Both these news have been disturbing me over the past day.
ITEM #1. General Motors continues to bleed red ink- dealer lots are crowded with undesired pickups and SUVs, despite the brave talk in the commercials. GM shares fell $1.77 today, or 15.1 percent, to close at $9.98. Their session low of $9.96 marked their lowest point since Sept. 13, 1954. The drop came after a Merrill Lynch analyst cut his rating for GM to "Underperform" from "Buy" and slashed his price target for the company to $7. "Bankruptcy is not impossible if the market continues to deteriorate and significant incremental capital is not raised," analyst John Murphy wrote in a note to investors.
What is your view? Can General Motors continue to raise billions to cover losses for the next few years until it can come up with the right product mix for a gas crisis, or are tens of thousand of GM emplyees going to join their Starbucks buddies in the unemplyment line?
ITEM #2. A new poll attempted to determine if Americans buffetted by high gas prices have decided between obtaining new supplies and conserving use of oil as priorities. The poll released Tuesday by the Pew Research Center shows nearly half of those surveyed - or 47 percent - now rate energy exploration, drilling and building new power plants as the top priority. The Pew poll, conducted in late June, showed the number of people who consider energy conservation as more important declined by 10 percentage points since February from a clear majority to 45 percent. People are now about evenly split on which is more important, with a slight edge to the drillers.
Which side of the fence do you come down on? Note that both Obama and McCain have argued that conservation is a critical element of the US response to the gas price spike. They disagree on offshore drilling, with McCain for and Obama against. Speaking of politics, you may be surprised that this issue is not strongly correlated to your political party affiliation. Liberals and conservatives are both tempted to yell "drill deeper" as gas prices rise.
Economists note that offshore drilling would produce some oil around 8 years from now, and that the added supply would not effect the prices in the world market. So if you are hoping for cheap gas, let go of that silly thought. Scientists note that every new coal plant coming on line or every new major oil deposit burned will put a few million tons of CO2 into the sky.
It is in my memory that the 1970s and 80s oil shocks saw a reduction of demand- but it soon faded into a crazy lust for SUVs, hot tubs, and trophy homes. We can't afford a replay of that mess, not now that we see that the north pole is going to melt every summer from climate change. Climate change is very important until the minute that we pull up to the pump- then it becomes utterly insignificant.
This thing of moving away from fossil fuels without economic disaster or political upheaval is looking more and more like threading a needle in the dark- because half of us do not seem to get the idea that our present course has no future. I did not sleep real well last night.
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 119
Offshore drilling and ANWAR together may have 28 billion barrels of crude or about a 4 year supply. Even with a massive an immediate investment, these reserves may enter the supply chain in 4 to 8 years.
India is about to put a $2500 car into production to fuel the desires of their growing middle class. The ever increasing thirst for crude dwarfs potential conservation measures. We can not conserve our way out of this dilemna, or even slow the inevitable, if the chinese and indians burn 2 more gallons of gas or every gallon we conserve.
The only viable, long term answer is a technological solution. We must find a way to tap into alternate energy sources to provide efficient and economically feasible personel transportation. We built the A-bomb in 4 years, we went to the moon in less than 10 years. We can do this but it takes money and more importantly, the will to succeed.
I do not mean to disparage individual conservation. If you can conserve to the point of lower energy bills and a reduced carbon foot print it is beneficial but it will not lower the price of gas or contribute a meaningful and significant reduction in the causes of global warming.
Albert Einstein, (attributed)
I was talking to a young 19 year old girl, about politic, this evening. She was so enthusiastic, talking about all the ideas, of electric cars, and alternative energy etc...
I told her that I was a very young girl once, and their was all the same talk. I was just as enthusiastic, and ready for such a future. Since then, I've raised a family. My son id now 36 years old, and none of it happened.
I'm listening to these people rehash ideas, and make speeches that must be the exact speeches from when I was a young enthusiastic girl. Now, here I am listening to it all again. Are we going to really do it, this time? I have my doubts. Especially when I start to hear the old, and more promoted "Nuclear Powerplant", stuff. That was a bad idea back in the day, and this the crap that's getting pushed almost as much as the more drilling stuff.
