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.

Gold/Mining/Energy : PEAK OIL - The New Y2K or The Beginning of the Real End? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: I_C_Deadpeople who wrote (705)	6/6/2005 11:14:09 AM
From: Mahatmabenfoo	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1183

I was thinking large gasoline taxes ($4 gallon) in part to discourge driving) but more to fund alternative fuels research. Are you saying that with modern SUVs reducing speed to 55mph won't save fuel? - Charles

To: I_C_Deadpeople who wrote (705)	6/7/2005 12:27:26 AM
From: kryptonic6	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1183

This is somewhat of a silly statement. You're right. The point I was trying to make is that banning SUV's would not really do anything to alleviate the problem. SUV drivers would pick up a different kind of car and continue burning fuel. Most importantly, we're past the point where increasing fuel efficiency is going to do diddly shit. I let optimism take control of me there. Good luck trying any measure as a preventative one - all measures will be done proactively. Human nature my friend. Our society will do nothing to proactively fix future problems if it involves making even moderate sacrifices. Bingo. Sad but true. Jesse