PDA

View Full Version : Carter energy : TRUTH VS TRUTHINESS!



LWW
05-31-2011, 11:21 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Jimmuh Cahtuh announcing his energy policy to the nation om 15 July, 1979:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style='font-size: 11pt'>"What I have to say to you now about energy is simple and vitally important.

Point one: I am tonight setting a clear goal for the energy policy of the United States. Beginning this moment, this nation will never use more foreign oil than we did in 1977 -- never. From now on, every new addition to our demand for energy will be met from our own production and our own conservation. The generation-long growth in our dependence on foreign oil will be stopped dead in its tracks right now and then reversed as we move through the 1980s, for I am tonight setting the further goal of cutting our dependence on foreign oil by one-half by the end of the next decade -- a saving of over 4-1/2 million barrels of imported oil per day.

Point two: To ensure that we meet these targets, I will use my presidential authority to set import quotas. I'm announcing tonight that for 1979 and 1980, I will forbid the entry into this country of one drop of foreign oil more than these goals allow. These quotas will ensure a reduction in imports even below the ambitious levels we set at the recent Tokyo summit.

Point three:</span> <span style='font-size: 14pt'>To give us energy security, I am asking for the most massive peacetime commitment of funds and resources in our nation's history to develop America's own alternative sources of fuel -- from coal, from oil shale, from plant products for gasohol, from unconventional gas, from the sun.</span> <span style="color: #3366FF"> <span style='font-size: 11pt'>Got that ... use more coal and not less, use more shale oil, not prohibit it.</span> ...

Point four: I'm asking Congress to mandate, to require as a matter of law, that our nation's utility companies cut their massive use of oil by 50 percent within the next decade</span> <span style='font-size: 17pt'>and switch to other fuels, especially coal, our most abundant energy source.</span> <span style='font-size: 17pt'><span style="color: #3366FF"> Is anyone paying attention ... the Carter energy policy relied upon COAL more than anything else.</span></span>

<span style='font-size: 11pt'>Point five: To make absolutely certain that nothing stands in the way of achieving these goals, I will urge Congress to create an energy mobilization board which, like the War Production Board in World War II, will have the responsibility and authority to cut through the red tape, the delays, and the endless roadblocks to completing key energy projects. <span style="color: #3366FF"> How'd that work out?</span></span>

<span style='font-size: 11pt'>We will protect our environment.</span> <span style='font-size: 17pt'>But when this nation critically needs a refinery or a pipeline, we will build it. <span style="color: #3366FF"> Got that, the Carter energy plan also was DRILL BABY DRILL ... in Texas, and Alaska.</span></span> ...

<span style='font-size: 17pt'>We have the natural resources. We have more oil in our shale alone than several Saudi Arabias. We have more coal than any nation on Earth.</span> <span style='font-size: 11pt'>We have the world's highest level of technology. We have the most skilled work force, with innovative genius, and I firmly believe that we have the national will to win this war." <span style="color: #3366FF"> And there you have the Carter energy plan ... mine coal, drill for oil everywhere we have it, and develop shale oil. </span></span>

-James Earl Carter- </div></div>

Now, the only unanswered questions are why have the moonbat crazy leftists wailed and gnashed their collectivist teeth at any and all attempts to implement the Carter energy plan ... and why, after all of that, are they wailing and gnashing their teeth that it hasn't been implemented?

The only possible explanation is that they have no actual conscious clue what the Carter energy plan was all about ... and that they are merely regurgitating the spooonfed pap that the party ladles out to them daily.

And, FTR, I supported the Carter energy plan then ... and I support it now.

But, I have an unfair advantage ... I bothered to learn what it was all about.

pooltchr
05-31-2011, 12:22 PM
How many new refineries have we built in this country since Carter was in office?

How can anyone support the Carter energy plan, and at the same time, support the Obama administration severely restricting domestic oil exploration and drilling, while sending money to foreign countries to help them drill for oil in the gulf?

Steve

Soflasnapper
05-31-2011, 01:02 PM
Carter's plan relied heavily on conservation, which was dismissed as unmanly and unnecessary by the following president, whom you more likely really supported.

In particular, the effect of the fleet fuel efficiency standards was completely eroded by the rise of the SUVs, whose status as 'trucks' kept them from being part of the 'fleet' whose mileage had to average to the figure.