They've completely cut all finding to solar research, and developement. Solar works. I have some solar, and it works. Windmills work. I have a windmill and it works. There is and always have been, alternative resources, but the oil business has blocked it from use, plain and simple, in order to sell it's product. Those electric cars and cars that run on vegetable oil were a reality before fossil fuels were. It should not take until 2025 to have this stuff. There's an enormous amount of technology, already available, but has been bought off the market, kept off the market, so that the oil companies didn't have to compete.
I'd like "planned obsolecense", to be banned.
Even the price of natural gas--long the most economical form of home heating--is going to rise, despite the fact that there are more than adequate supplies in North America to meet our needs. Why? Because the Russians have the ability to manipulate the world market.
Yes, the times they are a changing all right--and for the worse. This country, with it's interstate highway system, suburban sprawl, etc., is predicated on cheap oil--a now antiquated premise that is biting us in the ass, hard. And technology is NOT going to save us either. There may be a resurgence in building nuclear power plants, and electric cars, and wind and solar power will all make great strides--and it won't be enough.
Doom and gloom? You betcha. As good ol' Walter Cronkite used to say, "That's the way it is."
A massive realignment of the way we live is going to be required. It ain't gonna be easy, and it ain't gonna be fun, but it's going to have to happen. You might want to start reading some science fiction if you want to get a clearer idea of what to expect.
The oil companies have probably already invested some of their huge profits into cornering the market on other types of fuels. I expect that they'd sell us air if they could find a way to keep us from getting it ourselves!
With GM jettisoning the health benefit noose to Union management, maybe they can play catch up. I doubt it, looks like its the 70s all over again, with the Japanese eating the American auto makers lunch.
As for drilling, only the United States refuses to drill in Arctic and offshore. England, Norway and Denmark do not have that problem. Norway drills so successfully offshore that it has the largest sovereign wealth fund in the world. A fund worth $1.4 Trillion.
Yes, that is Trillion, with a T.
Conservation is good, but it will not do much to change that fact that we import the majority of our oil.
The thing that I rebel against is the so called Realism of the argument that we are dependent on oil for our way of life so the only answer is to get more of it. We spent a trillion removing the suspected threat of an obscure nation called Iraq, but we cannot find a third of that to provide incentives and research to move our grid into more renewables and push our transportation into more electric. I do not claim that last challenge is an easy one to deal with, but wind energy has grown substantially in the last couple years and should serve as an argument that renewables are for real, even if they currently make up only a small portion of our grid mix.
As to the role of unions in the demise of GM, that is a factor. But compare the collusion of union/management at GM to the collusion of consumer/lender in the subprime crisis. If both parties signed the document, where does the blame lie? Conservatives want to blame the consumer for the mortgage mess and the unions for the GM mess. Liberals want to blame the lenders for the mortgage mess and GM management for the red ink there.
Ultimately, there is shared blame in both areas.
The automobile industry should dust off the plans for electric vehicles (that they purchased from some guy who figured it out in his garage and paid him off) and get with the program.
Recent examples of energy wasting I have witnessed this past week in Virginia:
-thermostats in stores set at 68 degrees, colder than the settings would be in winter when you would expect a snuggly 72 degrees
-numerous examples of parked cars running their engines in order to run their air conditioners. Most examples of this at 90 degrees plus outside temperature- some of the examples at 80 degrees or less
-one example of a Target store at 9:30 a.m. with external temperatures around 82 degrees with both front doors locked open. In order to appear more "welcoming" to shoppers, they were attempting to cool all of chesterfield county virginia with their AC.
"On a Clear Day you Can See General Motors" by DeLorean examines GM's errors and excesses from the 60's and 70's that started them on the path to the current hole they have dug themselves.
Cheerful thought, huh?
for the drill deeper camp: why suck up and burn the ANWAR oil at $4 a gallon today if you can suck it up in the year 2030 at $10 or $15 a gallon? Makes more sense to burn Saudi or Venezuelan oil at the cheaper price.
If Americans are so selfish and near-sighted that they need an energy crisis and their income going into the skyrocketing profits of the oil barons in order to conserve and support alternative energy, then so be. They have reaped what they sowed.
As for the car companies, they had no vision either. When foreign carmakers were developing high-mileage vehicles, they continued to produce Escalades, Hummers and pickups. It's the free market, folks, coming back to bite you all in the behinds. Now, they've got those same low-mileage giants sitting in their inventories and they are looking for our sympathy and a government bail-out.
Makes me ashamed to be an American. Our short-sighted greed will do us all in.
