Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: 240 is Back on May 01, 2008, 05:58:33 PM
-
Obama May Levy $15 Billion Tax on Oil Company Profit...
May 1 (Bloomberg) -- Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama's proposal for a windfall profits tax on oil companies could cost $15 billion a year at last year's profit levels, a campaign adviser said.
The plan would target profit from the biggest oil companies by taxing each barrel of oil costing more than $80, according to a fact sheet on the proposal. The tax would help pay for a $1,000 tax cut for working families, an expansion of the earned- income tax credit and assistance for people who can't afford their energy bills.
``The profits right now are so remarkable that one could trim them 10 percent or so, which would turn out to be somewhere in the $15 billion range,'' said Jason Grumet, an adviser to the Obama campaign.
Obama's plan may be three times larger than the $50 billion, 10-year plan contemplated by his Democratic rival, New York Senator Hillary Clinton. Republican candidate John McCain, an Arizona senator, has no plan to raise oil and gas industry taxes, said his economic adviser, Douglas Holtz-Eakin.
Oil companies would still have ample reason to ``continue to pursue production, while at the same time providing relief to consumers,'' Grumet said.
A flurry of energy proposals from presidential candidates and lawmakers has come after crude oil futures prices reached $119.93 a barrel on April 28. Retail gasoline prices hit a record $3.603 a gallon this week, according to the U.S. Energy Department.
-
Once prices get to the point where people start really getting pissed off, we'll switch to something else, the unfortunate thing is humans need to feel pain, in this case financial, to actually have an incentive to see these alternate fuel sources see the light of day.
-
Does he believe that they will not pass the cost of that 'tax' on to consumers?
Perhaps someone should explain to Obama what the 'good ol' boys network' is.
-
Does he believe that they will not pass the cost of that 'tax' on to consumers?
Perhaps someone should explain to Obama what the 'good ol' boys network' is.
That's exactly what I thought while reading that. Does Obama really think they'll just eat the taxes? They'll work on the same margin and just bump the price to cover the taxes.
-
Big Oil built this city on rock and roll.
There's a simple way of making it so they can't pass it on to customers.
Make it a graduate tax. 7 bil profit/quarter, you pay 35% , 9 bil/quarter, you pay 40%. Granted, most of them will start spending on "R&D," but you have investors/shareholders to keep them accountable on that count. Stock options won't be worth a lot to executives if they try to cheat.
-
I don't understand this beef with the oil companies... They still pay more in europe and other parts of the world.
-
I don't understand this beef with the oil companies... They still pay more in europe and other parts of the world.
The beef is simple:
They work in collusion with auto manufacturers and select businessmen and politicians to keep fuel efficiency low in automobile engines in order to keep our levels of dependency high.
-
Maybe these prices are needed to finally force Americans to start weening themselves off their massive dependence on oil. Everyone bitches about it but no one's willing to ride a bike to work.
-
Maybe these prices are needed to finally force Americans to start weening themselves off their massive dependence on oil. Everyone bitches about it but no one's willing to ride a bike to work.
No, sir - do you actually think any of the decision-makers in the U.S. want people biking to work? Why do you think they build all the houses out in the suburbs where the jobs are not? C'mon man, you've got to do better than that.
-
No, sir - do you actually think any of the decision-makers in the U.S. want people biking to work? Why do you think they build all the houses out in the suburbs where the jobs are not? C'mon man, you've got to do better than that.
Quit getting all Jeremiah Wright on us. The suburbanization of America happened in a different time. Now we have to adapt to our new reality.
-
No, sir - do you actually think any of the decision-makers in the U.S. want people biking to work? Why do you think they build all the houses out in the suburbs where the jobs are not? C'mon man, you've got to do better than that.
Why do people who live in the cities still own multiple cars? Give it up. Start fucking walking. I see kids on my campus that can't even walk a flight of stairs without having to take an elevator nor are they capable of walking 200 feet down the street to a dining hall. You're telling me these people really need to be driving 24/7? Nope.
Also, put the SUVs and other gas guzzlers to bed. I can understand if you need a truck for hard labor and what not, but soccer mom's driving Tahoe's around that get 8 miles to the gallon aren't exactly worthy of sympathy to me.
