Experts Consider Rationing System to Reduce Energy Use/Global Warming. --WITH POLL--

[Queasy]

First...let's start with Al Gore. He has three very large energy consuming homes. He also flys on private planes, owns stock in an oil company, and allows a zinc mining operation to dump pollutants off of one his properties.

Then, we can start with Barak Obama who says at a townhall meeting that we all need to get rid of our gas-guzzlers and then drives off in a GMC Envoy. One of his PR flaks tries to cover for Obama by saying that the SUV was an E85 vehicle....only the GMC Envoy isn't.

But, it will never happen. Why? Because Gore, Obama, and all these celebrities and politicians calling for people to cut their energy usage want everyone else to cut their energy usage. They still get to use all the energy they want...why? Because they are part of the elite.

Remember....all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Queasy
First...let's start with Al Gore. He has three very large energy consuming homes. He also flys on private planes, owns stock in an oil company, and allows a zinc mining operation to dump pollutants off of one his properties.

Then, we can start with Barak Obama who says at a townhall meeting that we all need to get rid of our gas-guzzlers and then drives off in a GMC Envoy. One of his PR flaks tries to cover for Obama by saying that the SUV was an E85 vehicle....only the GMC Envoy isn't.

But, it will never happen. Why? Because Gore, Obama, and all these celebrities and politicians calling for people to cut their energy usage want everyone else to cut their energy usage. They still get to use all the energy they want...why? Because they are part of the elite.

Remember....all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.

Do as we say, not as we do.

 

[funboy6942]

Fvck that. if, IF this starts to happen I dont want my left over surplus in uncle sam bucks back I want to sell my surplus off to the highest bidder like they do with power plants that dont put out thier quota in polution for the month. It gets sold on the market and is traded on the stock exchange. I dont use all mine up I dont need sam giving me a piddly ass check. I want to sell off what I dont use to the rich ass with the humvee that will pay an arm and a leg for my left over rations.

Shoot Id make bank. I go no where, wife goes no where other then to get the kids to school everyday and we go grocery shopping once a month. I will have a butt load left to sell so f the check from the government I want to sell them off how, where, when, and for as much as I please. If big ass factories can do that so should I with my green house gas rations card.

Originally posted by: Queasy
First...let's start with Al Gore. He has three very large energy consuming homes. He also flys on private planes, owns stock in an oil company, and allows a zinc mining operation to dump pollutants off of one his properties.

Then, we can start with Barak Obama who says at a townhall meeting that we all need to get rid of our gas-guzzlers and then drives off in a GMC Envoy. One of his PR flaks tries to cover for Obama by saying that the SUV was an E85 vehicle....only the GMC Envoy isn't.

But, it will never happen. Why? Because Gore, Obama, and all these celebrities and politicians calling for people to cut their energy usage want everyone else to cut their energy usage. They still get to use all the energy they want...why? Because they are part of the elite.

Remember....all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.

Thats being done now with water. Were supposed to use low flush, airradiers on all faucets, cant water your lawn between such and such and for what? So a rich person who may of passed the law or helped it through can go home to thier house with 15 bathrooms with toiles that can suck a 18lb bowling ball through, a beday so squirt thier asses clean because god forbit they get someof thier non-skinky poop on thier hands. Then top the day off in thier shower the size of a small home with 100 watter jets and can use as much water as the rain forrest gets in one day.

Dont get me started with the BS our government passes you know full on 100% they dont do themselves.

****** what other country is run by the same people who make and break laws, can make a company go under or take off and everyone on the board who has the controll to make the stock exchange do what and how they want at will then every single member be allowed to put money into the stock exchange? They know whats going to happen they are the ones that make it go up and down with the silly laws and what not and they have the total inside information for they are making it all happen and yet they all can play on the stock exchange. But if normal guy on street gets a tip OH NONONONONOO dont you dare do that because you may mess up thier plans and someone may miss out on thier yhat money.