This was encouraged by the 'no limits on anything' brand of American hubris, and the temporarily lower gasoline prices, now long past, and the interest of the auto industry in the larger profit margins these largish SUVs carried.

All the calls for national sacrifice made by Carter were swept away in a triumphalist march to the past glories of American empire, typified by the early move to take the solar panels off the WH. The attitude was HELL NO! we don't need to conserve anything, and anyone saying we do is an effete leftist who is probably some kind of vegetarian.

LWW
05-31-2011, 04:14 PM
Why are you ducking the truth about the Carter energy plan.

Yes, it consisted of conservation ... and yes our fleet average is far higher today than then and yes our homes and such are far better insulated.

That doesn't change the fact that the key elements were:

1 - Mine our own coal, and burn it.

2 - Drill baby drill ... in Alaska, and the gulf, and in Texas, and anywhere oil could be found.

3 - Use our own shale oil.

4 - Build nuclear plants.

And, that each and every point has been opposed by the left ... yet they champion the Carter energy plan.

Doublethink is a terrible disease.

Soflasnapper
05-31-2011, 04:41 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">How many new refineries have we built in this country since Carter was in office?

How can anyone support the Carter energy plan, and at the same time, support the Obama administration severely restricting domestic oil exploration and drilling, while sending money to foreign countries to help them drill for oil in the gulf?

Steve </div></div>

If you want the federal government in the refinery business, I'd be shocked, but if so, please say it directly. Otherwise, the fact that refineries haven't been built is the result of policies of the oil companies.

The O administration has NOT 'severely restrict[ed]' domestic oil exploration and drilling. It temporarily halted exploratory drilling on approx. 30 rigs in the Gulf in deep water, whereas some 3,500+ rigs in the Gulf continued to pump, resulting in the highest total production of oil in this country in 8 years, the highest production of oil ever in the Gulf, and production up enough that we produced enough oil domestically to cover more than half of our national need for the first time in a long time.

Where do you get your talking points? From LWW? LOL!

In the meantime, the oil companies are SITTING on hundreds of millions of acres and thousands of leases without utilizing them, including roughly 95% of the coastal areas of Alaska which are open to leasing for drilling.

Soflasnapper
05-31-2011, 04:48 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Why are you ducking the truth about the Carter energy plan.

Yes, it consisted of conservation ... and yes our fleet average is far higher today than then and yes our homes and such are far better insulated.

That doesn't change the fact that the key elements were:

1 - Mine our own coal, and burn it.

2 - Drill baby drill ... in Alaska, and the gulf, and in Texas, and anywhere oil could be found.

3 - Use our own shale oil.

4 - Build nuclear plants.

And, that each and every point has been opposed by the left ... yet they champion the Carter energy plan.

Doublethink is a terrible disease. </div></div>

Frankly, who remembers the details of the Carter plan at this late date? I'm old enough, but even I don't recall what his plans were, exactly.

However, here's something I do know:

and yes our fleet average is far higher today than then

That's substantially untrue. It's true that the CAFE standard was recently raised by Obama, but it had not been changed at all since the first round under Carter.

Even though it has been raised, our overall gas mileage ratings are probably the lowest they've been since the Carter days, with the SUVs and large trucks entirely (still) not included in the CAFE standard.

And when simple things that could cause more conservation of oil than any medium term result from additional drilling, such as getting tire inflation correct, were suggested, the howls of ridicule were deafening, as if real men run their tires low and waste fuel to prove their manliness.

Any suggestion, as Carter made, that the country set its summer air conditioning thermostat higher, and its winter thermostat lower (put on a sweater, duh!), to conserve electricity supplies, was also unmanly, and was to be opposed, ridiculed, and never brought up again.

Soflasnapper
05-31-2011, 05:03 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Two years later, as the bin Laden family's sole US representative was bailing out George Bush Junior's failing oil business, Jimmy Carter gave another speech on energy, further refining his national energy policy. He had already started the national strategic petroleum reserve, birthed the gasohol and solar power industries, and helped insulate millions of homes and offices. But he wanted to go a step further. "I am tonight setting a clear goal for the energy policy of the United States," Carter said on July 15, 1979. "Beginning this moment, this nation will never use more foreign oil than we did in 1977 -- never. From now on, every new addition to our demand for energy will be met from our own production and our own conservation. The generation-long growth in our dependence on foreign oil will be stopped dead in its tracks right now and then reversed as we move through the 1980s..." In addition, we needed to immediately begin to develop a long-range strategy to move beyond fossil fuel.