-
Why do people who live in the cities still own multiple cars? Give it up. Start fucking walking. I see kids on my campus that can't even walk a flight of stairs without having to take an elevator nor are they capable of walking 200 feet down the street to a dining hall. You're telling me these people really need to be driving 24/7? Nope.
Also, put the SUVs and other gas guzzlers to bed. I can understand if you need a truck for hard labor and what not, but soccer mom's driving Tahoe's around that get 8 miles to the gallon aren't exactly worthy of sympathy to me.
So what.. if they wanna pay the gas it's not anyone elses place to dictate what they drive.
-
Once prices get to the point where people start really getting pissed off, we'll switch to something else, the unfortunate thing is humans need to feel pain, in this case financial, to actually have an incentive to see these alternate fuel sources see the light of day.
Isn't that sick... They respond to fear and pain ::) NO wonder elite psycho bastards treat us the way they do... We really are fracking sheep.
-
Personal transportation is only a small part of the problem.....a problem that can be gotten around such as taking a bus, carpooling, riding a bike, walking, and using other modes of public transportation. Sure, it may be a lot more difficult for some than others, but a solution can usually be had.
What greatly worries me is shipping. Fleets of trucks use fuel too.....fleets that ship food, goods, and services. Even if you ride a bike, you will still be paying through the nose due to rising fuel costs and ethanol production when you go grocery shopping. The airliners are now flying their planes a bit slower in an attempt to conserve fuel.
Before people start going off on record profits and increased taxes levied on oil companies, it is apparent that our government is not able to effectively spend it's tax revenues.....the government is spending $25k per $21.6 it takes in from the average working family, a formula that cannot work in the long term. Despite the accusations of Big Oil being evil and existing to rip off the little guy, remember that it too employs thousands of people, produces, explores, ships, digs, and sells.....something the government does not. All the government does is produce red tape. Make the government spend tax money wisely and efficiently before going after Big Oil.
-
Personal transportation is only a small part of the problem.....
How about you look up your stats, champ? Personal transportation is quite a large part of the problem.
There's a reason people want EPA to be more strict with car manufacturers.
-
enjoy... "a small part of the problem"
I learned from 240 that people on getbig only get it if you post a pic
-
Once prices get to the point where people start really getting pissed off, we'll switch to something else, the unfortunate thing is humans need to feel pain, in this case financial, to actually have an incentive to see these alternate fuel sources see the light of day.
You don't think people are already pretty mad? I start talking to myself every time I fill up. >:(
-
Does he believe that they will not pass the cost of that 'tax' on to consumers?
Perhaps someone should explain to Obama what the 'good ol' boys network' is.
If the tax is high on gas, the public will look for alternatives, even public transportation, et al.
And the profits of Big Oil will go down.
The supporters of the Big Oil argues that there should be no tax on gas.
But why not let gas pay for the environmental damage it causes.
I never believed that a country should be run by a bunch of CEO's.
So I welcome any initiative to take on the TNC's.
-
If the tax is high on gas, the public will look for alternatives, even public transportation, et al.
If the tax is high on gas, our structuring narrative that the Arabs and Chavez and Mexico and Russia are fucking us will be done. So that's not going to happen.
-
So what.. if they wanna pay the gas it's not anyone elses place to dictate what they drive.
People have the right the choose what they want to drive.
However, if a person chooses to drive a tank that gets 8 mpg then they forfeit the right to bitch and complain about gas prices.
-
Quit getting all Jeremiah Wright on us. The suburbanization of America happened in a different time. Now we have to adapt to our new reality.
When was the last decade that the U.S. did *not* have an entirely oil-based infrastructure and economy?
http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_statistics/html/table_04_23.html
Look at the bottom part of that graph and you'll see that there's been almost no increase in fuel efficiency in the last 20 years.
-
We need to drill in Alaska to temporarily increase our own supply (with appropriate environmental restrictions). The massive reserves in Alaska (and possibly a few other areas) would give us many years to work to the ultimate goal of a more economical and bio-friendly fuel. This is the best short-term solution. With the $ we would save by increasing our own supply, we would also put some increased funds into biofuel research & development.
