Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Joe NYC who wrote (145799)	4/22/2002 3:59:34 AM
From: tejek	Respond to of 1574101

Why, when most people are not voluntarily making the effort and any attempt to pass higher taxes are oil are short circuited? You don't need most of the poeple to have a substantial effect. As I said, 50% people cutting their consumption by 50% will cut the overall consumption by 25%. Are you saying that less than 50% of the US population agrees with the need to cut oil consumption? Well, Joe, our oil consumption is increasing. That would suggest that not many people are cutting back like you and I are.........but then again, I am one of those shallow thinkers so what do I know. And no, I am not letting go of that one for a while. <g> What kind of support do you think your idea (of cutting oil consumption) really has? Again, why not make voluntary rationing mandatory Because doing something on voluntary basis is superior to compulsion. What's happens if people don't do it voluntarily? Let me turn around the question: Why mandate when voluntary action can work? Why? Because voluntary action is not working that's why I asked the question above.....over the past ten years, oil consumption has increased in the US. In most of the Western European nations, consumption has remained static or declined but we are having trouble kicking the habit. Is there anything about forcing people to do something against they disagree with appealing? No, its not appealing but its for the good of all the people. A lot of people don't like stopping at red lights. But at some point in our development, we decided that that was a good thing. I think I know what's really behind your preference to mandatory action, but I would rather hear it from you. No, you go for it.......remember I am a shallow thinker. In the future, if its needed and we could extract without damaging the environment there at all, I would go for it. I have held this opinion ever since it came up (more or less). I don't know why we have to go through all the confrontational posts (oil barons etc.) if there isn't really that much disagreement in the first place. Because you start out usually by saying what's the big deal about drilling in the ANWR. And understand too, my very strong preference is too conserve and not to use more of oil. Seattle has some of the cleanest air in the country when you measure ozone and particulate content in the air. But when you measure for certain hazardous, cancer causing chemicals found in diesel fuel, we rank right up there in the top ten. Not only do we have a dependency problem but its huring our health. If the need was really there today, I think it could be extracted with normal level of risk that we already accept elsewhere, but I don't think there is a need to extract it now, since we are getting all the oil we need from elsewhere, and we get this oil at low prices. I agree. Well, we've solved another major problem. In a few more days, the world should be a much better place. ;~)) ted Enter symbols or keywords for search: QuotesStock TalkChartsNewsPeople Symbol Lookup Subject Titles Only Full Text Go to Top Terms of Use Got a comment, question or suggestion? Contact Silicon Investor.