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 : Politics of Energy -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Road Walker who wrote (590)	7/7/2008 1:08:34 PM
From: Brumar89	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 86355

If you're not in favor of foregoing producing more conventionally here, you should stop angrily objecting when someone advocates doing that. Like this: You can produce "more" oil and natural gas in the US and it won't make a bit of F'ing difference. Well if you guys would stop talking like drilling is a solution, and embrace the real opportunity, you might be met with less frustration. I referred to domestic production of conventional energy - oil, natural gas, coal, and nuclear. I do think that is important, just as important as conservation and wind and solar. And the oil and natural gas part requires drilling. For some reason, that angers you and mm. ----------------------------------------------- The couple of percentage points I was referring to is the unexploited US reserves compared to world production. Drill away but it probably won't equal a two year increase in China and India consumption. No reason to forego that. ----------------------------------------------- 1) you and mindmeld tend to talk about conservation and producing more domestic energy as mutually exclusive alternatives (as observed above, advocating more domestic production actually angers you) No you guys are the mutually exclusive guys. We are actually looking for a solution. You guys keep beating a dead horse for political one-ups-manship. Sorry, I don't accept that as a fair assessment of what I've been saying: Message 24734014 Message 24728433 I've never said anything negative about conservation. I've said its occuring and will occur more as a result of higher prices. ------------------------------------------------------- 2) you assume conservation has to be commanded by some collective decision imposed by the government. In reality, the only way meaningful conservation is gonna happen is people voluntarily responding to prices. Government mandates just about everything that makes every auto "roadworthy". The 'free market' didn't put 100's of safety features in cars... the government did. The government currently has CAFE standards... this is not revolutionary, it's just recognizing a huge problem and adjusting standards to meet the national interest. When the rubber meets the road the government mandates almost everything from headlights to stop lights. Quit acting like an abused little libertarian and recognize reality. Here's where you and mm have a real difference with me. You guys have a hostile attitude toward market forces and a high regard for government command decisions. As for safety features in cars, I think both regulations and consumer preferences have played a part in making cars safer. Currently, I think we're going backwards on safety as cars shrink in weight and strength. There are real tradeoffs between efficiency and safety. Yes I know we have CAFE standards. I also know they were raised last year (supposed to require avg of 35 mph by 2020). Despite that you are angry and apparently want much more drastic action. I can only imagine what.