Did Oil Just Become Too Expensive?

[theclencher]

Thanks. Reasonable people can disagree without being enemies. Then, with any luck (and a bit of work) agreement/consensus can become a possibility. So...

1. BP deserves blame for willfully blowing off known precautions against precisely this sort of disaster. They knew as well as anyone how high the stakes are with this sort of screw-up yet they took the gamble. Bet they wish they hadn't done that now. Their Chief Officer has really been showing his true colors lately too i.e. being a useless waste of perfectly good space and air before congress, then jetting off to a yacht event. The S.O.B. oughtta spend the rest of his life out on the beach with a rag and some Dawn cleaning rocks.

2. Of course govt is going to mismanage it's revenue. There are too many people involved in it, and people all have different preferences and biases, so inevitably many are going to be P.O.'d at govt no matter what it does. That doesn't change the fact that many forms of energy are subsidized i.e. artificially cheap, which is not conducive to conservation at all... in fact I'd say it's the exact opposite of what's needed.

3. OK here's what I observe: American slobs as a whole continue with excessively long commutes in V8 4x4 trucks, they continue to install and abuse auto-start systems so that their engines can be idled excessively before use, they can't be expected to walk two blocks so they hop in that V8 monster and drive it, they drive like maniacs so as to ensure minimum fuel efficiency, they don't maintain anything and for sure can't be expected to keep air in their tires, and so on, so... why is it important to drill and keep prices low again??? Evidently energy isn't precious enough yet.

4. I'd say worrying about govt is a separate issue from the energy situation, at least at the individual level. Why? Cuz govt has always, does now, and always will suck. Get used to it. Pick your battles. As I stated before, the energy thing is in OUR HANDS. I don't need a policy or law or regulation or subsidy or tax or anything from them to arrange and manage my life so that my energy use and carbon footprint are minimized. However, since it is evidently too much to ask of most people, yes "social engineering" must be employed to effect necessary change.

Don't faint; "social engineering" isn't always an evil thing. As evidence I present govt emission and safety regulations for vehicles. Are you old enough to remember when those things were first legislated? OMG, the car mfgs and the public went nuts when PCV systems appeared, and almost went completely ballistic when cat converters were mandated. Oh yeah, lots of "test pipes" were sold. Seat belts were something to be scoffed at. The manufacturers really wanted nothing to do with making bumpers that could actually take a bump without being destroyed. If the mfgs had put half the energy into being proactive about those things as they did fighting them tooth and nail we'd all be decades ahead. Now the public has not only embraced all that and more, they now demand even more of it.

5. Re: breeders: it's not my opinion so much because the math is quite clear. Math doesn't succumb to opinion, politics, and bias as much as other things; it just is what it is. Since I view overpopulation to be the root cause for pressure on resources, it stands to reason I would advocate for a stable if not declining population. For that to happen, and to not get so actuarial that I use a fractional person in my statistics, it makes sense to me that every adult couple limit themselves to two spawn. My whole State is succumbing to sprawl and it makes me sad, angry, and I have much dispair over it as it seems to be accelerating ever more. What, does everyone truly want the entire country to be "developed" and paved over so we can all enjoy coast-to-coast gridlock? Doesn't sound like "progress" to me. And for what? To stroke egos? You wanna talk about what isn't sustainable- I'd say pop growth is above bad govt on that Top Ten List.

P.S. I still don't have a clue about what Post 17 is trying to convey

[Wyldesoul]

Originally Posted by theclencher

Don't faint; "social engineering" isn't always an evil thing. As evidence I present govt emission and safety regulations for vehicles. Are you old enough to remember when those things were first legislated? OMG, the public went nuts when PCV systems appeared, and almost went completely ballistic when cat converters were mandated. Oh yeah, lots of "test pipes" were sold. Seat belts were something to be scoffed at. The manufacturers really wanted nothing to do with making bumpers that could actually take a bump without being destroyed. Now the public has not only embraced all that and more, they now demand much more of it.

If I might interject:

There is a VERY big difference between requiring products to be built to a standard of quality, to increase standard of living and safety to those who would otherwise be not concerned with it, and requiring products to be sold at a price that forces a lower standard of living on those who would otherwise be able to afford it. (I.E. Increasing tax on energy and other consumption to encourage less consumption)

BIG DIFFERENCE.

