Dr. Jim Hansen has a draft report arguing that when all climate feedbacks are included, we should try to get CO2 below 350 ppm — to avoid risking passing the point of no return.
‘Danger Zone’
http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/dlashof/danger_zone.html
econ101 posted April 2, 2008 at 12:13 pm
“Carbon Di Oxide is NOT pollution.
CO2 is a “greenhouse” gas.
Humans have caused the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere to rise, and that is causing global warming, and climate changes.
Read the ‘Summary’ and Chapter 2 at,
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg1.htm
Just buy renewable energy stocks and ride the CO2 panic wave with gusto. The panic is real, so be prepared to profit from it.
Just be ready to sell before the bubble pops. This will happen when people decide that they don’t much like paying $8/gallon while pumping gasoline in 10F.
“Carbon Di Oxide is NOT pollution.”
Is that a scientific opinion or a bonehead opinion?
” which many people interpreted as punting the issue to the next administration.”
Yup, that is about the size of it.
“Is that a scientific opinion or a bonehead opinion?”
Keep in mind who said it? Paul gets his talking points from liar, racist, drug addict Rush Limbaugh. Reading scientific articles simply cuts away from Rush’s soma holidays.
“Not being dependent on foreign sources of fuel from unstable parts of the globe and not having to fill up your vehicle as often. Pretty reasonable ideas”
But not reasonably going to happen in the next two decades….
Don’t assume being against a new carbon tax means I am not green. I drive a hybrid w/44 MPG.
If everyone bought one - US oil consumption would drop by 50%. 50%!!!! now!!!!
A new revenue source for government will do ZERO to reduce greenhouse gases. It will just be passed on to consumers and the feds/states will waste the money for something other than the environment. Doubt me?
Just look how states spend the tobacco settlements.
Were humans around generating the carbon that was absorbed by the ancient plant matter that was buried, compressed, and heated over the past millions of years to form today’s fossil fuels?
Where did the Carbon that is contained in coal desposits and “fossil fuels” come from if not from the atmosphere during a pre-human era?
Rfl,
Volcanoes.
“Carbon Di Oxide is NOT pollution”
According to scientists it IS. I would not expect a stock salesman to understand that.
Remember not to put out any vegetables this year, those co2 spurting soil-based roots of your veggies will be killing our planet. :D
paultheshill is used to working with bottom lines.
He seems to have missed one here.
“U.S. Supreme Court ruling last year that carbon dioxide is a pollutant under the Clean Air Act.”
But I guess if you are already at odds with the truth, decency, and frankly reality in general as paulie is…
A ruling from the Supreme Court is pretty easy to ignore.
Hey Ben, as a scientist, you got a plan to set up co2 barriers to prevent natural co2 mixing with man-made co2?
Let me know how that works out. :D
I guess the planet was screaming hot during that period of time when the volcanos where feeding massive amounts of CO2 all that plant life that turned in to nascent coal reserves.
Or did the CO2 cloud from the volcanoes cause the last ice age?
Following the consensus AGW line of thinking along with Doug’s, the CO2 from the volcanos that found it’s way to the plant matter that is belatedly causing today’s putative warming trend, would have similary caused epic warming during this prehistoric time period.
This would make the glaciers melt resulting in the covering by water of all but the highest mountain regions.
Leaving a scant amount of land available for plant life to grow in a quantity sufficient enough to absorb all of the volcano’s CO2 to allow for a return to more moderate temperatures.
Sounds like the volcano theory should have caused the end of life on earth if taken in tandem with the CO2 enduced global warming theory.
Just for grins, I revisited the SCOTUS opinion in Massachusetts v. EPA. Some thoughts after reviewing, in a non-extensive manner, said opinion.
First, Econ, under the definition of a pollutant in the Clean Air Act, as amended, all “greenhouse gases” are pollutants. This includes, but is not limited to, carbon dioxide.