I better shut up before the back choppers fly over my house and no one hears from us again.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: funboy42
Fvck that. if, IF this starts to happen I dont want my left over surplus in uncle sam bucks back I want to sell my surplus off to the highest bidder like they do with power plants that dont put out thier quota in polution for the month. It gets sold on the market and is traded on the stock exchange. I dont use all mine up I dont need sam giving me a piddly ass check. I want to sell off what I dont use to the rich ass with the humvee that will pay an arm and a leg for my left over rations.

Soot Id make bank. I go no where, wife goes no where other then to get the kids to school everyday and we go grocery shopping once a month. I will have a butt load left to sell so f the check from the government I want to sell them off how, where, when, and for as much as I please. If big ass factories can do that so should I with my green house gas rations card.

makes sense to me

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: Queasy
First...let's start with Al Gore. He has three very large energy consuming homes. He also flys on private planes, owns stock in an oil company, and allows a zinc mining operation to dump pollutants off of one his properties.

Then, we can start with Barak Obama who says at a townhall meeting that we all need to get rid of our gas-guzzlers and then drives off in a GMC Envoy. One of his PR flaks tries to cover for Obama by saying that the SUV was an E85 vehicle....only the GMC Envoy isn't.

But, it will never happen. Why? Because Gore, Obama, and all these celebrities and politicians calling for people to cut their energy usage want everyone else to cut their energy usage. They still get to use all the energy they want...why? Because they are part of the elite.

Remember....all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.

One could argue that the amount of effort they put forth in getting others to reduce carbon emissions far outweighs the amount expended by private jets, and large SUVs. Seriously, you expect a former vice president and presidential candidate to fly any other way, or a senator to try to conduct business in the back of a prius? What is the point of that comment anyway? You think they are trying to convince others to use less energy so they can hoard it all for themselves?

Right now, we all get to use all the energy we want. If their actions lead a single person to use less energy, which I'm sure they have, it's pretty much a net gain.

 

[Ophir]

Originally posted by: EyeMWing
Oh, and a note to all the god damned californians who want to b!tch about fossil fuel consumption (or at least the 2 of you who can and do vote).

There are nuclear power plants in your state. They're ALL sitting there, doing NOTHING, because your government decided they wanted to make it nearly impossible to operate them. Because of that, the power companies just turned the things off and started buying power from other states - generally made from burning coal, or oil. If your nuclear plants were turned back on and brought to full capacity, the exact opposite could take place - you could be exporting electricity to those other power markets, and shut down the polluting plants.

But no, you guys are too involved in your own state's egotrip to give a sh!t about the rest of the planet - you guys don't have power plants. That makes you better than us. I, personally, would not mind one little bit if they built a nuke plant in my back yard. I'm sure they'd have problems cooling it off that little creek, but that's for them to figure out.

What the FVCK are you talking about. We have 2 nukes (a total of 4.3 gigawatts) providing 18.4% of the total electricity generated by the state. Source.

I hate the wackos in this state as much as the next guy, but get your facts straight.

Edit: In the hope that you would want to get your head out of your ass, here's an informative read on nuclear power in California: Text. In there you'll find out that there are indeed 4 shut down nukes in CA; however, these reactors "only" have the combined capacity to produce ~1.5 GW of power (which would account for 6.25% of total CA output).

 

[Rubycon]

A better way would be to put a freaking SCALE in front of the pump. So what you pay per gallon depends on vehicle weight. LOL that would shake some chains eh? :laugh:

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: MS Dawn
A better way would be to put a freaking SCALE in front of the pump. So what you pay per gallon depends on vehicle weight. LOL that would shake some chains eh? :laugh:

I'd think their inherently lower mileage and the gas guzzler tax is incentive enough not to buy them.

And there are some people out there who legitimately need large vehicles etc...

I also think its absurd that a hybrid SUV qualifies for a rebate whereas as more efficient non-hybrid smaller car does not.