Find a new moniker, pal. That one has been taken for two years.
We are still going to need big trucks for the trades and heavy industry. What they have done is create a model that will work well for those who require it.
I guess it doesn't bother me that a Honda might be in my future. Some of them are made right here in Ohio.
Conservation of energy use is hard on individuals; especially with the way our societies and cultures are structured.
It is wholly difficult to practice the rigors of energy conservation when one carries the massive chip that comes from knowing energy companies will continue to reap high profits, and their executives maintain high salaries, whilst we struggle with the inconveniences of conserving.
Good article, Chris.
Maybe my gal and I can leverage a sweet deal under the auto makers' suffering for a brand new economical car. The one we have is starting to wear down and parts, tools and manuals for it don't seem easy to come-by. But we sure have loved our Chevy Aveo.
I will borrow from WM H.; "The significant problems we have cannot be solved at the same level of thinking with which we created them." Albert Einstein, (attributed)
Until GM (Ford) have the severe emotional experience that forces them to this change, the best I can say is that in the not too distant future someone will buy the brand name from the creditors.
This also applies to their home state's politicians.
WM H.,
You comments are well thought out and make good sense to me.
If we were to make the same effort as your examples, which approached to use; a focus on a secret team of govt experts, a highly publicized effort by a team of govt experts, or possibly a WWII sacrificing of individuals and industry, or would combination of a technology push by a team of scientists, the enlistment of industry both from a pull on the technology and efficiencies ( a reward for major impact innovation with minimum thresholds), and the engagement of the public, ( I do purposely leave out the government since the politicians never want to track and hold themselves accountable)?
A couple of flaws with the project approach is that this is a problem that has no end, we will need energy are long as I can imagine. The other concern I have is that the politicians would establish a permanent agency to oversee this and that agency would be drive to focus more on its survival than the problem.
There are many ways to overcome these concerns such as restricting the leadership to knowledgeable people that have finishes or are nearing the end of their career, and I wouldn't use a government or academic (they don' have a project mind set). Break the overall effort into smaller projects with fixed end points and the staff success or failure rides on the project's measurable success.
Dare I say it, a model for this approach is what Romney did for the Salt Lake city Olympics and Ueberroth did for LA.
I personally would like to use 2007 as a baseline, and progress measured against that year with a frontend load performance improvement with an overall goal of 50% lower per capita use by the year 2019. The goal need to be front end weighted because the easiest should be addressed first, and because the politicians will be pushing off to the next election and the next until they can blame someone else at the very end.
I really think the Einstein quote is the biggest barrier for people and the politicians to overcome.
The biggest part of that thinking is getting over the blame game, reading the comments here proves that.
This is a single issue, energy, with a multi-faceted solution that will be most effective by enlisting everyone. Getting where we are has been an evolutionary path, and similarly moving us out of it will be in similar small steps with periodic surges of success. And yet the most impassioned would rather blame someone rather than take the first step toward improvement.
In reality the energy is not a CRISIS of availability but rather one of price.
Dorothy H.,
The world has changed in the time your son was conceived and today. The simple indicators are the lower % of oil as part of the economy, the efficiencies of everything you use (refrigerator, furnaces, A/C, appliances, cars). The companies making the plastics use significantly less energy per pound of product then they did 37years ago. Part of the misconception is the medias' ability to understand these changes and have an interest in educating the public on them.
We may be feeling the crunch on the gas, but the big businesses have been working on squeezing the energy costs out of their budgets since before your son was even a glimmer in your eyes.
The interesting thing is that the auto companies have been making their manufacturing processes more energy efficient for years, that mindset just has been recognized in the cars.
Tesla Roadster engine technology will be a key. At the least, it could be combined with gasoline or diesel engine technology and cut auto and truck consumption in half or better. Supposedly, the Tesla Roadster will run 220 miles on a charge.
After the recent appearance of your Lois Lane shadow I'm starting to think Karl Rove himself is after you.
Guess I'll have to roll my cursor over the comments that appear with your name and visage on them to make sure it's the real you and not this shameless huckster.
Keep up your Good Work.
Both Saudi Arabia and Venezuela highly subsidize their gasoline. They also subsidize other commodities -- which is causing severe economic hardship in Venezuela.
Both countries are more addicted to oil than we are.
