Only the rich will drive everyday

Tight-Waist · 05-15-2008, 03:08 PM

Originally Posted by ban basketball

Lighter cars is not the issue. It's in the fuel delivery systems of cars. We've made no improvements for 23 years. That's unconscionable.

Simply by mandating this, we'd have no reason to drill in Alaska. Again, I will ask: which interests rule this country?

No improvements in 23 years at all huh??? No hybrid cars, not even one.

By the mere fact that AWNR has NOT been drilled nor has offshore California been drilled PROVES that it is you whacky tree huggers that control this country!

FloggingSully · 05-15-2008, 03:11 PM

Originally Posted by Tight-Waist

I could just as easily point out out "how ecology interests rule this country, doesnt it?"

Um, Exxon makes $10,000,000,000 per quarter, other oil companies make close to that, they all spend lots of money lobbying congress. What ecological interest group has that much money or influence?

FloggingSully · 05-15-2008, 03:14 PM

Originally Posted by Tight-Waist

I thought some of your earlier talking points mentioned how little additional supplies from AWNR and offshore would lower gasoline prices and so I wanted to know what price they were being based on.

I stated earlier that (based on the conservative estimate of worldwide supply) drilling in ANWR would result in a decrease in price of less than 2.5%, if oil is $4/gallon the decrease would be less than 10 cents, if oil was a different price you can do the math.

Someone else sited Bush's economic advisors saying it would by 1-2 cents, I don't know what price they were basing it on.

ban basketball · 05-15-2008, 03:17 PM

Originally Posted by Tight-Waist

No improvements in 23 years at all huh??? No hybrid cars, not even one.

By the mere fact that AWNR has NOT been drilled nor has offshore California been drilled PROVES that it is you whacky tree huggers that control this country!

Correct. No improvements since 1985; not one. We're talking fuel efficiency standards of gas cars. WOW!!

How have environmentalists had anything to do with not drilling? Isn't it also odd that oil companies have not built anymore refineries, even though they have been able to in most areas of the country? Where did these oh so powerful environmentalists make that possible?

ban basketball · 05-15-2008, 03:18 PM

Originally Posted by FloggingSully

Um, Exxon makes $10,000,000,000 per quarter, other oil companies make close to that, they all spend lots of money lobbying congress. What ecological interest group has that much money or influence?

Hey, don't you know that environmentalists rule this country and the world?! Hell, we went to war for environmental interests! We killed the electric car for environmental interests!

Tight-Waist · 05-15-2008, 03:21 PM

Originally Posted by FloggingSully

Um, Exxon makes $10,000,000,000 per quarter, other oil companies make close to that, they all spend lots of money lobbying congress. What ecological interest group has that much money or influence?

If there is all that influence...WHY arent we drilling AWNR?????
If there is all that influence...WHY arent we drilling offshore California?

Even WITH a GOP congress and President the EcoNuts killed drilling AWNR and offshore California.

So to answer your question, evidently ALL of them!

Ohh and BTW... CocaCola and Pepsi have higher profit margins than do Exxon. Why not regulate them?

FloggingSully · 05-15-2008, 03:22 PM

Originally Posted by ban basketball

Hey, don't you know that environmentalists rule this country and the world?! Hell, we went to war for environmental interests! We killed the electric car for environmental interests!

Don't forget they dismanteled the rail-system for environemtal interests.

FloggingSully · 05-15-2008, 03:27 PM

Originally Posted by Tight-Waist

If there is all that influence...WHY arent we drilling AWNR????? Because it wouldn't be worth it
If there is all that influence...WHY arent we drilling offshore California? Because it wouldn't be worth it, you forget that by law national security interests trump all environmental laws.

Even WITH a GOP congress and President the EcoNuts killed drilling AWNR and offshore California. How exactly did they stop it if the GOP had all the power to make and enforce the law?

So to answer your question, evidently ALL of them!

Ohh and BTW... CocaCola and Pepsi have higher profit margins than do Exxon. Why not regulate them? Who said we should regulate the oil industry? I pointed out them having lots of money because lots of money = lots of political influence. Oil companies trump any environmental group in lobbying.

I think I need to type somthing here for the message to work.

Cyclone85 · 05-15-2008, 06:09 PM

Yeah, but I think the empirical evidence based on past market activities would show that these 1-2-10-cent figures are likely way under-estimated. The 1970s oil and gas crisis was caused by a Saudi disruption that resulted in a 4% decrease in supplies over a sustained period. The market flipped out and gas prices more than doubled and oil nearly quadrupled in a very short period of time. We now live in an environment where the market melts-down when a single pipeline carrying 50k barrels a day is bombed, or when a tropical storm is bearing down 3,500 kilometers out in the sea. Adding a significant supply like ANWR would likely do the opposite. Permitting drilling in the continental shelf where there are multiple 10s of billions of known reserves would do wonders. And allowing alternative sources of oil to reach America (oil sands) is also a viable option. But no -- no, the U.S. will have none of this. Instead, it is better to receive 2/3 of everything we get from Canada, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, and Nigeria.

I don't trust Bush's people to answer anything right. His economic advisers must be the same ones that gave us the most fiscally reckless program of the last 40-years; say hello to the Medicare Part D drug program that your grandchildren will be paying for someday. The 1-2 cent reduction is hogwash in my opinion.

Originally Posted by FloggingSully

I stated earlier that (based on the conservative estimate of worldwide supply) drilling in ANWR would result in a decrease in price of less than 2.5%, if oil is $4/gallon the decrease would be less than 10 cents, if oil was a different price you can do the math.

Someone else sited Bush's economic advisors saying it would by 1-2 cents, I don't know what price they were basing it on.

Tight-Waist · 05-15-2008, 07:02 PM

Originally Posted by Tight-Waist

If there is all that influence...WHY arent we drilling AWNR????? Because it wouldn't be worth it
If there is all that influence...WHY arent we drilling offshore California? Because it wouldn't be worth it, you forget that by law national security interests trump all environmental laws.

I havent forgotten anything and National Security Interests do NOT apply in this case because there is no national security crisis.
Did you even read what we were arguing about??? I doesnt appear so. We were discussing who was more powerful politically, Oil or Ecology. I pointed out by the fact that since neither ANWR or offshore California had been drilled then the Eco lobby was more powerful.

Even WITH a GOP congress and President the EcoNuts killed drilling AWNR and offshore California. How exactly did they stop it if the GOP had all the power to make and enforce the law?

Never hear of filibusters???? It takes a 2/3 majority to run roughshod over the opposition even if you have the White House. Just as Bill Clinton.

So to answer your question, evidently ALL of them!

Ohh and BTW... CocaCola and Pepsi have higher profit margins than do Exxon. Why not regulate them? Who said we should regulate the oil industry? I pointed out them having lots of money because lots of money = lots of political influence. Oil companies trump any environmental group in lobbying.
As I pointed out if oil was more powerful than "Green" we'd be drilling ANWR. Some politicians happen to believe as you do and some happen to believe as I do. That doesnt necessarily mean that if they vote one way or the other that its because they are under undo influence. Sometimes an endorsement, such as from Greenpeace or the Sierra Club can do just as much to ensure a re-election as can gobs of money. THAT is why the Eco-Lobby is MORE powerful than the oil lobby. There are more voters who identify themselves wtih green issues than those that identify with petroleum issues.

Only the rich will drive everyday

Politics & Religion