At the end of the day, theres only going to be one way to get people to drive smaller vehicles, and use less energy....higher energy prices. The rationing idea is a good one, in theory opposed only by those who want it all for themselves, but in practice, it sounds like a logistical nightmare.

Global warming is real, but human ingenuity will find a way to deal with it....when our hand is forced. The people will never do anything but talk about it until then. Until that times comes, I purchase my vehicles based on 0-60 rather than mpg.

 

[everman]

More nuclear power is what we need. Australia may be seeing the light, possibly lifting legislation that has limited the mining and exportation of nuclear material. They're shooting themselves in the foot economically with such large amounts of the material ready to mine.

 

[jagec]

Originally posted by: eLiu
fvck that. What a retarded policy. I should be able to use however much energy I require--no more, no less.

That's a stupid sentence, because you don't "require" very much energy at all.

 

[Ophir]

Originally posted by: everman
More nuclear power is what we need. Australia may be seeing the light, possibly lifting legislation that has limited the mining and exportation of nuclear material. They're shooting themselves in the foot economically with such large amounts of the material ready to mine.

I agree. I think it's one of the great tragedies of modern society that nuclear fusion has been so thoroughly overlooked as an alternative power source. If we only had the foresight to properly fund researchers, we would likely have viable plants in 20-30 years. With fusion, power concerns would essentially become a null issue - as would the search for other band-aid type ideas (eg biodiesel, solar, etc.).

 

[Raduque]

I think it's because Nuclear power doesn't generate revenue like coal does - isn't plutonium something that pretty much lasts for a hundred years?

 

[funboy6942]

Originally posted by: Ophir

Originally posted by: everman
More nuclear power is what we need. Australia may be seeing the light, possibly lifting legislation that has limited the mining and exportation of nuclear material. They're shooting themselves in the foot economically with such large amounts of the material ready to mine.

I agree. I think it's one of the great tragedies of modern society that nuclear fusion has been so thoroughly overlooked as an alternative power source. If we only had the foresight to properly fund researchers, we would likely have viable plants in 20-30 years. With fusion, power concerns would essentially become a null issue - as would the search for other band-aid type ideas (eg biodiesel, solar, etc.).

Why do we need more of thoes to give a terrorist something to aim for other then a building. No thanks I say to more of them for the moment till that gets under controll and we dont have someone trying to fly a plane doen the exhaust stack causing a melt down that will screw the area and its people for a billion+ years.

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: funboy42

Originally posted by: Ophir

Originally posted by: everman
More nuclear power is what we need. Australia may be seeing the light, possibly lifting legislation that has limited the mining and exportation of nuclear material. They're shooting themselves in the foot economically with such large amounts of the material ready to mine.

I agree. I think it's one of the great tragedies of modern society that nuclear fusion has been so thoroughly overlooked as an alternative power source. If we only had the foresight to properly fund researchers, we would likely have viable plants in 20-30 years. With fusion, power concerns would essentially become a null issue - as would the search for other band-aid type ideas (eg biodiesel, solar, etc.).

Why do we need more of thoes to give a terrorist something to aim for other then a building. No thanks I say to more of them for the moment till that gets under controll and we dont have someone trying to fly a plane doen the exhaust stack causing a melt down that will screw the area and its people for a billion+ years.

Those exhaust stacks are pretty thick with concrete. It would take alot to do serious damage to them. I think they tested this way back when and flew an old fighter plan into the side of one of the exhaust towers at near the speed of sound. The plane disintegrated and only a small crater was left in the side of the stack.

The bigger danger would be if terrorists somehow got to the spent fuel pool.

Still, people constantly complain about the costs of energy. Nuclear power is plenty capable of providing cheap, efficient, and clean energy. Unfortunately, the NIMBYism (Not In My BackYard) in our country is turning into BANANAism (Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything).

 

[spacejamz]

on a somewhat related note, the Dallas Morning news ran an article yesterday about the the highest water consumers in the Highland Park area of Dallas, which is an affluent area where many of Dallas' 'elite' live.