The world oil market is also so darn big now and demand is so tight with supply that bringing in a million barrels per year from alaska or the continental shelf would not impress the dealers that much. They would say so what, that is going to reduce the pressure for conservation. Demand will stay high. I think that the speculators would sit up and take notice if we were to reduce our use of oil 5%, instead of the measly 1% we have managed so far.
When was this done?
I have heard of the reverse, like in Minnesota where the feds financed light rail out of gasoline tax revenue, but I have never heard of general revenue used on highway projects.
And speaking of Honda, has anyone been in one of their showrooms lately?
I went in last week to have my 100,000 mile check on the civic and could not find a single car in their showroom that got better mileage tham my civic. Most of the cars they were showing were SUV's and mini-vans.
I went across the street to Toyota and was relieved to see a few Yaris's, Scions and Matrixes but the mileage bearly beat the civic on most of them.....and then they had the TUNDRA and other pig SUV's.
Drill, build nuke plants, and use more coal. Conservation accomplishes nothing because others do not bother to do so and use that bit conserved by others. Let the market shake out out these 'alternative fuels' too....
GM has also done some good things partnering with Cokato on cellulous Ethanol....so it is not all bad news.
Your so called "Bush's ethanol plan" did come from a committee, it was made up of Democrats and Republicans with academics and media as there expert partners. Why blame anyone?
The examples WM H. gave had one thing in common, they had a vision of success when the project was done. I believe that before we go leaping to this new journey on energy that we get some idea of where we want to go. Once we have the place we are going in mind then we can figure out how to get there. NASA and the Manhattan Project were successes because the experts knew where they were going and when they had to get there.
The idea of where we need to go can start here, because if left to the politicians they will flit like butterflies from one cute idea to another led by the media and we will never find success.
I will offer some food for thought, I see energy that is flexible (it will supply all of the appropriate uses), it will generated in a most efficient manner, it will be easily accessible, it will be reliable and available on demand, the cost of the energy is reasonable relative our economies, and that the energy sources are sustainable. I also see as part of the success that the systems that use the energy are more efficient than the last model and people can feel the direct impact of their decisions on energy use. I see that the project will have a specific measurable goal to be achieve in 10 years with the improvements being greates in the first year with a decline rate of improvement over the life of the project and the project is terminated at the end of the 10 years.
The Unions may have given the management the means for screwing up, but it was the management's choice to accept those means and decision to use them along with other methods for accelerating the process. And the foundation for the screw ups was formed early in the 50's.
You may not remember that the hot cars (trucks were still for work then) were in the single digit mpg, and the houses were smaller but so porous and un-insulated that the a house today is three times the average size of the house then, use less than half the energy to heat, and are healthier to live in. You have a low threshold of shame because this same America is responsible for so many of the means for making us and the rest of the world more energy efficient. Where do you think the real Styrofoam (not the cups) insulation came from?
Conservation isn't hard, it is a mind set, a willingness to make choices and desire to save money. I started doing it when I started buying gas at 19.09/gallon, driving a car that got 12mpg, and I was making $1/hr.
I do agree with CHarles T., let the market shake out the alternatives. I disagree on the conservation, both for individuals and for businesses it can be money in their pockets.
As for global warming, I have doubts as to man's contribution to it. As the ice melts in Greenland, they're finding mines, and other human settlements from before the industrial age. I think it's a natural fluctuation in Earth's temperature, perhaps influenced more by the sun. I wouldn't let it keep me up at night, Chris.
Great post, all the same!
Speaking of independence, if GM had invested more in alternative fuels than in ridiculous vehicles like the Yukon XL (puh-lease!) a few years ago, maybe they wouldn't be having such a difficult time right now.
Maybe it's time to separate commerce and state, just as there is separation of church and state.
I doubt that you realize how many are invested in those terrible "businesses."
"Sustainable" practices? "Spoiled" consumers? Wow; just a BIT heavy on the "NPR..."
As to "spoiled" american consumers, is there really any justification for americans to drive Hummers? some of us still do.
With regard to driving Hummers. If you believe in freedom of choice than how a person spends their earnings is their choice. I wonder how much waste in all the privately owned Hummers campared to all of the people that have let their person cars get out of tune and not running efficeintly?
I am not, on a personal level, able to view the existence of the Hummer as a personal choice matter. That form of personal choice is too destructive in the age of climate change. It is a smoking gun, and somebody somewhere is going to die. Call me a tree hugger, it is what it is.
