Georgian's do not even know the meaning of cold weather. You people prolly turn the heat on when it is 65 degrees out. Try living in Nebr. where there is usually 2 feet of snow on the ground from November to March. It just makes us tougher.

Denny, dammit, you write it well but it's the same old story. We've "libbed" ourselves into a bad pocket that's pretty-near the same as when Mr. Peanut ran the show. Our alledged "conservatives" at times make me recall Mondale. GW rather sucks. The alternative really sucks.

I'm bothered.

Kudos!

Teresa:

As a former USAF denizen of Elkhorn, Nebraska, I can easily concur!

"Unfortunately, everything they have done has been wrong."

But that's what we've come to expect from government. We elect these people with single digit IQ's and expect competent decisions - What a joke. Maybe when we're all sitting in a gas line waiting to pay $5.00 for a gallon of gas, there will be others out scouring the countryside rounding up all the tree-huggers to string up and entertain us while we wait. Heh.

Is now a bad time to mention that I bought Exxon stock a couple of years ago?

Here's a game that gets played in the big cities of northern climes... or at least we used to play it. In the summer you start a pool to pick the date they find the first bumscicle. It's fun for the whole family and so easy to play.

Teresa - For once we're in agreement. Jerry is a pussy. I grew up in St. Louis and spent two winters in Chicago. The winter of 1966 the temp stayed below 0 for an entire week. I had to walk a mile to get to the bus stop to catch a bus into the Navy base in North Chicago. The winter of 1978 snow was on the ground for over two months.

Bogdaddy - I agree with you. W. has been a big disappointment. He has not been as disappointing as Kerry or Gore would have been, and at least Republicans are more in favor of market based solutions to energy problems.

Governments could introduce moratoriaums on fuel taxes.

Oh no, can't be breaking one of the governing classes' rice bowls, can we?

Well, it looks like a Category 5 is going to hit Louisiana. The bayou produces 25% of the domestic oil supply. I do believe we're FUCKED now. Sydney just reported $70 a barrel. Way to go all you SUV driving to work mother fuckers. Dumb asses. Buy a rice burner. Save the SUV for recreation, hence the term Sports Utility Vehicle. Assholes. Most of you dumbshits out there with SUVs probably haven't taken them over anything more demanding than the occasional curb. Punks. Thanks a lot.

Yes, I'm an SUV owner. No! I don't drive it to work. Its a RECREATIONAL VEHICLE and the occasional HOUSE PROJECT VEHICLE. Assholes. Fuck you all. I'm pissed off.

Wow, lot'so stuff to comment on- Denny- Nothing colder than Great Lakes Naval Station in the winter- that's why when I joined the Navy in '80 in Chicago I said ONLY if they sent me to boot camp in San Diego or Orlando (Back when those boot camps existed), and I got to go to SD, even though I lived about 45 minute south of Great Lakes. Go figure.
I remember the winter of '78/79 well, since it cost mayor Michael Bilandic his job due to side-streets not being plowed for weeks, and gave us Jane Byrne as his replacement.
To all you thinking you live in cold weather- come'on out to the mountains of Colorado this winter, where temps of -25 at night are common and 12 feet of snow each winter is the norm. Not that I'm complaining- I love it here, especially the winter!
I have a 2002 Yukon Denali SUV, but where I live we have a free bus system that goes all over the county, so I seldom drive my truck.

Paul:

Not to be mean about this, mmmkay? But get bent.

SUV's aren't the problem. First of all, if everybody who has an SUV also then bought ANOTHER car (of slightly better fuel efficency), that's known as "Not Making Sense".

I traded in my Nissan Pickup this year for a Xterra. I get about 1 mpg less than my '89 pickup. In the meantime, I now have 265 HP, compared to the 145 of the old V6.

Now, to double my monthly car payment, to afford, say, an Accord, just for "running around", which also means that I don't have a single place for my stuff - have to duplicate all my emergency equipment and whatnot - so I spend $400, minimum, extra a month... to save... $20-$50 at *best* on gas?

Gee, let's jump all over THAT. ("Hybrids" will be the lecture for tomorrow).

So, if I get 2 cars (increasing the amount of gas I'll have "in storage"), your gas prices will go down? Nonsense. Gas prices are through the roof because people are driving more. We've not reached the economic point where people are willing, or can afford to drive less. Yes, sometimes, you can't afford to spend less - because the initial capital investment is so high.

Gas prices have a number of reasons for being so high. Refineries, as Denny alluded to, being old, outdated, and unable to be replaced. The current upheaval in the Middle East, and the ongoing sabotage by terrorists of Iraqi oil production. The chaos in Venezeula (where most of our oil from overseas was coming from).