The top user on the list was Harlan Crow, a real investor, uses over 1.8 million gallons of water a month - his monthly water bill is around $5800.

Next up on the list was his dad Trammell Crow who uses 1.1 million gallons a month.

Number 3 on the list was the Dallas Country Club who used 913,000 gallons...

Number 5 was Jerry Jones, the owner of the Dallas Cowboys who used 512,000 gallon...

Keep in mind that much of the Texas area is exeriencing record droughts where many of the area's lakes are significantly lower than normal (12-15 feet lower).

The city sent letters 'asking' top 20 users to conserve water. I would be willing to bet that those letters went straight to the trash can.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: mugs

But critics say a rationing system, linked to personal financial rewards and penalties for millions of people, could be a costly slide toward Big Brother-style surveillance.

That doesn't sound like rationing at all... it sounds like they use the word "rationing" to evoke an emotional response, because most people think rationing is bad. This sounds like they'd just be making people pay more for polluting more. I don't see anything wrong with that.

There's a big difference between forcing someone to do something and giving them an economic incentive to do it. This is like tax rebates on hybrids and higher taxes on SUVs.

You already pay more for polluting more. No one consumes for free. Any artificial system the government might impose would be inefficient, potentially abusive or misguided, and would hit hardest those least able to afford it.

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: BD2003

Originally posted by: Queasy
First...let's start with Al Gore. He has three very large energy consuming homes. He also flys on private planes, owns stock in an oil company, and allows a zinc mining operation to dump pollutants off of one his properties.

Then, we can start with Barak Obama who says at a townhall meeting that we all need to get rid of our gas-guzzlers and then drives off in a GMC Envoy. One of his PR flaks tries to cover for Obama by saying that the SUV was an E85 vehicle....only the GMC Envoy isn't.

But, it will never happen. Why? Because Gore, Obama, and all these celebrities and politicians calling for people to cut their energy usage want everyone else to cut their energy usage. They still get to use all the energy they want...why? Because they are part of the elite.

Remember....all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.

One could argue that the amount of effort they put forth in getting others to reduce carbon emissions far outweighs the amount expended by private jets, and large SUVs. Seriously, you expect a former vice president and presidential candidate to fly any other way, or a senator to try to conduct business in the back of a prius? What is the point of that comment anyway? You think they are trying to convince others to use less energy so they can hoard it all for themselves?

Right now, we all get to use all the energy we want. If their actions lead a single person to use less energy, which I'm sure they have, it's pretty much a net gain.

It doesn't have to be a Prius but don't go to a townhall meeting saying that gas-guzzling vehicles are the problem and then drive off in one. Then have a PR flack try to tell everyone that it is an E85 SUV when GMC doesn't make E85 Envoys. Hypocrisy my friend. Hypocrisy.

Does Gore have to fly around in private jets? Nope...he can take commercial just like the rest of us if he's so concerned. I'd even let him sit in First Class. That doesn't excuse his three large energy consuming homes, stock in an evil oil company, and allowing a zinc mining operation to pollute off of his property.

This is akin to Barbara Streisand writing a hilarious screed about people needing to turn their thermostats up to a higher temperature during the summer/lower temp during the winter and hang their clothes out to dry instead of using a clothes dryer. Of course, Barbara's NY Condo has to maintain a 70 degree temperature during the summer and her clothes are too nice to be hung out to dry.

all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.

 

[Savij]

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: funboy42

Originally posted by: Ophir

Originally posted by: everman
More nuclear power is what we need. Australia may be seeing the light, possibly lifting legislation that has limited the mining and exportation of nuclear material. They're shooting themselves in the foot economically with such large amounts of the material ready to mine.

I agree. I think it's one of the great tragedies of modern society that nuclear fusion has been so thoroughly overlooked as an alternative power source. If we only had the foresight to properly fund researchers, we would likely have viable plants in 20-30 years. With fusion, power concerns would essentially become a null issue - as would the search for other band-aid type ideas (eg biodiesel, solar, etc.).