Second, the case itself dealt with the authority of the EPA under the Clean Air Act, to regulate emissions of air pollutants (I think that is the phrase) from, inter alia, new automobiles. Thus, Regular, your attempt to reverse photosynthesis notwithstanding, EPA would not, under the holding of the case, have any authority to deal with plants “spurting co2″.
Third, if EPA wants to dodge regulation of carbon dioxide, there must be a concrete showing of the reasons therefor, not the “laundry list of reasons” offered in the case, which SCOTUS found to be nonpersuasive.
Given the above, EPA’s “public comment” period is, IMHO, an attempt to push the perceived problem off to the next administration. I would suggest that the litigation commenced by the states against EPA will have the same effect.
Discrimination, that’s all it is. You humans think you own everything. You eat us, you chop down big trees, turn corn into fuel, you clear cut our home.
How would you like it if plants we declared oxygen a pollutant? Then the shoe would be on the other foot.
CO2 is good! You suck.
jimmymac,
Actually, one strategy is the opposite of CO2 “barriers”.
For emissions from moving sources, like cars, etc. — let it “mix”, and then capture the CO2 with stationary sinks.
It’s not reverse photosynthesis, plants interacting with soil release co2 naturally. Some do so more than others.
The whole idea of controlling co2 I find ludicrous.
Besides, percentage wise, the United States has beaten Europe in controlling co2 the past 10 years and the U.S. economy has grown faster than Europe. The co2 in the U.S. has actually receded faster than Europe’s by several percentage points.
Guess which country didn’t sign the Kyoto Treaty and doesn’t have oppressive co2 regulations killing their economy? :)
rfl,
You are talking about billions of years ago even before there was plant life. For billions of years there was just algae, then for years after that there evolved plant life. The reason we have coal is because no life evolved to consume the plant matter so it stored all the carbon it absorbed under ground helping taking it out of the atmosphere and keeping it out.
I really don’t know what your point is.
That should be (guess which country didn’t ratify the Kyoto treaty - not sign)
Look around and all I see are idiots, afraid of a little CO2. A little CO2 never hurt anyone!
Global warming. Ha! You haven’t seen global warming. Now the earth is cooling. Idiots. Gorebeetles.
“A new revenue source for government will do ZERO to reduce greenhouse gases. It will just be passed on to consumers and the feds/states will waste the money for something other than the environment. Doubt me?
Just look how states spend the tobacco settlements.”
Politicians are forever looking for money, not for solving problem,s but for staying in power by buying votes with that money. Bass turds, all.
BTW, the link in the header reflects the litigation filed was in respect to regulation of carbon dioxide emissions from new automobiles. Not general carbon dioxide emission (from power plants, e.g.) regulation. EPA’s public stance is that it wants to have a more “holistic” approach towards carbon dioxide emission regulation in general, and anyway, SCOTUS didn’t put a time limit on it.
I’d suggest to EPA that while SCOTUS indeed put no time limit on it to act, or to refuse to act replete with statutory citation as to lack of authority, etc., there are provisions within the Clean Air Act as to acting on a rule making petition that just might be binding upon it, and I believe have been violated. Again, as always, just my own humble opinion.
Hey Vaughn,
Did you know if I performed an air sampling on your office (which I understand is close to a street,) I would find co2 levels that are 3-6 times higher than the “average” co2 levels that the GW alarmists claim is killing our planet by global warming. (about 1000-3000 ppm co2)
If I did the same sampling method out in Kansas farm land at night, I would also find much higher co2 levels than the claimed global average co2 levels that the GW alarmist claim that’s killing our planet through Global Warming.
There is no such thing as average co2 and co2 equilibrium. co2 in our planet is in a constant state of flux and it is natural.
The 0.037 percent man-made co2 production changing climate all by itself is beyond any wildly speculative arm flailing that could possibly be imagined.
The co2 scam is a grab for power and control, don’t fall for it.
My point is Doug as I have clearly stated is that there had to have been CO2 in the atmosphere in order for the plant matter to absorb it in the first place.