I am a fan of protecting our planet but there are areas that are oil rich where we can drill right now which would vastly ease the financial crisis and reduce our dependence on middle eastern oil. We won't be using oil forever and this would be a temporary solution that buys us time.
Oil prices are hard on everyone but the truckers are getting killed (which affects all business and food)
-
Quit getting all Jeremiah Wright on us. The suburbanization of America happened in a different time. Now we have to adapt to our new reality.
It's a fact of history that, back in 30s-40s, US automakers conspired to kill light rail across the nation. And they did a pretty damn good job of it.
Over the past 20+ years, the creation of SUVs instead of smaller more efficient cars showed me that we need a managed free market.
-
It's a fact of history that, back in 30s-40s, US automakers conspired to kill light rail across the nation. And they did a pretty damn good job of it.
Over the past 20+ years, the creation of SUVs instead of smaller more efficient cars showed me that we need a managed free market.
Yeah, didn't many of them even buy them and dismantle them?
-
It's a fact of history that, back in 30s-40s, US automakers conspired to kill light rail across the nation. And they did a pretty damn good job of it.
Over the past 20+ years, the creation of SUVs instead of smaller more efficient cars showed me that we need a managed free market.
thats a good way to put it. We need at least some guidlines for the betterment of the country...
-
Yeah, didn't many of them even buy them and dismantle them?
Yup. That's how it worked here in Milwaukee. At least that's what my grandparents told me.
-
Yup. That's how it worked here in Milwaukee. At least that's what my grandparents told me.
Argh! for the life of me i know i read that in a book somewhere where they did that in many of the major cities. I just can't remember the name of the book.
-
It's a fact of history that, back in 30s-40s, US automakers conspired to kill light rail across the nation. And they did a pretty damn good job of it.
Over the past 20+ years, the creation of SUVs instead of smaller more efficient cars showed me that we need a managed free market.
It's also a fact of history that sometime around the mid-point of the last century people of their own volition elected to move into suburbs. No car-maker sent them there.
-
It's also a fact of history that sometime around the mid-point of the last century people of their own volition elected to move into suburbs. No car-maker sent them there.
That's terrific. How does that play a role in the decimation of public transportation so that the elite few can monopolize the market they helped cultivate?
Anyway, to me it's another indication that we need a managed economy. Left to its own designs, pure ego driven aquisition eats at our resources and space like cancer.
Nothing illustrates that better than the fools driving Hummers and the like: limited oil and rising prices and we have numbnuts driving giant gas guzzlers.
-
That's terrific. How does that play a role in the decimation of public transportation so that the elite few can monopolize the market they helped cultivate?
Anyway, to me it's another indication that we need a managed economy. Left to its own designs, pure ego driven aquisition eats at our resources and space like cancer.
Nothing illustrates that better than the fools driving Hummers and the like: limited oil and rising prices and we have numbnuts driving giant gas guzzlers.
I have no clue what you're going on about. Here's the way I see it.
Cars and fuel are cheap, so people move out to the suburbs. It's not like somebody sent them there.
Most Americans have an antipathy to traveling by train.
Will this all change? Yes. Are there plans to change it yet? unfortunately, no.
You can argue "decimation" or whatever, but the evidence indicates that a lot of people in many parts of the country wanted to live further away from work and did not want to have to commute by train.
Just look at the stats on California or Texas. perfectly horrendous.
-
So, it seems to me on the one hand the Tre/Decker gang is arguing that government/industry conspired to make the sheep suffer, and then on the other hand, they're suggesting that the sheep are doing it on their own? I'm confused.
The people had plenty of say-so in this matter and they said so.
-
I have no clue what you're going on about. Here's the way I see it.
Cars and fuel are cheap, so people move out to the suburbs. It's not like somebody sent them there.
Most Americans have an antipathy to traveling by train.
Will this all change? Yes. Are there plans to change it yet? unfortunately, no.
You can argue "decimation" or whatever, but the evidence indicates that a lot of people in many parts of the country wanted to live further away from work and did not want to have to commute by train.