<span style='font-size: 17pt'>Therefore, Carter said, "I will soon submit legislation to Congress calling for the creation of this nation's first solar bank, which will help us achieve the crucial goal of 20 percent of our energy coming from solar power by the year 2000."</span> But then came the Iran/Contra October Surprise, when the Reagan/Bush campaign allegedly promised the oil-rich mullahs of Iran that they'd sell them missiles and other weapons if only they'd keep our hostages until after the 1980 Carter/Reagan presidential election campaign was over. The result was that Carter, who had been leading in the polls over Reagan/Bush, steadily dropped in popularity as the hostage crisis dragged out, and lost the election. The hostages were released the very minute that Reagan put his hand on the Bible to take his oath of office. The hostages freed, the Reagan/Bush administration quickly began illegally delivering missiles to Iran.

And Ronald Reagan's first official acts of office included removing Jimmy Carter's solar panels from the roof of the White House, and reversing most of Carter's conservation and alternative energy policies.

Today, despite the best efforts of the Bushies, the bin Ladens, and the rest of the oil industry, Carter's few surviving initiatives have borne fruit.

It is now more economical to build power generating stations using wind than using coal, oil, gas, or nuclear. When amortized over the life of a typical mortgage, installing solar power in a house in most parts of the US is cheaper than drawing power from the grid. (Shell and British Petroleum are among the world's largest manufacturers of solar photovoltaic panels, which can now even be used as roofing shingles.) And hybrid cars that get 50-70 miles to the gallon are increasingly commonplace on our nation's highways. Instead of taking a strong stand to make America energy independent, Bush kisses a Saudi crown prince, then holds hands with him as they walk into Bush's hobby ranch in Texas. Our young men and women are daily dying in Iraq - a country with the world's second largest store of underground oil. And we live in fear that another 15 Saudis may hijack more planes to fly into our nation's capitol or into nuclear power plants. </div></div> From Thom Hartmann's piece (http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0503-22.htm)

Reagan reduced the $130 million dollar solar research budget by $100 million dollars.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Carter met the problems by starting sweeping oil-reduction reforms, including creation of the Cabinet-level Department of Energy.

He began spending millions of dollars researching alternative sources for electrical power, including solar power. He got utilities to cut their use of oil for electricity and ramp up their use of natural gas or coal.

"Up until Carter, we were getting about 20 percent of our electricity from oil generation," said Jay Hakes, director of the Energy Information Administration under Carter and an authority on modern presidents and oil. "And post-Carter, it went down to about 3 percent."

Carter insisted that U.S. automakers build more fuel-efficient cars, with a goal of 27.5 miles per gallon over the following decade - a requirement passed under Gerald Ford but put into force by Carter.

He offered incentives for getting oil from shale, creating a boom initially in the Rockies - and a bust when it failed to be cost-effective. He offered deductions for using solar water heaters in homes and commercial buildings.</div></div> From energybulletin.net (http://www.energybulletin.net/node/9657)

LWW
05-31-2011, 05:20 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">How many new refineries have we built in this country since Carter was in office?

How can anyone support the Carter energy plan, and at the same time, support the Obama administration severely restricting domestic oil exploration and drilling, while sending money to foreign countries to help them drill for oil in the gulf?

Steve </div></div>

If you want the federal government in the refinery business, I'd be shocked, but if so, please say it directly. Otherwise, the fact that refineries haven't been built is the result of policies of the oil companies. </div></div>

1 - He never suggested the state build refineries.

2 - The oil companies have tried to build refineries.

3 - The left has opposed building refineries.

4 - Your attempts to dodge these realities is quite lame.

LWW
05-31-2011, 05:24 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Frankly, who remembers the details of the Carter plan at this late date? I'm old enough, but even I don't recall what his plans were, exactly.</div></div>

Then how can you say you support it.

How you can oppose it while believing you support it is quite evident ... you have been told to support it <span style='font-size: 11pt'><u>AND</u></span> told to oppose nearly every part of it, and your admitted unwillingness to ever find out what is in it that you "support" or if it contains things that you "oppose" and this contains a teachable moment for those on the left.