You accepted that point perfectly well when you supplied “volconoes” as a means to explain where the CO2 came from that was absorbed by the plants that became today’s coal and crude deposits.
regular - as the case with Paul you are dead wrong. Just because I can have large CO2 concentrations in a localized or enclosed space does not mean that there are not global averages.
The water in the Dead Sea is very salty. Does that mean we don’t care if the Uquus Beds get salt intrusion?
Well I for one want to thank Sl Gore for my gasoline prices. Years ago in his first published disertation on this subject he said we needed to pay $5 a gallon. We’ve almost made it. Thanks bunches Al!
Ben, global averages only exists in the calculators and note pads of some scientists.
The natural climate system does not mete out averages as it is in a constant state of flux.
If averages were true on every spot on the planet, science would have to re-write the definition on how wind, moisture and other physical effects interact with atmospheric gases.
Sorry Ben, but static co2 numbers is an artificial crutch used by those who need a handle for their carpetbagging.
Not true regular. And we have studied the fluxes extensively.
Poor little jimmymac yet again lies about well-mixed, global CO2 levels.
Did jimmymac not learn how to read graphs when he was in grade school? Or did he forget?
CO2 measured at Barrow, Mauna Loa, Samoa, and the South Pole. Except for different seasonal variations, the trends are very similar.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/insitu.html
Graphs of CO2 data from towers at different heights in North Carolina and Wisconsin. Lower heights show the diurnal changes.
http://www.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccgg/diurnal.html
We all know that Coal and Crude contains Carbon which came from plants which when alive during the prehistor times absorbed CO2 from the air.
Fast forward to today’s understand of AGW we can know how the end or the world all ready happened:
CO2 in the air caused elevated heating, which we know cause melting glaciers, which caused rising sea levels, which covered the planet, which prevented plants from growing and non-aquatic life from “evolving”.
“Well I for one want to thank Sl Gore for my gasoline prices.”
Yeah, the high price of gasoline is ALL Al Gore’s fault.
“Sorry Ben, but static co2 numbers is an artificial crutch used by those who need a handle for their carpetbagging.”
And, once again, we have a non-scientist lecturing a scientist on science.
Of course, McCluer is an EX-PERT on EVERYTHING.
WS finally something we can agree on!!
You mean, about McCluer thinking that he is an expert on everything?
Hope you liberals and others that believe in global warming enjoyed your holiday yesterday!
In Ben’s and cosmos fantasy world of climate computing modeling, gases don’t expand, permeate nor to they go through oceanic cycles.
They both state there is no flux, funny how real science disagrees with them.
To them, co2 is just some sort of paperwork exercise statically displayed the same on paper and in their opinion, that same static display occurs in nature.
Too bad their belief is false.
fantasy world - lol
I suppose all the science I have studied is only fantasy too.
“They both state there is no flux, funny how real science disagrees with them.
To them, co2 is just some sort of paperwork exercise statically displayed the same on paper and in their opinion, that same static display occurs in nature.”
And both of those statements are simply blatant LIES!
regular - I suggest you contact the KSBTP and have my license revoked. As the licensing agency under which I operate they have the responsibility to do that.
I see now that you have put up your credentials Dr. Huie. :D
So you are telling me there are no such things as carbon cycles which are affected by temperature, wind, water vapor, oceanic and many other factors?
You are telling me that a measurement taken at the bottom of the ocean is the same taken during the night in some tropical jungle is the same as taken at some unknown monitoring tower.
Is this what your telling me Dr. Huie, that co2 levels never ever change regardless of the state or environment they are in?
Perhaps you should voluntarily hand in your license, I’ve think you’ve lost it.
Poor little jimmymac flails his arms wildly, and posts more lies about climate science.
“Is this what your telling me Dr. Huie, that co2 levels never ever change regardless of the state or environment they are in?”
Poor little jimmymac can’t read read graphs. Maybe a young grade-school child in jimmymac’s neighborhood can help him?
regular - I have attempted to excplain these things to you in the past. I was unsuccessful in being able to dumb it down enough for you.