Why do we need more of thoes to give a terrorist something to aim for other then a building. No thanks I say to more of them for the moment till that gets under controll and we dont have someone trying to fly a plane doen the exhaust stack causing a melt down that will screw the area and its people for a billion+ years.

Those exhaust stacks are pretty thick with concrete. It would take alot to do serious damage to them. I think they tested this way back when and flew an old fighter plan into the side of one of the exhaust towers at near the speed of sound. The plane disintegrated and only a small crater was left in the side of the stack.

The bigger danger would be if terrorists somehow got to the spent fuel pool.

Still, people constantly complain about the costs of energy. Nuclear power is plenty capable of providing cheap, efficient, and clean energy. Unfortunately, the NIMBYism (Not In My BackYard) in our country is turning into BANANAism (Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything).

F-4 Phantom on a 400mph rocket sled into a mock-up of the protection system. Phantom desintergrated except for the wingtips (9-11 pentagon conspiracy people who ask "where's the plane" should check out the video too).

And people need to learn what a meltdown is. Chernobyl was not the same as US reactors. What happened there can't happen here. Different reaction method. The same scenerio happening here would require a break down in the laws of physics.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Savij

And people need to learn what a meltdown is. Chernobyl was not the same as US reactors. What happened there can't happen here. Different reaction method. The same scenerio happening here would require a break down in the laws of physics.

Shhhh! Don't contradict the ignorant fear mongering of the no-nukes crowd!

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: BD2003

Originally posted by: Queasy
First...let's start with Al Gore. He has three very large energy consuming homes. He also flys on private planes, owns stock in an oil company, and allows a zinc mining operation to dump pollutants off of one his properties.

Then, we can start with Barak Obama who says at a townhall meeting that we all need to get rid of our gas-guzzlers and then drives off in a GMC Envoy. One of his PR flaks tries to cover for Obama by saying that the SUV was an E85 vehicle....only the GMC Envoy isn't.

But, it will never happen. Why? Because Gore, Obama, and all these celebrities and politicians calling for people to cut their energy usage want everyone else to cut their energy usage. They still get to use all the energy they want...why? Because they are part of the elite.

Remember....all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.

One could argue that the amount of effort they put forth in getting others to reduce carbon emissions far outweighs the amount expended by private jets, and large SUVs. Seriously, you expect a former vice president and presidential candidate to fly any other way, or a senator to try to conduct business in the back of a prius? What is the point of that comment anyway? You think they are trying to convince others to use less energy so they can hoard it all for themselves?

Right now, we all get to use all the energy we want. If their actions lead a single person to use less energy, which I'm sure they have, it's pretty much a net gain.

It doesn't have to be a Prius but don't go to a townhall meeting saying that gas-guzzling vehicles are the problem and then drive off in one. Then have a PR flack try to tell everyone that it is an E85 SUV when GMC doesn't make E85 Envoys. Hypocrisy my friend. Hypocrisy.

Does Gore have to fly around in private jets? Nope...he can take commercial just like the rest of us if he's so concerned. I'd even let him sit in First Class. That doesn't excuse his three large energy consuming homes, stock in an evil oil company, and allowing a zinc mining operation to pollute off of his property.

This is akin to Barbara Streisand writing a hilarious screed about people needing to turn their thermostats up to a higher temperature during the summer/lower temp during the winter and hang their clothes out to dry instead of using a clothes dryer. Of course, Barbara's NY Condo has to maintain a 70 degree temperature during the summer and her clothes are too nice to be hung out to dry.

all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.

But the hypocrisy only brings into question the person, not the message. I've heard from gore's own mouth that his family drives around priuses and hybrid lexuses...lexii? (RX300h I assume?)

If youre making the argument that politicians and presidential candidates tend to make a lot of money, then obviously you are correct. Criticizing him for owning stock in an oil company is somewhat absurd when if there's ever a conflict of interest, that is it.