One is keeping safe the idiots, and the other is forcing a larger gap between the haves and have nots.

When the type of job that used to be able to support living in a big house with many creature comforts, with a big, comfy car... When that sort of job now means you can barely afford the electricity in a small house, and can barely afford the gas in a small car? What did you just work 10 years to become junior district manager for? What motivation do you have to work another 10 years and become senior regional manager?


I'm all for the tightening of CAFE standards, (Though I don't like how ridiculous they are getting with emissions... I mean, my word! Inject some oxygen into the exhaust, and you can suck on the tailpipe nowadays! How much cleaner do you want it? I'd say emissions level were best in the mid-90's, when something like the VX could still be built, before ultra lean burn was banned.), but don't force a lower standard of living artificially.




And on another note, bumpers used to be able to easily take the bump. That wasn't the problem, they were too rigid, and transferred too much energy to the passenger. Heck, nowadays, the bumpers CAN'T take the bump. Bloody energy absorbing bumpers and hoods crumpling at a mere 5mph impact and costing thousands of dollars to repair.

[theclencher]

I wasn't trying to compare the two; the point is sometimes govt intervention does in fact promote behavioral change for the greater good even though the public and industry rebel against it at first.

On another note, look at bumpers from the '60s, prior to fed bumper regs. A shopping cart could damn near take em right out. They were little more than little chrome ornaments.

[bowtieguy]

Originally Posted by theclencher

I still don't have a clue about what Post 17 is trying to convey

attempt at humor. but would be a serious thought for those trying to turn my country into a socialist or european nation. that's not an insult to europeans, just an observation that the founders sacrificed to create something different.

in regard to Biffmeistro's post--very good point. one of my links highlighted that view. i have an issue w/ the prez trying to exploit the public and their hard earned money(much of it anyway), and using the BP tragedy as a catalyst.

[theclencher]

I don't think the differences between Europe and the U.S. are much of anything anymore.

i have an issue w/ the prez trying to exploit the public and their hard earned money(much of it anyway), and using the BP tragedy as a catalyst.

what?

[theholycow]

theclencher, are your concerns about safety regulations at odds with your concerns about overpopulation? Wouldn't it help overpopulation if some cars weren't so safe?

Also, everyone always says bumpers from decades ago were thick, solid steel that could bash stuff without a scratch, not that "A shopping cart could damn near take em right out."

[Jay2TheRescue]

When my 81 Buick was rear ended by a early 90's V-8 4x4 my Buick emerged with very little damage, and the tail lights didn't even crack. The pickup was totaled, with the engine pushed under the cab of the truck.

[VetteOwner]

Originally Posted by Jay2TheRescue

When my 81 Buick was rear ended by a early 90's V-8 4x4 my Buick emerged with very little damage, and the tail lights didn't even crack. The pickup was totaled, with the engine pushed under the cab of the truck.

thats because cars back then were built a hell of alot better than the plastic easter eggs we have now.

id take your 81 land barge over 99% of the crap we have now.

[theholycow]

My 1980 Buick must be all plastic and foil. Curb weight is 3500 pounds by the heaviest estimate I can find, and some specifications say as low as 3200. A modern car the same size would weigh well over 4000 pounds. My 2008 VW Rabbit, which is like half the size of the Buick and could almost park in the Buick's trunk, has a curb weight over 3000 pounds.

No way a 1980 or 1981 model is "built a hell of a lot better" in the way you imply.

Now, early '90s is just as bad if not worse. It was the mid '90s before curb weight started climbing again and metal was getting more substantial.

Here's the dimensions and curb weight from the 1980 LeSabre owner's manual:


Edit: The only 2010 car I could think of that would be similar in size is the Cadillac DTS: http://www.cadillac.com/dts/features-specs - same width, a couple inches taller, but my Buick is a whole 10 inches longer; the DTS curb weight is 4009 pounds.

[Jay2TheRescue]

The funny part was this accident happened in my rescue squad's first due area. When the ambulance arrived, they parked right behind my Buick. They were shocked to find out that I was a patient as well. They thought I stopped to help the guy that ran into a tree. They had no idea he ran into me, spun my car over to the opposite side of the road, facing the opposite direction, and then continued on to hit the tree. I called 911 from the payphone that I nearly ran over.