And no, I am not handing in my license - it is perfectly valid and in good standing with the Board.
And I am VERY familiar with the various carbon cycles and the oceans.
Okay Ben, since you state co2 is static all over the globe, by conclusion there is no need for co2 regulations as nothing affects the rise or fall of co2.
Therefore, any co2 regulations trying to enforce co2 levels is a farce.
Poor jimmymac is beyond help re understanding graphs, and climate science.
Poor cosmos needs to get out in the real world and understand climate is not what is displayed on a graph.
According to cosmos’ logic, tornadoes must be some sort of mathematical function of oscillating wind and temperatures and are unaffected by local conditions, wind, relative humidity and atmospheric pressure.
Guess those tornadoes just pop right out of some peer reviewed paper some where and start wreaking havoc.
(chortles)
“”Our earnings, although high in absolute terms, need to be viewed in the context of the scale and cyclical, long-term nature of our industry as well as the huge investment requirements,” said J.S. Simon, senior vice president of Exxon Mobil Corp., which made a record $40 billion last year.
“We depend on high earnings during the up cycle to sustain … investment over the long term, including the down cycles,” he continued.”
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/04/01/america/Congress-Oil.php
The problem with that statement is the price of oil is not that cycle, at least in the way the oil execs want us to believe, any more. The price per bbl of oil is not going to drop below $100 anytime soon, if at all.
The “up” cycle has been going on for many years now, and we are still supplying corporate welfare to this bunch of crooks. In vesting? Investing in what? No new oil refineries built in over 25 years? And using environmentalists as the excuse?
Might I remind the neo-cons supporting this travesty the federal government is bypassing over 30 laws and regulations to build the ridiculous border fence? Do you think for one minute the same could not be done to build more refineries?
Econ, you certainly do live in an uninhabited world.
But jimmymac excels at lying about what other posters believe… and at lying about climate science.
“Okay Ben, since you state co2 is static all over the globe”
Show me where I stated that. Another LIE.
jimmymac excels at lying.
#
Ben
Posted April 2, 2008 at 3:26 pm | Permalink
“Okay Ben, since you state co2 is static all over the globe”
Show me where I stated that. Another LIE.
———————————–
Don’t try and wriggle out of this one Ben. You claim what I have written is false, yet don’t have the capacity to state why.
Your inference that co2 is at all co2 is in static equilibrium is quite apparent.
I guess temperature just stays the same in your Laboratory World doesn’t it Ben? :)
As for CO2, I don’t see a problem in regulating it. Going green as much as possible can only improve life. Coal plants should be heavily regulated, since they are not going to do that themselves.
In the mean time, alternative forms of energy need to be pursued with something akin to the Manhattan project. And done so for many reasons, the main one being: We are buying oil from countries supporting terrorism. Isn’t that what the Patriot Act was supposed to address? O, wait, it’s too busy bypassing the Constitution and going after drug users:
http://media.www.dailytexanonline.com/media/storage/paper410/news/2003/09/14/StateLocal/Critics.Cite.Patriot.Act.Abuse.And.Misuse-465391.shtml
. . . and they ain’t sorry!
This is hilarious, a guy that got a B+ in Biology 101 in High School is now lecturing a Phd’d scientist on science.
Damn, where is the popcorn when you need it?
Actually Clark, I had 110 percent grade Average in Biology, because I got all the bonus questions correct. (I never go an incorrect answer - except that I spelled Galapagos wrong - the Biology teacher was delighted he found an error - heh)
Of course, 100 percent is the highest that could be recorded according to the grading system they had. :)
“Actually Clark, I had 110 percent grade Average in Biology”
And that qualifies you to diss Dr, Ben Huie, right?
Your Biology teacher would be so proud.
Dumbass.
“Of course, 100 percent is the highest that could be recorded according to the grading system they had. :)”
. . . and this was third grade biology study?
O, wait, must have been third grade bible study, as according to regs religion, there is no need for biology study, as the bible has all the answers any Christian would ever need:-)
I see the Lib mob had come out in force.