But let's not forget the REALLY big deal - China. China's now consuming TONS of petroleum (And they're not as worried about emissions, yet). Go price some concrete. Check what it used to cost 2 years ago. Difference? China's building a dam. A Damn Dam. A REALLY DAMN DAM. Right now, 25% of the world's - the WORLD's - cement production is going to that damn dam. All the "economy" we do here only means there's more gas for China to buy. So the cost of crude on the world market is unchanged (local prices will fluctuate more, due to storage, and refining capacity).

Plus, I've always been told, that $60/barrel was the 'magic number', where coal liquefaction was cost-effective. (and makes very clean-burning gas). Additionally, as the price of crude goes up, the more fields open up. My family has 2 capped wells in Mississippi (Somewhere, I need to find them, and go out there with a pump). At the time, in the 70s, it wasn't worth pumping there. Now, it might well be. (now we hit refining capacity again).

Why haven't the oil companies moved into those fields yet? They don't think - yet - that the prices will stay this high, to justify the investment. By all means, feel free to see if they're wrong - you might make a mint, if they are. Oh, and better sell that SUV. Wait, no, then someone else will use it. Better scrap it. Think of how much gas you'll save!

Oh, I'm bent alright, Addison. I don't disagree with a single thing you just said. Not one single bit of it. My whole point is, we're a reckless consuming society. Consumer expectations have driven up the size and guzzling power of transportation. We're right back to where we were in the 1970s. We didn't learn a damn thing. We never do it seems. SUVs sell more than any other kind of vehicle in the United States. SUVs are marketed towards demanding topographical and horsepower applications but yet are sold to the average family who utilizes about .000000001% of its ability (exaggeration). The people bitching about gas prices are the ones who are senselessly driving gas guzzlers to work! I think this type of consumer behavior is reckless, selfish, short-sighted, and just plain stupid. I don't blame the auto makers, hell, they're just responding to consumer desires and making a profit. Good for them. You're right, Addison, but so am I. You're talking the global demand and domestic supply side, while I'm talking specifically about domestic demand. We're both arguing the same problem from different angles. I stand by my SUV rampage.

Addison (the other one) and Paul. I am not anti-SUV, but I do believe they are part of the problem, just like cars like my 1973 Monte Carlo (18 hiway, 14 city) were part of the problem back in the 70's. That being said, I do not want to hear anyone who drives an SUV to bitch about the high price of gas. I drive two high powered BMW's that get about 24 mpg on the hiway. I think my Nissan pickup gets about the same. I could ditch them and buy hybrids or cars that get better mileage, but I can afford to drive them. It's as simple as that. Soon we're gonna hear some guy with five kids and a van or an SUV bitching about not being able to buy gas. Obviously that guy made some poor financial choices but the LSM will eat it up and blame it on Bush, Cheney, and Haliburton.

Paul:

Well, glad to see we agree on the basics.

Are we a reckless consuming society? Nah. Do we consume? Sure. But we *produce*. In the 70s, few families had more than 1 car. I remember, we had 2, and we were the exception for a long time. Now, almost EVERYBODY has a car. Mom, Dad, Jimmy, Billy. Is that wrong? But that also means Mom and Dad and Jimmy and Billy all are able to maximize THEIR time efficiently. They all can go work, and PRODUCE.

Now, does that outweigh the cost of all 4 burning a couple of gallons of gas a day? Or is that why gas is so relatively cheap - and cheap it *is*.

Now, I make snarky comments about people in SUV's. My mother drives an Expedition. (So I'm allowed) Her previous Suburban was in 4 wheel drive 6 times. 3 times when I drove it, 3 when Dad did. Is that overkill? Possibly. Until she needs to pick up her horse food, hay, or haul the trailer.

Would it save GAS to have a second car? Sure. But how much gas would that save? Nowhere NEAR enough to compensate for the total energy of building (and maintaining) a WHOLE NOTHER CAR.

So she has the 1 car, gets 14 mpg. Do the math. How much gas would she have to save to justify having 2 cars? It's a lot.

And, having then done that, and "saved" the gas, what would be the end result of it? Gas would be how much cheaper? Well, it wouldn't be. So it's not the SUV's that are the problem. Gas *consumption* has gone up markedly, even as gas efficiency has boomed. You say we haven't learned anything from the 70s? We've learned a lot. We've got cars that are getting far better milage, and producing far more power. And have much more in the way of safety systems. (I had to install my own seatbelts in my first truck, a '73 Blazer).