Just look at the stats on California or Texas. perfectly horrendous.
Until fairly recently, gas was more expensive in the 1960s (when adjusted for inflation).
I see what you are saying.
It seems pretty clear that: The auto industry helped kill electric light rail. Left to his own designs, the consumer will do as he pleases even if it is to his own detriment. Oil resources are limited and we are willingly burning through them with giant gas guzzling cars.
The EL Train in Chicago is pretty successful. In 2006, 195.2 million rode the rails. Not bad for a recalcitrant public.
-
So, it seems to me on the one hand the Tre/Decker gang is arguing that government/industry conspired to make the sheep suffer, and then on the other hand, they're suggesting that the sheep are doing it on their own? I'm confused.
The people had plenty of say-so in this matter and they said so.
Sometimes problems are complex. Meaning that they are not simple. Is it as easy as an either or question? No.
The auto industry acted in its own interest to the general public's detriment and the general public played along out of its own interest of personal autonomous mobility. After all, how many options did the public have at the time after the auto industry destroyed mass rail transit?
-
No, sir - do you actually think any of the decision-makers in the U.S. want people biking to work? Why do you think they build all the houses out in the suburbs where the jobs are not? C'mon man, you've got to do better than that.
That's what I was responding to....
And Chicago is in no way representative of the rest of the country. Quite recently there were studies that showed that people in California and texas had no interest in shifting their position.
Also, an amazingly few mass transit systems are in the works. people can vote on these issues nd they've voted no.
-
In London, the underground system was just unbelievable. No need for a car....and the country's train system would take you anywhere you wanted to go. It was really cool. However, our cities are so much more spread out...and in some cities, the rail systems aren't as good or as frequent to make them effective for the masses.
What about drilling in certain areas of Alaska guys...that would immediately address the situation so we could get the hell out of the middle east. We ignore our own natural resources. And there is a way to do this and keep it relatively friendly to the environment. We need a better bio-fuel, which will come at some point....but thats not going to help us in the next couple yrs. We're f'ed right now.
Obama raising taxes on gas companies is just going to pass the costs on to us. McCain's gas holiday will only provide some relief for the summer. Not gonna do it!
-
Europe has a different mentality than us. We've got more "wide open spaces" and it's affected the way we think of ourselves. People in some cities could live like Londoners do, but most of us would be quite unhappy.
I'm absolutely against any drilling in Alaska. There is no way to effectively control environmental repercussions from drilling/refining.
I've already outlined how to tax oil firms in a way that gives them no incentive to pass on the costs. Some might says its anti-capitalist, but it's a better solution than rampant capitalism.
Bio-fuels have a long way to go before they become viable. Passing the equivalent of sin taxes on full-size cars and light trucks will also help people get their minds right.
-
I've never been to Alaska, but I hope there will be enough of its natural beauty left for my grandkids' grandkids to enjoy someday.
I'm generally anti-drilling on our own soil until there's no alternative, but IF we were absolutely committed to rebuilding the U.S. infrastructure for clean, renewable energy, I'd be all for it. The Alaskan oil could tide us over for the next 30-40 years while we transition to an entirely new economy and way of life that are not oil-dependent.
-
I'm generally anti-drilling on our own soil until there's no alternative, but IF we were absolutely committed
I agree, we should build a pipeline from Iraq to America so we won't have to drill on our own soil.
If it helps we should invade Iran and mix Iraq and Iranian oil, and then we will have some of the best oil in the world.
Sounds like a plan. oh yea ;)
-
I've never been to Alaska, but I hope there will be enough of its natural beauty left for my grandkids' grandkids to enjoy someday.
I'm generally anti-drilling on our own soil until there's no alternative, but IF we were absolutely committed to rebuilding the U.S. infrastructure for clean, renewable energy, I'd be all for it. The Alaskan oil could tide us over for the next 30-40 years while we transition to an entirely new economy and way of life that not oil-dependent.
I'd rather pay $10-12 a gallon for motor gasoline than drill in Alaska. Did you guys look at the table I posted? Do you realize how much oil goes to feed our cars?