Guess they are thinking that Dr. Huie is a weak Casper Milquetoast and cannot defend his own stance.
Sorry Ben, your fellow Libs think you are incapable of defending your position, so they start in with the insult fest.
Enjoy your Liberal friends Dr. Huie, they just gave you a vote of no confidence. :)
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg1.htm
“Sorry Ben, your fellow Libs think you are incapable of defending your position, so they start in with the insult fest.”
Ben Huie could mop the floor with you, McCluer, and hang you out to dry.
He doesn’t need anyone’s help - I just find you to be a pompous ass that needs to be slapped around once in a while for my amusement.
Yes Clark, you just can’t stand the fact that I’m college educated with Science Degrees and can hold my own in talks about Science.
That just totally ticks you off doesn’t it.
It’s okay, I understand the mind of the uneducated, such as yourself WSClark.
So please expose more of your rantings on this blog for the world to see.
It’s an eye opening experience for those who don’t know how really ignorant you are.
“Yes Clark, you just can’t stand the fact that I’m college educated with Science Degrees and can hold my own in talks about Science.”
I seriously doubt that. Please back up this so-called education with some proof, like a graduation cert?
Or are we supposed to take the word of one with a long history of trolling? Hell, if we are, I taught and failed you in all my classes. You really were the worst student I ever had:-)
heh J M Walker, a nice try.
I don’t ask Vaughn Tolle, GMC or Dr. Huie for their college certifications now do I?
When someone opposes what you Lib want to so desperately believe, you go for the personal attacks.
Face it J M Walker, you are unable or unwilling to have an adult debate.
jimmymac’s idea of an “adult debate” is posting lies about other posters and climate science.
And jimmymac is so ignorant and clueless about climate science, he claimed that E. G. Beck’s very bogus CO2 claims are accurate.
That’s an obvious fact, not a “personal attack”.
cosmos has written on this blog several times that the computer climate models used to predict climate are inaccurate and must be ‘combined’ together to slough wash a result.
Translated, it means that they use high and low end results - draw a line where it exactly meets their predictions and discard the rest of the data as outside the normal range of acceptability.
In short, they don’t believe their own data.
“Face it J M Walker, you are unable or unwilling to have an adult debate.”
Sorry, reg, I forgot. To have an intelligent, adult debate, one must be debating with an adult. I am still not convinced you qualify as one.
But be that as it may, I can say I’m a brain specialist, and everyone here is supposed to believe that? From reading your posts, I have serious doubts about your college education, as I’m sure all, or most, of those who disagree with you do.
The only thing I’ve noticed about your posts is your ingrained ability to turn fact into fiction. Pass the popcorn.
Thank you J M Walker for your curmudgeon insight.
I will give it the weight it deserves. :)
“It’s okay, I understand the mind of the uneducated, such as yourself WSClark.”
Yeah, right. This is coming from a guy that denied he was JM for over a year before he was outed with his own website.
He has proven, over and over again, that he is a liar.
What a loser you are, McCoward.
“I don’t ask Vaughn Tolle, GMC or Dr. Huie for their college certifications now do I?”
They only “science degree” that McCluer has is his Janitorial Degree, earned for cleaning out the science lab after class.
But it was signed by the head janitor……
” you just can’t stand the fact that I’m college educated with Science Degrees and can hold my own in talks about Science.”
Then why are you on welfare?
My prediction came true (It’s an eye opening experience for those who don’t know how really ignorant you (Clark) are.
…as evidenced in Clark’s 4:58 and 5:00 pm posts.
(chortles)
See, this is where I can put Ben (Dr. Huie) on the spot.
He will scream his highly educated head off about some claim I make, but when statements like Clark, J R and J M Walker make he’s knows that are false, he just let’s them slide on by.
Guess you have to maintain the Lib standard of reckless disregard for convenient facts eh Ben? :)
Ben enjoys the personal attacks on me, even when they are false.