LWW
05-31-2011, 05:26 PM
[quote=Soflasnapper] <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH SPOON FED YADDA YADDA YADDA YADDA</div></div>

And I say that with all sincerity as you did, as leftists nearly always do, ran to someone else to tell you what you should think about this and what it actually is that the Carter energy plan was all about ... as opposed to actually reading the content of the plan.

Sev
05-31-2011, 07:50 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Why are you ducking the truth about the Carter energy plan.

Yes, it consisted of conservation ... and yes our fleet average is far higher today than then and yes our homes and such are far better insulated.

That doesn't change the fact that the key elements were:

1 - Mine our own coal, and burn it.

2 - Drill baby drill ... in Alaska, and the gulf, and in Texas, and anywhere oil could be found.

3 - Use our own shale oil.

4 - Build nuclear plants.

And, that each and every point has been opposed by the left ... yet they champion the Carter energy plan.

Doublethink is a terrible disease. </div></div>

Frankly, who remembers the details of the Carter plan at this late date? I'm old enough, but even I don't recall what his plans were, exactly.

However, here's something I do know:

and yes our fleet average is far higher today than then

That's substantially untrue. It's true that the CAFE standard was recently raised by Obama, but it had not been changed at all since the first round under Carter.

Even though it has been raised, our overall gas mileage ratings are probably the lowest they've been since the Carter days, with the SUVs and large trucks entirely (still) not included in the CAFE standard.

And when simple things that could cause more conservation of oil than any medium term result from additional drilling, such as getting tire inflation correct, were suggested, the howls of ridicule were deafening, as if real men run their tires low and waste fuel to prove their manliness.

Any suggestion, as Carter made, that the country set its summer air conditioning thermostat higher, and its winter thermostat lower (put on a sweater, duh!), to conserve electricity supplies, was also unmanly, and was to be opposed, ridiculed, and never brought up again. </div></div>

One has to wonder why Eruo cars that routinely get 50 miles to the gallon are not allowed to be imported into the US.

Sev
05-31-2011, 07:52 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

Frankly, who remembers the details of the Carter plan at this late date? I'm old enough, but even I don't recall what his plans were, exactly.


</div></div>

You just buried yourself.

nAz
05-31-2011, 10:35 PM
Cool everyone here believes Carter had he best Energy plan over the last 35 years!!

From Carter's televised speech on April 18, 1977
"The fifth principle is that we must be fair. Our solutions must ask equal sacrifices from every region, every class of people, every interest group. Industry will have to do its part to conserve, just as the consumers will. The energy producers deserve fair treatment, but we will not let the oil companies profiteer."

I like his ideas... except for coal use that shit is just too nasty to burn,and there aint no such thing as clean coal.

Drilling for more oil would be useless though don't you all think? if we use around 7 billion barrels a year and we only have 21 billion barrels (proven).

pooltchr
05-31-2011, 10:43 PM
Perhaps you can explain why, over the past two years, Shell has paid the US government huge sums of money seeking to get permits to of exploratory drilling, get leases on known oil reserves, and actually start new drilling operations, and not have any of those permits issues.

Perhaps you could also explain how, during that same time, Shell was able to start over 400 new wells in other countries.

Perhaps you could explain why you insist that this administration is supporting domestic oil production, when, in fact, they seem to go out of their way to make it impossible.


Now, I never said I want to see the government in the refinery business. What I would like to see is the government streamline the process so that private business could afford to build and profitably run new refineries. Yes, it is the oil companie's policies, but those policies are based on the huge hurdles they need to overcome that are placed in their way by our government.

The application is a long, miserable process that takes teams of lawyers years to complete, with no promise that it will even be approved. I'm not at all surprised that so many companies are choosing to do business outside the US. Our government makes it far more difficult than is necessary to do so.

If I owned an oil company, the US would be one of the last places I would want to be doing business.

Steve

LWW
06-01-2011, 04:11 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body">One has to wonder why Eruo cars that routinely get 50 miles to the gallon are not allowed to be imported into the US. </div></div>

That's easy also ... leftist wankers fight against it.

LWW
06-01-2011, 04:17 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: nAz</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Cool everyone here believes Carter had he best Energy plan over the last 35 years!!

From Carter's televised speech on April 18, 1977
"The fifth principle is that we must be fair. Our solutions must ask equal sacrifices from every region, every class of people, every interest group. Industry will have to do its part to conserve, just as the consumers will. The energy producers deserve fair treatment, but we will not let the oil companies profiteer."