-
I'd rather pay $10-12 a gallon for motor gasoline than drill in Alaska. Did you guys look at the table I posted? Do you realize how much oil goes to feed our cars?
Would you pay 3x as much for food, clothing, and everything else you buy?
-
Would you pay 3x as much for food, clothing, and everything else you buy?
That's why I specified motor gasoline, 240. ;) I've actually thought this through unlike some other idiots posters.
-
That's why I specified motor gasoline, 240. ;) I've actually thought this through unlike some other idiots posters.
sorry, i read it too fast
-
You don't think we can perform regulated, focused drilling in the huge Alaskan landmass which preserves the ecosystem?
With the technology now, I'll bet we can, with minimal reprocussions to the land or ecosystem. The key is to work with ecoscientists and the gov understanding that the ultimate goal is to create a usable bio-fuel in the next 20 yrs. And contributing funds to research & development to acheive that goal & speed the process. American was once known for its technical ingenuity!
Otherwise, we will be paying $5 per gallon very soon, much higher costs for food and shipping all goods, and still be fighting in the middle east! By not drilling in selected regions, we are paying a grave price!
-
We need to drill in Alaska to temporarily increase our own supply (with appropriate environmental restrictions). The massive reserves in Alaska (and possibly a few other areas) would give us many years to work to the ultimate goal of a more economical and bio-friendly fuel. This is the best short-term solution. With the $ we would save by increasing our own supply, we would also put some increased funds into biofuel research & development.
Drilling Alaska is not the answer. If people got 3 more miles per gallon from their cars, it would save 1 million barrels of oil a day, which is exactly what the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, at it's best, in Alaska would produce.1
I am a fan of protecting our planet but there are areas that are oil rich where we can drill right now which would vastly ease the financial crisis and reduce our dependence on middle eastern oil. We won't be using oil forever and this would be a temporary solution that buys us time.
BioFuels as well are not the answer. The attraction to Bio-fuels is that they are renewable, ...however, bio fuels divert a tremendous amount of our food supply which results in higher prices worldwide. We have people eating dirt sandwiches around the world because the price of corn and other food staples has shot through the roof. In addition, biofuels produce more NOx than fossil fuels which is bad for the environment.
Oil prices are hard on everyone but the truckers are getting killed (which affects all business and food)
Ain't that the truth. What is occuring right now... is basically a "thinning of the herd". There was a time when independent owner operators could make a good living in the trucking industry, ...however, the price of fuel is having such an adverse effect on truckers, because the freight rates have not increased along with all the other costs. Brokers are still paying 1970's wages, ...but the truckers are paying 2008 insurance premiums, 2008 maintenance costs, 2008 fuel costs. This above all else is what is squeezing the truckers the most. Like all other industries caught in this crunch, ...the little guy is edged out in favour of the huge multinationals who have the ability to secure huge volume discounts on everything from parts, insurance, fuel etc., ie: Walmart for example. While you and I may be paying $1.99 for a 2 ltr bottle of soda, ...Walmart and it's massive buying power through volume discounts is able to acquire that same bottle of soda for perhaps $0.30 That makes a huge impact. in addition, many brokerage firms do not pass on the fuel surcharges they collect from the clients onto the drivers. This too is impacting the drivers. I have spoken to some drivers who have been offered loads at rates that wouldn't even cover the cost of the fuel to get them there. There are approx 1800 ind truckers who are going out of business everyday in the USA as a result of this. When times are bad, only the very strong, and the very talented survive. Who does it leave? ...the big multi-national trucking firms, ...and those independants who have an edge.
Cutting the gas tax on memorial day as McCain suggests is also not the answer. like Obama said, it is a mere pittance. Just more political smoke and mirrors in my opinion. What I would like to see though is an exemption from tolls. A few days ago, I was up late chatting with a few trucker friends who had loads they were hauling through the night along the eastern seaboard. One guy had paid about $400 just in toll charges. He's a real smart, savvy trucker, who knows just about every backroad and rt turnoff to avoid as many tolls as possible, ...but by the time we got off the line, ...he had still paid about $400 in toll charges. That's not right! These guys are the ones who keep the economy going.