On a policy level, I am well aware that if one drives a Hummer one does not care about climate change. One might care about gas prices. (one exception is Arnold Schwarzenegger who used to drive a hummer and now thinks climate change is a deadly threat) So in the case of the Hummer, gas prices are our friend. Call me elitist on that one. Again, it is what it is.
i am reduced to the argument that gas prices are terribly painful and damaging to our nations poor and an inconvenience to our middle class and a non issue to our rich- BUT in terms of climate change they are a public good. These prices on their own are not adequate to do the job of changing behaviors from unsustainable to sustainable, unfortunately. Unfortunately, they also give rise to the mcCain argument: drill deeper NOW, figure out climate change in 2020.
For me, that does not cut it.
If sustainability is driven by the bottom-line (I agree) of the companies than why don't you feel that bottom-line will drive people?
If you don't want to allow a person to have a free choice to drive a Hummer because you are concerned that it will harm others, then where do stop letting people have free choice. It seems someone driving a car that isn't properly tune has the same potential for creating the harms you feel a Hummer does? DO we let them choose to drive that way? When a person neglects themselves with their personal habits, it obviously has the potential to harm themselves and those that care for them. Do we allow them that choice?
My view is that the most practical method of universal control is the bottom-line. It does not distinguish by any other reason than the value to the person.
If the concern is that only the rich can drive the Hummer because they have more money, the media claims that the number of rich are very small (I doubt that all of the rich drive Hummers), than the amount of potential damage is even smaller. From an emotional stand point it maybe satisfying to tweak the rich, but from a practical stand point unless you are willing to take the freedom of choice from everyone there are many easier ways to improve the energy performance of society.
There is no question that the gas prices are inconvenient for most and very hard on many. However, without knowing what you mean when you say "gas prices are terribly painful and damaging to our nation's poor", I am not clean on how you define the poor or how it is specifically hard on them. Is the hardship because they will take more time to get to work by riding mass transit, or is it that they will have to choose between nutrimental food or gas for their cars, or is it that they will have to go without new clothes, or is it that they will not able to pay the rent? I don't have an intuitive ability and need specific examples to understand a problem.
I don't want to get to far away from your article, so suffice it to say that I still don't totally understand what is driving the global warming (that is another discussion).
As far as the immediate need for energy and the long-term, I am still believe that 1st oil is much more valuable as a feedstock rather than an energy sources, and 2nd the bottom-line will drive individuals and companies to alternative energy sources (including the sustainable ones).
You needn't obsess...fuel consumption differential for a Hummer is negligable. Now, a City Bus...! THAT is something you should obsess about.
Are you really comfortable telling others what they should or shouldn't Drive? Are you comfortable with that, Chris? Do you understand how food gets to market? Do you understand how Contractor's, Builder's, DRUMMER'S, get to market???
Care to tote my Drumkit to my next performance...in your BACKPACK? Hmmm? No problem...it's only 300 miles to the next venue...
Please, Chris; let's be practical. And, let us not think that we are so SELF-RIGHTEOUS as to tell others what to drive.
IMHO the Hummer was never about transportation, it was about image. Some at one time argued that the Prius was in the same category, but I disagreed, and the rising sales figures for prius and sinking sales figures for Hummers also disagree.
I think a drumkit would fit into a Van with much better mileage. Vans are less macho of course, suffering from the suburban mom image thing.
A City Bus can carry forty people so the per person fuel consumption is pretty low if you fill it. Walking of course whips them all, but I can admit some destinations are too far to walk.
As far as poor people suffering due to soaring gas prices, why don't you try to imagine yourself in their place? Some need to drive to get to work and don't have good mass transit options. For those who do, bus fares are increasing due to rising fuel costs (Seattle and elsewhere). And higher transportation costs are driving increases in prices of food and other commodities. Contributions to food banks are down, too. I could go on, but you get the idea (I hope).
Ever seen that Hummer commercial where one skinny, wimpy guy buys tofu and some vegetable to meet the the buff guy at the counter buying a large amount of red meat? The narrator says "Restore your manhood."
Hummer says it all. It's for those who need to "restore their manhood."
If you never seen the spot google Hummer Tofu. You will see come across the youtube ad and the complaints.