I like his ideas... except for coal use that shit is just too nasty to burn,and there aint no such thing as clean coal.

Drilling for more oil would be useless though don't you all think? if we use around 7 billion barrels a year and we only have 21 billion barrels (proven).



</div></div>

Actually ... it's more like 50B barrels.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f0/Total_oil_mean_08_0001.png/800px-Total_oil_mean_08_0001.png

LWW
06-01-2011, 04:19 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: nAz</div><div class="ubbcode-body">and there aint no such thing as clean coal. </div></div>

Actually there is, but Billy Jeff Clinton ordered that it be locked in the ground forever ... had to pay back the Riady family who had the second largest clean coal reserves.

LWW
06-01-2011, 04:21 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: nAz</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The energy producers deserve fair treatment, but we will not let the oil companies profiteer." </div></div>

Are they doing this? If so, how?

LWW
06-01-2011, 04:23 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

Frankly, who remembers the details of the Carter plan at this late date? I'm old enough, but even I don't recall what his plans were, exactly.


</div></div>

You just buried yourself. </div></div>

To a critically thinking person, yes.

That being said ... one of the basic pillars of the US left is the unbending belief that just because something is true doesn't mean that it's true.

Soflasnapper
06-02-2011, 12:42 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Frankly, who remembers the details of the Carter plan at this late date? I'm old enough, but even I don't recall what his plans were, exactly.</div></div>

Then how can you say you support it.

How you can oppose it while believing you support it is quite evident ... you have been told to support it <span style='font-size: 11pt'><u>AND</u></span> told to oppose nearly every part of it, and your admitted unwillingness to ever find out what is in it that you "support" or if it contains things that you "oppose" and this contains a teachable moment for those on the left. </div></div>

Where did I say I supported it? Citation please?

All your talking points use the Procrustean bed technique, stretching the alleged facts to fit when they don't, and lopping off the inconvenient facts when they don't suit your left/right dichotomy.

I am willing to have any reasonable discussion or argument with any reasonable person, right or left (and there's not much difference except on some hot button window-dressing matters), in order to further the public good. Too bad some like yourself want to score phony debating points about supposed leftists, and make reasonable disagreements all about your ideological cross-dressing adventures in your life.

Gayle in MD
06-02-2011, 12:54 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: nAz</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Cool everyone here believes Carter had he best Energy plan over the last 35 years!!

From Carter's televised speech on April 18, 1977
"The fifth principle is that we must be fair. Our solutions must ask equal sacrifices from every region, every class of people, every interest group. Industry will have to do its part to conserve, just as the consumers will. The energy producers deserve fair treatment, but we will not let the oil companies profiteer."

I like his ideas... except for coal use that shit is just too nasty to burn,and there aint no such thing as clean coal.

Drilling for more oil would be useless though don't you all think? if we use around 7 billion barrels a year and we only have 21 billion barrels (proven).



</div></div>

Jimmy Carter is probably on of the most brilliant, honest persidents, in our history.

These Drill Baby Drill oil zealots, are living in La La Land, along with people like Sara Palin, who is going to have a lot of explaining to do about all of that bus trip, PAC money, she's cleaning up on!

G.

Soflasnapper
06-02-2011, 01:04 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Perhaps you can explain why, over the past two years, Shell has paid the US government huge sums of money seeking to get permits to of exploratory drilling, get leases on known oil reserves, and actually start new drilling operations, and not have any of those permits issues.

Perhaps you could also explain how, during that same time, Shell was able to start over 400 new wells in other countries.

Perhaps you could explain why you insist that this administration is supporting domestic oil production, when, in fact, they seem to go out of their way to make it impossible.


Now, I never said I want to see the government in the refinery business. What I would like to see is the government streamline the process so that private business could afford to build and profitably run new refineries. Yes, it is the oil companie's policies, but those policies are based on the huge hurdles they need to overcome that are placed in their way by our government.

The application is a long, miserable process that takes teams of lawyers years to complete, with no promise that it will even be approved. I'm not at all surprised that so many companies are choosing to do business outside the US. Our government makes it far more difficult than is necessary to do so.

If I owned an oil company, the US would be one of the last places I would want to be doing business.