There are resources out in the marketplace that will give fuel consumers an edge. Independant truckers, as well as ordinary consumers who're also seeking relief from the high prices, (provided they're permitted to hear about them) Those who take advantage of these resources will be the ones who survive.
1: Senator Joseph Leiberman in his debate with former Defense Secretary Dick Cheney, during the 2000 Presidential campaign ( a remark which Cheney did not contest. http://www.debates.org/pages/trans2000d.html (http://www.debates.org/pages/trans2000d.html)
-
So, it seems to me on the one hand the Tre/Decker gang is arguing that government/industry conspired to make the sheep suffer, and then on the other hand, they're suggesting that the sheep are doing it on their own? I'm confused.
The people had plenty of say-so in this matter and they said so.
There was indeed a conspiracy... at least in the state of California.
California had a fabulous mass transit system in the works, ...until the chairman of GM sat down with the governor.
They chose to scrap it, knowing that to do so would force California residents to buy more cars... GM cars.
The fact that California due to geographic imperative is probably the state most in need of efficient public transit didn't factor into the decision. We're now seeing the long term ramifications of corporate greed, and corporate special interest triumphing over the needs and interest of the population.
-
Drilling Alaska is not the answer. If people got 3 more miles per gallon from their cars, it would save 1 million barrels of oil a day, which is exactly what the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, at it's best, in Alaska would produce.1
Reality is this:
People have been building more efficient engines for years, but the automakers refuse to use the technology.
-
Reality is this:
People have been building more efficient engines for years, but the automakers refuse to use the technology.
That's because it's a double-edged sword. Up until now, historically, it has been impossible to increase the efficiency without raising the pollution. And conversely, decreasing the pollution lowered the fuel efficiency.
The internal combustion engine has got to be the most inefficient system ever designed.
Then too, there was GM's massive destruction of the electric car. What a blunder!
-
Cars can run on water.
http://waterpoweredcar.com/stanmeyer.html
-
Ya, a couple of my colleagues have modified their engine to do that.
One of my friends said he did see a decrease in fuel consumption, but he also lost a tremendous amount of power as well. He uses our MPG products to increase the power and further decrease the rate of fuel consumption.
-
There's no downside to more efficient motors (except for the oil companies). I'm all for that.
I don't think anyone knows the exact benefits of increasing our supply of oil from Alaska, but I'll bet it would be significant. Supply & demand economics.
Well, perhaps bio-fuel isn't exactly right...any type of fuel which is eco-friendly and reduces our reliance on oil and the middle east.
-
There's no downside to more efficient motors (except for the oil companies). I'm all for that.
I don't think anyone knows the exact benefits of increasing our supply of oil from Alaska, but I'll bet it would be significant. Supply & demand economics.
Well, perhaps bio-fuel isn't exactly right...any type of fuel which is eco-friendly and reduces our reliance on oil and the middle east.
Efficient motors have been held back by a (relatively) low gas price.
Countries with no own oil production have been much faster in developing gas effective cars.
I think Bush had been smart, he would've taxed gas higher years ago and put those tax money into the development of an alternative infrastructure.
Because public transportation like subway systems and intercity railways aren't really top notch today in the USA.
-
There's no downside to more efficient motors (except for the oil companies). I'm all for that.
I don't think anyone knows the exact benefits of increasing our supply of oil from Alaska, but I'll bet it would be significant. Supply & demand economics.
Well, perhaps bio-fuel isn't exactly right...any type of fuel which is eco-friendly and reduces our reliance on oil and the middle east.
I think they do know the EXACT benefits on increasing the supply from Alaska or else it would not even be on the table for discussion. Bio Fuel is not eco friendly and uses more oil to produce it then what it is even worth.
Enough with reliance, we need to take, because the middle east would be a crater if it were not for the US Britain, and France after WWI and WWII.
-
Reality is this:
People have been building more efficient engines for years, but the automakers refuse to use the technology.
Edit: "...American automakers refuse to use the technology because American consumers don't / won't buy it".
I get 50 miles per gallon from what over here (UK) is considered a big engine (3,000cc). My wife gets almost 70mpg in a 998cc. Now, in US a 3 litre engine is not a "large" engine...it's tiny. And is there anyone driving a 998cc car in US ? Or even a 1.1 litre? Or even a 1.3? I NEVER see a small car over there.