I think the suffering of certain families in america as regards gasoline prices is a real issue. Driving is half of it- the other half is that so many people in the northern tier heat their homes in the winter with oil, and that is just not going to be practical much longer. On the commuting, some can convert to public transit but really as paul says, that does not exist some places. no easy solution there.
We should do some rationing and make sure poor families can afford to heat their homes and drive thheir cars on necessary trips.
Even with adding attic insulation and sealing leaky windows, there are people who will not be able to heat a farmhouse with fuel oil. Tear out the oil furnace and replace it with a propane burner? Good idea for many, but some do not have the money to swithch over.
As an American, I want to drill for the oil resources we have to fuel the vehicles we choose to drive. As long as we have the oil, we should be able to use it! Sorry leftys, I happen to believe in freedom of choice.
GM, paid excellent wages, but the Union is what did them in as far as I am concerned..they had excellent benefits too. GM made the big cars and now they are hurting because not as many people want to be straddled with these gas prices... Now, it comes down to comfort and modern conviences vs cheaper gas and not as many luxuries.... Its the public choice..If GM wants to stay in business, it may have to lower its high paying standards to its employees and start paying cheaper wages...
It's because they didn't learn the lessons they could have from Japan and Europe. They didn't watch carefully enough what the rest of the world was doing.
The didn't innovate, their production lead times were too long, the only imitated after a trend had started. They kept enormous infrastructures going with too much management. They grew fat when they should have been growing lean.
Their only core competencies were in building trucks and SUVs. Until recently, their automobile business was secondary.
They're entirely capable of building better cars, but their tough times are not over yet.
I won't say it is about image (I mean the Prius), but it seems that all I have seen is how people that care drive one, that maybe like image.
As far as one sales falling and the others rising, seems like bottom-line and choice working.
"An Inconvenient Truth" doesn't project the impression of a scientific study. I am still trying to grasp the cause not the temperature change. As I understand, something (CO2) that is measured in parts per million has more impact on the climate than say water that is both measured in % of atmosphere and covers most of the earth's surface. We can leave this to another discussion.
Don't always presume that someone that questions a feel bad statement hasn't been there except maybe in a different time when it was coal heating homes, the frost on the inside of windows was ¼" thick and the wind did whistle around the doors and windows, and gas was plentiful.
My concern is that if you are smarter than the rich and feel you can make their choices, then why don't you feel smarter than the poor and make their choices. In all honesty I have yet to find the person (even in government) that is so smart that they should be making daily choices for me , and if they can't for me then why anyone?
In any case it seems you are focusing on the exceptions, you want to control the rich and protect the poor, and ignore the rest. I see then as all having equal opportunity of choice.
Personally I stand up to cheer on the ones that work hard and succeed, and hope I can find ways to help others gather the tools to succeed. I let them decide what their success is, as long as it doesn't illegally infringe on others rights to succeed.
I am probably off your topic, but when people try to solve day to day dollar problems with command and control laws I get real concerned.
I do not disagree that increasing fuel prices are driving many things higher. By the same token, it is available and people have to make choices (30 years ago it wasn't available). Just because something has been disproportionately cheap doesn't mean that when it returns to fair value that it should be controlled.
Maybe it is my longevity, but I have seen many things have cycles, weather, economy, political issues, etc. I even suspect the contributions to food pantries, even though the media will never report when there is excess giving. In any case the change of in the tide (in or out) is always has the highest anguish with the perceived discomfort getting the most visibility. However, we have always adapted and even the quality of live for the poor has improved. What is available for the poor today is superior to what was available to the richest when I was a kid, and I suspect if you go back just 30 years much of that will also be true.
I have grown weary of the "Bush" refrain, in this case has Senators Reid (or any of the more visible ones) or his counterpart Congresswoman Pelosi (and her colleagues) done any different?
This blaming Bush is a good example of my point on people not being willing to change, he is left to history in 6 months. Either focus on the future or find a new Republican to hold up as the evil incarnate, one that has a future influence.
As far as the leaky farm house, with today's technology and assistance programs (private and government) that seems like a choice. Out of 300,000,000 people how many actually are living in your proverbial farm houses, is 1%, .05%, or is it .005%?
I can't believe that you, Chris, are telling me to drive a Van over a Hummer because of MILEAGE??? A Hummer get's the SAME mileage as a Hummer. You simply, and OBVIOUSLY, have a hatred for Hummers!
I've stated the purpose for my choice of vehicle. Yet, you still haven't answered my question. Why???