Steve </div></div>

There's this thing in US law called the EPA, created by the noted leftist Democrat President Richard Nixon.

The past history of letting permits proceed involved environmental waivers (what could go wrong?). Now that we've seen what can go wrong, such waivers will be less forthcoming.

If you don't like the law, then advocate its repeal. Until then, the law as it stands (and common sense) require these restrictions.

As for refineries, the industry has closed over 100 of them starting about '81, for their own business reasons involving obsolescence, consolidation in the industry from mergers, etc. However, existing refineries have been expanded so that the capacity of US-based refineries remains the same as when there were over 100 more of them.

Why would we need more refineries if we have the same capacity we had, before the many years of declining domestic production?

That Hubbard King guy accurately forecast that peak oil meant the production of the lower 48 would peak in about 1972, as it has, and newer finds cannot replace the approx. 6% decline a year, over all those years, from the older wells and declining oil fields they are tapping.

There is no economic benefit for the oil companies to build more refineries than exist today, evidently, as they have shuttered over 100 of them, without changing our capacity overall.

pooltchr
06-02-2011, 01:27 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">[

Why would we need more refineries if we have the same capacity we had, before the many years of declining domestic production?

</div></div>

Maybe because we have more cars today than we had years ago? Just sayin'...

Why has domestic production declined??? Maybe because it's so difficult to get the permits necessary to increase production? Again...just sayin'...

Of course, this is the same mentality that the left has had for years. We must develop new domestic energy sources....but not in my back yard!

When we are willing to give up cars, boats, air travel, etc...then we might be able to get away with it.

But it ain't happening, so while we keep hearing about reducing our dependence on foreign oil, our government stands in the way of developing domestic energy sources.

That makes absolutely no sense at all.

Steve

Gayle in MD
06-02-2011, 01:30 PM
You make no sense at all!

pooltchr
06-02-2011, 01:33 PM
It wouldn't to you. You would have to have some mental reasoning abilities to comprehend it.

Steve

LWW
06-02-2011, 04:21 PM
Be nice ... it must be taxing n the brain to be both 100% for and 100% against the same thing at the same time.

LWW
06-02-2011, 04:43 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">and yes our fleet average is far higher today than then

That's substantially untrue. It's true that the CAFE standard was recently raised by Obama, but it had not been changed at all since the first round under Carter.

Even though it has been raised, our overall gas mileage ratings are probably the lowest they've been since the Carter days, with the SUVs and large trucks entirely (still) not included in the CAFE standard.</div></div>

Dude ... you are so wrongheaded that I don't know where to start, but I'll do my best.

1 - Jimmuh Cahtuh had absolutely nothing to do with initiating CAFE

2 - CAFE was initiated under Gerald Rudolf Ford in 1975.

3 - CAFE was raised in 1978, 1979, 1980, 1981, 1982, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986, 1989, 1990, and 2011.

4 - The CAFE on cars has risen from 18 to 30.2,

5 - The CAFE on trucks has risen from 17.2 to 24.1.

6 - The SUV which you lament was largely created because of CAFE. Pre CAFE the modern SUV was a very rare vehicle which was used almost exclusively by utility companies, railroads, farm and construction crews, and the military/gubmint.

Prior to CAFE the typical American family car was a 5 to 7 passenger V8 powered station wagon that would haul the entire family plus the dog and tow a boat/camper. It was full frame, safe, inexpensive, weighed 4,500 lbs or so, and sat as low to the ground as a car so that traffic visibility was unimpeded and it's bumper height matched up with other cars.

Then along came the gubmint which decided that they knew best, and the full sized family station wagon was taxed into non existence.

In it's place, consumers and manufacturers leaped through the "TRUCK" loophole as the law of unintended consequences reared it's ugly head ... as it is often wont to do when the gubmint interferes with free markets.

Next thing you know, the state in it's infinite wisdom had regulated that if the family wagon was modified to weigh 7,000 pounds instead of 4,500 pounds ... raised high enough to block visibility of drivers behind it and cause mismatched bumper height which would kill/maim thousands ... and get 15 MPG instead of 20 MPG the gubmint was fine with it.

But. like most all leftists, you don't ever want to look at cause and effect or whether regs work or not ... you just want to hand off everyone's liberty to the gubmint and accept whatever Bravo Sierra explanation they give you for why it didn't work as promised.