…and 150,000 manufacturing jobs get vapourized…
Imagine if the President had instead said today, “This new fuel economy and greenhouse gas emissions rule will slow the increase in future global temperature seven thousandths of a degree Celsius by the end of this century, and it means the sea will rise six tenths of a millimeter less than it otherwise would over the same timeframe.” It loses some of its punch, no?
h/t
More: “At the same time that the president was announcing the Californication of the country’s automobile fleet, House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Beverly Hills) was working to push through an anti-energy bill designed to export the Golden State’s failed energy model to the rest of the country. “
Good times!
Previous: “To boldly go where no consumer demand has gone before”
“If you truly believe the cornucopian nonsense, you’d never have made that comment about others buying what the US won’t need anymore.”
Eh… can you help me out with a direct quote?
Sorry green-boy, your logic doesn’t hold. If your argument is that “Oil is finite” then what’s the problem with us using it first?
No problem at all. Conserving a finite resource is the smart and conservative thing to do. Kate does a great job at demonstrating alternative, renewable technologies are not up to snuff. Reason therefore to save fossil fuels and allow technology time to develop suitable alternatives.
You ecotards jump from one bogus argument to another. If you were serious about greenhouse gasses you’d be the #1 advocate for nuke power. Wouldn’t you?
I am a vocal supporter of nuke power, and said it here before. You just presume a lot.
The bottom line is: you don’t really believe humans are flirting with catastrophe(do you?), you are simply playing politics. Proof? What’s your position on: water-boarding, gay marriage, gun control, Afghanistan, Iraq, abortion, hate speech (HRC’S), private healthcare, Gitmo? Show me one example of you not towing the socialist line and I might believe your nonsense.
Again you presume a lot. First, I’m a libertarian. You guys complain a lot about the liberals and big government fleecing you. I’ve done something about it. I grow all my food, produce my own electricity and work just enough to make the few dollars I need. That makes me a socialist?
btw, it’s you that’s wrong, with current demand and growth accounted for, and the current technology there is enough oil to last for approximately 100 years.
Factoring 2% growth you’ll need about 10 trillion barrels over 100 years. Even the wildest optimists talk about 4 trillion (actual reserves at 1.3 T). Do some math before ‘parroting something you’ve heard’.
All of the technology may not be cost effective today, but that technology will be improved, but you already know that too. After all, you’re in the mining industry aren’t you? I thought not. I suspect you are scientifically inadequate regarding this issue. More than likely you are a parrot mimicking something that you’ve heard.
I worked over 20 years with the mining, oil, nuclear and manufacturing industries. Some of my control software still runs in Alberta, Texas, Norway, ME, Australia and Indonesia. I am fully aware of the technology, and more important, how much more we’ll need. BTW, what are your credentials?
First, Kate clearly demonstrated that any conservation on the part of Americans would be gobbled up by others. There is no point in starving yourself expecting to eat later if someone else it eating the food you’ve rationed. As long as the supply is there it will be consumed, so if this is your main argument for destructive economic policies it is not a strong one. Why? Because it’s based on a false premise, that premise being: if America uses less oil the worlds oil supply will last longer.
Second, growing your own food is not the point, and no it doesn’t make you a socialist.
So are you not invoking the AGW argument? I find it hard to believe that you support BO’s proposed energy policies strictly for conservations sake. Please feel free to correct my if I’m wrong, but my understanding is conservation is a sidebar to the actual motivations behind these policies and those that support them.
“Factoring 2% growth you’ll need about 10 trillion barrels over 100 years.”
I’ll get two birds stoned at once here. I’m an engineer in the mining division for a very large company. My past experience is in oil(AB oil), but currently (for 3yrs now) my focus is on potash. The numbers provided in strategic meetings suggest there will be a decline in the worlds population by 2050 due to the Earths aging population, so a finite variable of 2% is not relevant. Population trends are very important for those in the potash industry so I’m comfortable with the figures provided in the aforementioned meetings; politics are not a factor.
I concede that my presumption regarding your background most likely being inadequate was a stretch; my bad. I still can’t agree with your analysis because your thinking appears to be too linear in this respect. We still haven’t touched on the seemingly endless supply of shale oil deposits in the US which will inevitably be accessible in the future.
Bygones.
Ted said; I’ve done something about it. I grow all my food, produce my own electricity and work just enough to make the few dollars I need. That makes me a socialist?
No Ted, no it doesn’t.
It sure explains why you have no problem advocating being so profligate with other people tax dollars.
Doesn’t sound to me like your doing the heavy lifting, tax wise, your leftist policies would impose on others.
I did my own blog post on this subject, the rest of the world already has had common sense auto standards for decades. Obama’s moving farther away from that and dragging Canada with it. He is killing our auto choices in the marketplace and enshrining protectionism.
http://travischase.blogspot.com/2009/05/new-us-auto-standards-obama-doesnt-get.html