Is it wrong to complain about gas prices if you're a heavy consumer? Why the hell isn't it? Of course it's something you'll complain about. But you're sneering to get rid of the SUV's - which WON'T LOWER PRICES. Now, you might use slightly less, when you have a new vehicle - and as people trade in their cars, they are going for better milage now - but the cost will be the same.

California, the home of the hybrid stupidity, and with the most draconian fuel efficency rules - has gas prices almost a dollar more than us stupid SUV-driving rednecks in Georgia. Now, their gas CONSUMPTION has dropped marketedly - so much so that their gas tax collection is down so much, that now they're going to _tax efficient cars more_. Yep. That's right. They've stopped using so much gas that the government is hurting for cash, and is going to tax them for it. But that's another rant - did their prices go down? Nope.

Because the gas just went somewhere else. As long as the raw material cost is what it is - that determines the end product cost more than how much we're using. And it's damn cheap for the power we get out of it, too.

Go down to home depot, and lug home a cabinet. Oh, suddenly it's worth $2 to burn a 1/2 gallon of gas? Gee, funny how that works. I've got a 3 mile commute to and from work. It's NOT WORTH IT for me to bike it, (from a cost/time perspective, not from a waistline one) (especially considering I'd get killed by the kids in this college town on the road). The time it would take far outweighs the $1 or so I spend a day in gas. An hour and a half each way? Versus 20 minutes. (If I catch all the lights). So, we'll just round it to an hour. Gee, my time is worth a lot more than $1/hr.

And if I did that - if EVERYBODY in town did that, would our gas prices go down? Nope. But we'd LOSE. We'd have less time for the things that make us happy. We'd have less productivity - far offset by that small cost of gas.

So, you rant on SUV's, or more appropriately, vehicles getting low(er) gas milage. You're just having a communistic class rant (against yourself, as well, which gets into the, do you need a therapist's phone number category). OK, go ahead, rant. Fine, you've got a right to do it. But what you're SAYING doesn't make sense. What you're proposing has NEVER worked.

And merely ranting about it - ain't going to change that.

Addison (the other one) - Thanks. I just love it when you comment. You do such a spendid job. Good points about the productivity. That's another place that we lead the world: Productivity. That is one reason we have a high standard of living.

Our ability to produce does indeed enable us to maintain a high standard of living. That still doesn't justify our reckless procurement decisions. Mom, Dad, Billy, and Jenny all own cars, yes. Unfortunately, the ratio is something to the tune of three gas guzzlers to one efficient. Insane. I know several families who have decided to purchase two gas guzzling SUVs, one of which is a commuting vehicle. My point is while a higher demand for private transportion has increased overall energy demand (a good point you made), the high demand for gas guzzlers inflates this demand for energy. Some of this consumption is senseless. That's been my whole point.

I am a God fearing, consuming loving, capitalist American. I also believe that a society should draw its limits responsibly and not bitch about the natural consequences. True, our government can alleviate some of the energy costs RIGHT NOW by relieving taxes and mandating a uniform fuel blend for the whole country, but that still doesn't address my point. If we choose to feast on gas guzzling SUVs, we're gonna feel the pain. I love SUVs, believe me, but I also preach responsible energy consumption. Your three mile commute to work is far, far less than the national average. From my experience on the road, many commute single and in gas guzzling roadsters. BS. This unnecessary demand for energy is partially responsible for the crisis we're in. Our current domestic demand profile is not justified by the type of applications demanding it. Your points are very well taken, and you are a far superior debater than I am. But again, I stand by my original rampage. People should slow down on the SUVs to cool off energy prices, and send a signal to auto manufacturers to redirect design engineering resources. We have got to get rid of the Otto engine, damnit, or figure out a way to produce Diesel engines more cost effectively, or get fuel cells up and running or something. Our appetite for SUVs only prolongs the pain.

And I do have a therapist, and the number is 63.247.140.138.

Here's an idea...Over a period of five or so years, narrow the roads to the point where it will become prohibitive to drive a wide vehicle. At the same time it will increase the amount of cars that *can* be on the road, eventually adding another lane from narrowed lanes.

I don't think I like that idea, Jimmy. Because that would screw Addison (the other one). :)

Addison (the other one)
"I've got a 3 mile commute to and from work. It's NOT WORTH IT for me to bike it ... The time it would take far outweighs the $1 or so I spend a day in gas. An hour and a half each way? Versus 20 minutes."

Are you actually riding the bike, or just pushing it? I _saunter_ faster than two miles an hour.