In short, the Libs on this blog have no balls to call other Libs out when they lie.
It’s proven every day.
Prove that you were not just a janitor in college, McCluer, and not a student.
Let’s face it - you attended college as a janitor - nothing else - the closest you came was cleaning out the wastebaskets.
If I am wrong, prove it, idiot.
“In short, the Libs on this blog have no balls to call other Libs out when they lie.”
We don’t lie - the right wing bloggers own that franchise.
Global warming taxes does not come without cost. Politicians have found another way to tax us up down and out. Carbon taxes, emission taxes, greenhouse taxes, energy taxes and whatever we forgot to save the world taxes. There is no cause good enough for this farce. Al Gore disciples are spreading the words of false- hoods. Man cannot control enough emissions to make a difference in my opinion. I’m not going to change my life of emissions.
All (including the eminent scientist, Dr. Ben Huie) need to bow down before my impressive intellectual might!
I am the only expert on anything and EVERYTHING!
Of course, I will lie and make things up in order to further my conservative cause.
It still amazes me how the neo-cons can support the outdated and corrupt business practices of the major American automakers, and their equally corrupt oil companies.
Every other civilized nation on earth mandates better gas mileage than this one. While they did so out of necessity, this country, still locked in the dark ages of energy conservation, does not do so for profit only.
There is no desire, nor do they feel the need, to press for maximum output, in MPG, thus reducing the average joes’ fuel cost, saving energy, not sending billions to countries supporting terrorism and doing something beneficial for the environment.
The Republicans slam us with being traitors, surrender monkeys among just a few, but the republicans can’t seem to understand how much money their so-called patriots are throwing to terrorists. So if and/or when this country is attacked by terrorists resulting in thousands killed, look in the mirror and remind yourself, “I helped pay for that attack because I was more interested in profit than people.”
You neo-cons got nothing, and offer nothing.
If the patriot act was meant to reduce the risk of terrorist attack, they would MANDATE all new vehicles have ratings above 35 MPG. The technology is out there, but, damn, how can a company make a profit if people only have to fill up every 500 miles?
You morons may call us surrender monkeys for not supporting a war perpetrated on the American public by this admin, but you all are directly supporting terrorism every time you deny the publics demand for energy conservation.
You Neo Liberals will lay down and die, before you allow oil drilling in the USA.
A child molester worried about drilling for oil? I suppose stranger things have happened.
REgular, I dont think Ben said the things about CO2 that you said he said upthread!! You should really examine your reading comprehension again!! If I were you, I wouldnt try to take on a PhD with Ben’s credentials…
A very funny response,
‘CO2, warming, and causality’
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/03/co2_warming_and_causality.php
“z, in comments:
—-
“CO2 is not causing global warming, in fact, CO2 is lagging temperature change in all reliable datasets.”
—-
[response] See also my forthcoming paper: “Chickens do not lay eggs, because they have been observed to hatch from them”. “
If the CO2 problem doesn’t bother you, just how high must oil products go before you start to conserve and use less? How high must gas go? How high must food prices go? Heating? Packaging? You name it, we’ve become over-dependent on oil prodcuts to the point that we will be forced to find an alternative, possibly in the near future.
Personally, I’d rather spend that extra $1.50 a gallon that’s been added over the past 7 years of Bush’s rule on something I’d enjoy more than spewing pollutants into the air I breathe. Unless you’re getting a kickback from the oil companies, you’re being raped.
“The Public” has no demand for energy conservation like you claim JM Walker.
What do you drive?
If a majority of Americans were demanding the fuel milage of 35MPG they wouldn’t be buying SUV’s and Trucks.
The cost of gasoline is where it is because of all the government BS.
If we would simply allow more drilling, more refining, and less regulations on every aspect of oil production it wouldn’t cost so much.
Typical liberals, you implement government regulations which drive up price, complain about the price, then say because of the price we have to have more government regulations.
Go buy yourself a Honda Civic JM Walker. Do your part to contriubute to the “so called” public demand for higher MPG by putting YOUR money where your mouth is.