I remember at the colbert report, a global warming scientist was on the spot. Colbert cornered him, and asked him if he flew a hybrid jet etc...he said no, but he invested in alternative energy to offset the carbon in the environment that flight produced.

As far as I'm concerned, it's the same thing. Believe it or not, there are practical uses for SUVs in this world, and shuttling around politicians in the back of them is a pretty decent one. At the end of the day, I'm sure his efforts in bringing out the message of global warming have done far more to help the environment than the exhaust from his SUV has.

You want to criticize him for being rich, thats your prerogative. That has nothing to do with his message...we have an energy problem here. And when it comes down to it, this is all about luxury - its only a crisis because we don't want to get sent back to a uncomfortable pre-industrial age, it's NOT life or death for the majority of us.

 

[joelmold]

Originally posted by: mugs

This sounds like they'd just be making people pay more for polluting more. I don't see anything wrong with that.

There's a big difference between forcing someone to do something and giving them an economic incentive to do it. This is like tax rebates on hybrids and higher taxes on SUVs.

you nailed it. this has already been enormously successful at the corporate/manufacturing level with tradable emmissions credits, and it absolutely makes sense to give individuals an economic incentive to reduce pollution too. the market would adapt and we'd all be better off eventually. this is usually called free-market environmentalism, and it's about as capitalist as you can get, not socialist as some have said...

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: BD2003
You want to criticize him for being rich, thats your prerogative. That has nothing to do with his message...we have an energy problem here. And when it comes down to it, this is all about luxury - its only a crisis because we don't want to get sent back to a uncomfortable pre-industrial age, it's NOT life or death for the majority of us.

I'm not criticizing them for being rich. I'm criticizing them for being hypocrites who ask others to do what they themselves won't. Another example - The Kennedys in Congress who don't want a windmall farm built on the Bay where the Kennedy Compound is located because it may obstruct their view.

And you're right, we do have an energy problem but that is only because of people like Gore who don't want us to explore for more oil domestically even though Cuba is giving China the right to explore 50 miles off the Florida coast. People who don't want us to build more nuclear power plants (or any power plant for that matter), don't want more refineries, etc etc etc. You don't solve an energy problem by trying to artificially force demand down.

 

[Vic]

Why is it that, whenever these issues come up, some people always try to incite support for the issue by claiming it will punish the rich? The rich -- by definition -- will be able to easily this tax. They can already afford to purchase the energy, can they not? So they pay a little bit more for this priviledge tax -- it won't hurt them a bit. It's the poor and the middle classes that will get hit the hardest though, because they won't be able to afford the priviledge tax, which will essentially work to keep them down by creating yet another obstacle to economic opportunity. Misguided ideas like these are how the kneejerk populists get tricked into helping making the rich richer and the poor poorer. Think, people, think! Just once, for God's sake!

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: jagec

Originally posted by: eLiu
fvck that. What a retarded policy. I should be able to use however much energy I require--no more, no less.

That's a stupid sentence, because you don't "require" very much energy at all.

Haha! Yeah. Funny the way he said "no more, no less." Hey, if you only want to be allowed to use the amount of energy you REQUIRE, that's fine... I'd like to be able to use a little more for comfort and what have you.

 

[funboy6942]

Originally posted by: Vic
Why is it that, whenever these issues come up, some people always try to incite support for the issue by claiming it will punish the rich? The rich -- by definition -- will be able to easily this tax. They can already afford to purchase the energy, can they not? So they pay a little bit more for this priviledge tax -- it won't hurt them a bit. It's the poor and the middle classes that will get hit the hardest though, because they won't be able to afford the priviledge tax, which will essentially work to keep them down by creating yet another obstacle to economic opportunity. Misguided ideas like these are how the kneejerk populists get tricked into helping making the rich richer and the poor poorer. Think, people, think! Just once, for God's sake!

QFT
And I thought I was the only one that can see the "bigger" picture.