In actuality, a bike would be just as fast for you to take to work as it takes you to drive.

majelix - It's Jimmy that is biking to work not Addison (the other one).

Denny:
Aw, thanks. Now I'm blushing. :)

Paul:
"If we choose to feast on gas guzzling SUVs, we're gonna feel the pain."

Not really. What I've been pointing out, is that SUV or no SUV - that's not what's pushing the price up. World demand is up dramatically. There's upheaval in almost every major oil producing country - the RAW price is up dramatically... The advantage of driving something that consumes less gas is almost entirely benefitial to the individual ... and most people, including yourself, find it less than compelling. The only way we could dramatically drop prices would be to cut oil consumption by huge amount - a few gallons/mile here/there aren't anywhere NEAR enough. The price of gas has doubled since 2001. And we're driving more than ever. Merely saving even 10 miles/gallon wouldn't change *anything*.

"From my experience on the road, many commute single and in gas guzzling roadsters."

Quite possibly - because it *makes less sense than having 2 different cars!* Think of the total energy involved (which you can model with raw cash). Buying a $20k additional car - you gotta save a LOT of gas. *And* that presumes that demands won't change. Sometimes when I'm at work, I've got to drive, because the guy who works next to me has a 2 seat hybrid - and 4 of us want to go to lunch. Denny' Beemer - gets 4 mpg better than mine on the road. Say you come to visit, and we decide to run out somewhere that's 30 miles away. So 60 miles. 3 gallons of gas if I drive. Or, we'll presume Denny's got a spare beemer for you, that's magically here (it's an illustration). So, we ride in the two of them - and burn 5 gallons of gas. Gee, wait, what happened? Say we want to take my boat to the lake? What if I sometimes need to haul loads, and don't know when it will occur? Etc. etc. etc. Basically, the market is fixing this - people will choose how much convience will cost them - and that was the same when gas was .70, and it's the same now that it's 2.50. The *difference* is still the same today.

"People should slow down on the SUVs to cool off energy prices, and send a signal to auto manufacturers to redirect design engineering resources."

Seems to me that that's what the designers have been doing. H3? Jeep Liberty? Kia?

Jimmy: AFAIK, current lane width is set up for many reasons, but narrower lanes have lots more accidents - which also stop traffic. But SUV's ain't your problem there - tractor-trailers are. And if you think SUV owners are nasty... :) Plus, right now, *everything* you're buying is being trucked across the US.

majelix:
"Are you actually riding the bike, or just pushing it? I _saunter_ faster than two miles an hour."

Well, I'd love to see you try and go straight across US 27, even at 20 mph. :) 3 miles isn't a non-stop express, you know. You've got several stops, cross a major US highway, 2 railroad crossings... 30 minutes is a pretty conservative estimate. And that doesn't count waiting on the ambulance, because none of these roads are set up for bikes.

majelix:
Whoops, sorry. I see what you meant. I meant, an hour and a half round trip, not _each way_. (my later math was right - total of an hour, call it, more than driving)

Yeah, I'm slow, but not THAT slow. :)

OK, Addison. I hear you. But, I would just like to point out something you said.

"Merely saving even 10 miles/gallon wouldn't change *anything*."

If all of the SUVs, in addition to our Diesel long-haul rigs, in the United States achieved an average of 10 mpg better efficiency, wouldn't that substantially impact overall consumption? Say, 30,000,000 vehicles X 10 gallons per day would save 300,000,000 gallons per day or 7,142,857 barrels per day. We consume approximately 320,000,000 barrels per day, so that would reduce daily consumption by 2.23%....hmmm, you may have a point. Just damn.

Paul:

Amazing as it seems, my math skilz win! :)

(And if you've seen me try math.. Well, I survived 4 semesters of college calc, up to and including diffy-q... let's just say, it ain't pretty).

Right. *If* we could do all of that - and remember, we're talking about a LOT of cost to do that - we save even 3%. So, if gas is $2.50/gal - that's .07. (Let's not forget about .65 or so of that is taxes, depending on where you are).

My solution, by the way, or partial one, is a long-term commitment to nuclear power. Build more, small, nuke plants, and push for more straight electric cars. Powered by nuke, no emissions. Reliable power, perfect for most small errands, commuting, etc. Push for all mass transit to be electric. Buses pollute just as much, or more, than the cars that people would be taking otherwise....

And that also allows us to more easily utilize other electrical generation methods, the wind farms, the solar, as they become more viable.

I'm still grouchy on this topic, Addison. I like ranting....from time to time.