Re: No More Dependence on Foreign Oil- Coming to Your Neighborhood Soon

On Sun, 23 Apr 2006 23:17:35 +0000, ehsjr wrote:

Paul E. Schoen wrote:
"Jim Thompson" <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
message news:f7uk42l1nkjs13j10k744ei25hp1fi22mk@xxxxxxxxxx

On Sat, 22 Apr 2006 18:33:02 GMT, Fred Bloggs <nospam@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:


http://ur.rutgers.edu/medrel/science/coal.shtml

Of course! But do you think the "greenies" allow it? We can't even
open up the Alaska fields.

...Jim Thompson


It should be possible to mine and process coal without excessive damage to
the environment. The real problem is our (mostly USA) overconsumption and
waste of energy. I consider myself a "reasonable" greenie. I oppose opening
Alaskan oil fields because it just delays the proper solutions to this
problem, and allows Big Oil and other corporate interests to continue to
make obscene profits while despoiling the environment for future
generations. My recommendations include:

I think that your plan would work, with small modifications:


1. Add a federal surcharge of $2/gallon on gasoline, and give every
individual a $500 transportation tax credit. Use the surplus for vehicular
efficiency research.

Yes, those who wish to impose this on others should
serve as the test case first, to prove validity. So
have a vote - the greenies who vote for it will be
subject to it, to prove their point.

Say for an experimenta period of not less than five years? Don't forget
to surcharge their produce (they don't eat meat) for the truck mileage
either. Though there's a thought, tax vegetables, not meat!

2. Reduce long haul trucking and replace it with much more efficient rail
transport.

To prove this point, products that are hauled by truck over
long distances will have a surcharge, paid by those who vote
for the idea. People who vote against it will not pay the
surcharge. The surcharge will be based on the ratio of
long haul trucking efficiencey/rail transport efficiency.

Let the greenies eat the lettuce that comes off the trains too. I'll take
mine fresh, thanks. How about strawberries? I'll let them clean the
gushy stuff out of my refrigerator for a hefty fee.


3. Make passenger car rail transport cost effective and convenient for
long trips.

Yes. You buy a ticket to x destination. When you arrive there, a
greenie supplies you with a car. It's convenient, because you don't have
to drive your car onto the train. It costs less, because there is no
need for moving the car - it stays at the owner's home. Lower energy
cost, and no need for special trains that can move autos.

Look at the subsidies that AmTrack gets before even proposing such. Now
you want a free car too?

4. Use advertising techniques to convince people it is cool and sexy to
drive a vehicle that gets 40+ MPG rather than compensating for sexual
inadequacy and workday frustrations by promoting dragster acceleration
and competitive (rather than cooperative) driving.

This is a flaw in the plan. Sexually inadequate people are presumed to
be non-greenies by the greenies.

Yep. That's why greenies buy Volvos. It makes them feel like pussies,
even though they're really buying a Ford.

If that were true, they'd Darwin out of
existence in time, so the plan would be unnecessary. Greenies presume
themselves more intelligent - so intelligent, that they think they have
the right to dictate to others. Thus, another reason that greenies will
prevail a la Darwin - and another reason that greenies should recognize
the difficulty with the plan, even before non-greenies.

Huh? They don't think. They listen to CBS news!

5. Put real money into alternative fuels, hybrid and full electric
technology.

Yes. The surcharges that the greenies pay should go to that. This will
not only promote r&d, it will make the greenies happy.

The greenies (and they've taught most of the populace) don't believe in
thermodynamics either. Governments can trump thermodynamics with tax
incentives.

I have a simple 1998 Saturn SL1 which averages 35-40 MPG, and a 1989
Toyota 4WD pickup which I use only when necessary, and it gets about 22
MPG. Technology exists to double these figures without degrading
performance. Aggressive driving habits will knock 30% off these numbers
even with the most efficient technology. When people actually consider
their vehicle and public roads as tools for transportation, rather than
an amusement park thriller or an arena for competition, our lopsided
demand for oil will become more in line with the rest of the world.
Most people will not voluntarily change their habits, so taxation (with
rewards for conservation) is probably the only means that will work.

So the tax rate for those who vote for the plan should be what? Doubled?
Tripled? X times the current rate?

No, they should be given an allowance, say $10 per family member for
bean sprouts and a $20/day stipend for Starbucks (as long as it comes from
certified "fair trade" beans).

As engineers and hobbyists in the field of electronics, we can
contribute by designing systems which can increase efficiency,
especially with EVs and possibly a hybrid conversion kit such as I am
attempting to design. See http://www.smart.net/~pstech/SHAMPAC.htm

Paul E. Schoen
www.pstech-inc.com



Yup, overall, a very good plan. It's about time greenies start to carry
their weight.

Pile it on! Even though their hearts bleed storms, they _need_ to give so
much more (compare Gore's charitable contributions as VP to the Cheneys').

--
Keith
.