I can still afford to put gas into my 4.7 liter V8 just fine. I enjoy having the towing capacity I do and the ability to haul things. I also enjoy being able to get onto the freeway and up to 70MPH quickly.
Uh, Nathan, I never said a word about gas prices. What I wrote had everything to do with mileage. But that’s okay; I expect you have no problem then sending mega-bucks to terrorist sponsoring countries every time you fill up your 4.7 liter truck. Talk about getting priorities screwed up.
Well Nathan,
You are usually just obtuse. Here you descend into stupid.
“The cost of gasoline is where it is because of all the government BS.”
Um no. There have been no major tax increases state or Federal on the price of gasoline recently. The price of gasoline is manipulated by futures traders using every fart out of an oil rich nation as an excuse to jack the price.
“If we would simply allow more drilling, more refining, and less regulations on every aspect of oil production it wouldn’t cost so much.”
Now this is REALLY stupid.
The US has very little easily accessible oil remaining. The oil rich nations would LIKE it if we depleted what reserves we have. We have no capacity to much affect the global demand for oil.
And refineries? Did I miss a gas shortage? I see no stations out of gas. They always have ample supply. Huh we must have ample refining capacity. And no one WANTS to build a refinery anyway.
The rest of your post is “I this” and “I that”. Well Nathan? The world is just a little bit bigger than you and YOUR creature comforts. And if no one has ever told you that before, I am pleased to be the first.
COMMON SENSE PLEASE!
Short term goal:
Open up drilling where ever we need to (doing it safe and smart) and build a few more refineries.
Long Term Plan:
Wean ourselves off of oil and continue researching new energy sources.
By the way water vapor is also a greenhouse gas and there is much more of it, maybe we can find a way to tax that as well.
Why do we need to build new refineries.
We have no shortages of gasoline.
Global temps have not risen since 1998?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7329799.stm
econ101,
You’re clueless about climate.
El Nino causes warming.
La Nina causes cooling.
A decrease in solar causes cooling.
1998 had a record warm El Nino.
2007 had cooling from a La Nina, and a solar minimum.
2007 tied 1998.
Why?
Because there is a long term, human-caused global warming trend.
Interesting observation!
Remember the election in 2006? Thought you might like to read the
following:
A little over one year ago:
1) Consumer confidence stood at a 2 1/2 year high;
2) Regular gasoline sold for $2.19 a gallon;
3) The unemployment rate was 4.5%.
Since voting in a Democratic Congress in 2006 we have seen:
1) Consumer confidence plummet;
2) The cost of regular gasoline soar to over $3.50 a gallon;
3) Unemployment is up to 5% (a 10% increase);
4) American households have seen $2.3 trillion in equity
value evaporate (stock and mutual fund losses);
5)Americans have seen their home equity drop by $1.2 trillion
dollars;
6) 1% of American homes are in foreclosure.
America voted for change in 2006, and we got it!
Remember it’s Congress that makes law not the President. He has to work with what’s handed to him.
A liberal is a person who says “Spend it. It’s the governments money.”
A conservative asks “What is it you want to spend my money on now.”
I don’t know if I can stand anymore change…….
cosmos, Posted April 3, 2008 at 10:29 pm
“2007 tied 1998″
See? It all works out just fine!
But playing ‘chicken little’ is much more fun for cosmos.
Now we just need those energy plants in western KS to continue balancing.
“Boxlock”
It takes some time to reverse the damage that Republicans do.
It takes reversing tax cuts for the rich too.
Boxlock posted April 4, 2008 at 5:57 am
“See? It all works out just fine!
But playing ‘chicken little’ is much more fun for cosmos.
Now we just need those energy plants in western KS to continue balancing.”
Boxlock is WAY too [ * ] to understand that it was NOT supposed to “balance”.
2007 should have been cooler than 1998.
* = fill in your favorite word(s) and/or phrases, since we’re not supposed to make personal attacks on the WE Blog.