G
-
There's no downside to more efficient motors (except for the oil companies). I'm all for that.
There is existing technology (ferrous-oxide combustion catalysts) that increases the efficiency of the internal combustion engine. There are those however, whose agendas for whatever reason, do not want people to know about them.
I don't think anyone knows the exact benefits of increasing our supply of oil from Alaska, but I'll bet it would be significant. Supply & demand economics.
It would be significant, about 1 million barrels a day, however, oil companies naturally do not want the population consuming less of their product. Through ferrous oxide combustion catalysts, the equivalent amount or more of imported oil is not consumed. This would save Americans considerable amounts, and decrease her dependance on foreign oil, by 1 million barrels a day, without risking the destruction of the environment or the Arctic Wildlife National Refuge.
Well, perhaps bio-fuel isn't exactly right...any type of fuel which is eco-friendly and reduces our reliance on oil and the middle east.
At the moment, ferrous oxide combustion catalysts make the use of oil eco-friendly, until such time as a more sustainable and renewable alternative form of energy can be found and incorporated into the infrastructure of society.
-
All bullshit aside, they say that a picture is worth a thousand words...
(http://www.energy.ca.gov/gasoline/statistics/nytimes_gasoline_price.jpg)
Go here (http://www.energy.ca.gov/gasoline/statistics/nytimes_gasoline_price.jpg).
What ya think?! Who youh dadde?!
-
All bullshit aside, they say that a picture is worth a thousand words...
I agree
(http://www.jaguarenterprises.net/images/Constipated_mod.jpg)
-
I agree
(http://www.jaguarenterprises.net/images/Constipated_mod.jpg)
We all made the call together. We disagree on a lot of things, but stand united on this call ;) and that's something I never wanted to hear myself say! Oh and you're probably going to have a hard time finding sympathy with your toons because we don't want your spam or breadcrumb trail to spam on the board... Maybe you can hold some cute puppy hostage and threaten to boil it if we don't comply ::)
-
Maybe you can hold some cute puppy hostage and threaten to boil it if we don't comply ::)
This little guy's fate is in your hands
(http://www.rivelazioni.com/wallpaper/imgs/rivelazioni-01.jpg)
-
terrorist.
-
(http://www.jaguarenterprises.net/images/Puppy_dies.jpg)
-
Bush Loving Nazi Terrorist.
-
(http://www.jaguarenterprises.net/images/Puppy_dies.jpg)
HEHEHEHEHEHEEH
My first belly laugh of the day! And it's only 6:30am !!!!
-
Edit: "...American automakers refuse to use the technology because American consumers don't / won't buy it".
I get 50 miles per gallon from what over here (UK) is considered a big engine (3,000cc). My wife gets almost 70mpg in a 998cc. Now, in US a 3 litre engine is not a "large" engine...it's tiny. And is there anyone driving a 998cc car in US ? Or even a 1.1 litre? Or even a 1.3? I NEVER see a small car over there.
G
In the US we have motorcycles that have 2000cc But i have thought of finding a lite car and putting a 1000cc motorcycle motor in it. Easily 70mpg id imagine. Most americans will be forced to soon get creative with transportation as the fuel cost will soon catch up to europes pricing....... :-[
-
Good points jag. I'm not familiar with the ferrous oxide catalysts, but anything is worth exploring at this point.
Its going to take some very strong officials to go up against oil companies to force us to improve the efficiency of engines and explore other real fuel options.
Gavin, your right, American's traditionally like larger vehicles...but SUV sales in the past couple months have dropped and hybrid sales have increased. People in the US typically have to drive a lot more than in Europe because everything is so spread out here (plus public transportation is not nearly as efficient). Nonetheless, people should downsize to some degree.
-
You dont think that if Big Oil is taxed that they will pass thay down to the consumer in order to keep their net high?
Just a thought
Obama May Levy $15 Billion Tax on Oil Company Profit...