Mike, I'm with YOU! Don't tell me you won't carry my Drumkit for me, Chris, and then tell me I CAN'T use a vehicle LARGE ENOUGH to transport them, myself.
And, by the way...wrongo about the City Bus...I"ve never seen one with more than 3 people on it...what a WASTE of PETROL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Sort of the way you probably feel about Ted kennedy, right? Nobody is going to make you like him at this point, but you are not going to do anything illegal about it.
Everyone wants to drill, but who is going to do the drilling? The same people that have made the mess we are in today, why give them all of our oil so they can ship it over to China. We export oil today, YES, WE EXPORT OIL, even though we import the vast majority of our oil from Canada, and Mexico (notice that we don't import much from the middle east, it is less than 10%), we still sell some of our oil overseas so our oil companies can buy it and bring it hear to use for us. Does this make sense to you? If China continues to grow like they have in the last 10 years, China's demand in the next 100 years will eliminate the worlds entire oil supply (according to many in the oil industry). Should we drill? Yes we should, but we need to keep that oil here, and we should demand other things from the oil companies. But, we are not going to get out of this mess just by drilling, we need to invest in alternative energy, and we need to look at our usage. We also need to put the law down on wall street, and in Chicago, the days of corrupt oil sales are over, and they need to put an end to this speculation before we put them in jail.
The only power the US has anymore is military and we are squandering
that as well. The problem is either people in power are owned, or
they are just plain incompetant. So ... what is there to do if we cannot
force them out or confiscate their money and so reduce their power?
Answer apparently is nothing, we will simply have to live through more
of the same as we sink lower and lower and are told in more vicious
and propagandistic ways that have to work harder and that everything
is fine.
point, now, is simply going to be geared tonly owards helping
those who have gotten us into this disaster.
it is time for democracy. it is time to save gm by giving the
medical libilities over the public sector with universal health
care.
the pensions are going to end up being bailed out by the
taxpayers, so why not save and expand social security.
real people need help because of no fault of their own,
republicans just want to blame people for thiere own
messes when they have been stealing from the country
for so long and ingoring the consequences.
force them out or confiscate their money and so reduce their power?
Answer apparently is nothing, we will simply have to live through more
of the same as we sink lower and lower and are told in more vicious
and propagandistic ways that have to work harder and that everything
is fine. "
Yep, that's about the size of it Bruce!
the problem is that these small companies versatile as they are are not allowed by law to service the general market.
if i want to make a hybrid electric pluggable car like say the Tesla Roadster thaere is no reason that should cost 100K+ to bring to market.
The public is being gouged over and over and over by the laws and regulations that prevent competition ... and to call this country capitalist is so absurdly ironic is makes me want to hurl!
Lois, are you looking for a "ride?"
bruce k. is tired of blaming GM demise on the unions, that is a valid a point. What I would like to hear instead is how the unions are in transition and figuring out ways to help GM survive.
If you are tired of blaming the unions, then why aren't you tired of blaming everyone else, now it's" the problems is that people have bought into that blame people mentality when it is clearly the financial and management classes run amok that have screwed up over." This sure sounds like the blame mentality. Are these "classes" made of people selected at birth, by blood, or some other conspiratorial means and just not part of the same people that you describe "real people need help because of no fault of their own"?
Is the difference between the your "classes" that one isn't smart enough to make their own choices or is that people can't move between the classes or is that it is simply easier to blame someone else?
What I would really like to hear is how the people that are at fault did it wrong.
I am not one of your "republicans just want to blame people for thiere own messes when they have been stealing from the country for so long and ingoring the consequences." I was raised politically a "yellow dog" democrat and personally be responsible for my own life.
bruce k., thanks for joining the conversation, I think Chris has gotten weary of me (justifiably so).
I take care of myself and help my community. I don't pretend like I am
jesus Christ or downgrade other. There are lots of people all over the
world that opwerate at a a lower level than I do. tha does not make them
unhuman or worth of contempt unelss they are criminals, and having
lots of money does not make criminals innocent either.
you seem to miss the whole idea that in order to operate at a high level
people need a certain amount of support. like say nutriion and health
care. a job, education, transportaion, energy, it is a bit list. it is much
easier to step on people and not worry about them and ciruclate
rumors and lies about how they deserve what they are getting.
the problem is that though it is easier, it makes for a country
that eventually eats itself up.