May 1 (Bloomberg) -- Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama's proposal for a windfall profits tax on oil companies could cost $15 billion a year at last year's profit levels, a campaign adviser said.
The plan would target profit from the biggest oil companies by taxing each barrel of oil costing more than $80, according to a fact sheet on the proposal. The tax would help pay for a $1,000 tax cut for working families, an expansion of the earned- income tax credit and assistance for people who can't afford their energy bills.
``The profits right now are so remarkable that one could trim them 10 percent or so, which would turn out to be somewhere in the $15 billion range,'' said Jason Grumet, an adviser to the Obama campaign.
Obama's plan may be three times larger than the $50 billion, 10-year plan contemplated by his Democratic rival, New York Senator Hillary Clinton. Republican candidate John McCain, an Arizona senator, has no plan to raise oil and gas industry taxes, said his economic adviser, Douglas Holtz-Eakin.
Oil companies would still have ample reason to ``continue to pursue production, while at the same time providing relief to consumers,'' Grumet said.
A flurry of energy proposals from presidential candidates and lawmakers has come after crude oil futures prices reached $119.93 a barrel on April 28. Retail gasoline prices hit a record $3.603 a gallon this week, according to the U.S. Energy Department.
-
In the US we have motorcycles that have 2000cc But i have thought of finding a lite car and putting a 1000cc motorcycle motor in it. Easily 70mpg id imagine. Most americans will be forced to soon get creative with transportation as the fuel cost will soon catch up to europes pricing....... :-[
Dumbass.. the weight alone with lower mpg near 40 or less.
-
Dumbass.. the weight alone with lower mpg near 40 or less.
You assuming the materials for my car are you?
Poor lil bastard has another day to go thru.... :-\
-
You assuming the materials for my car are you?
Poor lil bastard has another day to go thru.... :-\
I forgot.. your "kind" are still trying to drive wooden cars. :P
-
HEHEHEHEHEHEEH
My first belly laugh of the day! And it's only 6:30am !!!!
Glad I could add some humour to your day, ...
...cause I know you won't be laughing later in the day as you fill up your gas tank. ;D
-
Glad I could add some humour to your day, ...
...cause I know you won't be laughing later in the day as you fill up your gas tank. ;D
Well it's either that, which doesn't affect me much, or pestering people all day long. :D
-
big mal, your exactly right. Obama's plan for taxing oil company profits isn't a good idea either. It will be passed on to the consumer. The only sensible plan is to increase supplies safely and encourage the technology for a new fuel material.
Increasing nuclear power is also a good option. There are experts that believe this is much better than burning coal and using oil.
-
Good points jag. I'm not familiar with the ferrous oxide catalysts, but anything is worth exploring at this point.
Its going to take some very strong officials to go up against oil companies to force us to improve the efficiency of engines and explore other real fuel options.
Shootfighter1,
A catalyst is something that initiates a response. In chemistry, it is a substance that causes or accelerates a chemical reaction without itself being affected. Ferrous is simply the chemical name for iron.
What ferrous oxide catalysts do is to cause a change in what is called the "in-cylinder rate shaping" of the combustion of fuel. This, in turn, provides for a 30% increase in pressure on the down stroke of the piston, in a time frame slightly altered from a non-catalyzed state. It speeds up the burn of fossil fuels. ie: gasoline or diesel etc.,
In the 1970's when lead was removed and banned from gasoline, the oil companies signed off on adding any type of metal to the fuel. Iron is a form of metal and therefore prohibited from being added by the oil companies. IMO it's probably not something they would want to add it even if they were permitted to do so. Ferrous oxide catalysts are a continuation of the hydrocracking process used by the refineries to make the fuel. The process cannot be continued by the refineries because it would make the fuel too unstable for transport or storage. By continuing the process in the combustion chamber, the catalyst breaks down the primary components of the fuel just prior to ignition so the combustion process is started as the spark is applied, and causes the fuel burn to complete within the cylinder itself. You get a burning of fuel in the cylinder where you need the power, without the afterburn or unburned hydrocarbons going into the exhaust valves.
If you were to light gasoline in a 10" X 100' vacuum tube, it would take 7 seconds to burn through to the other end.
In a standard automobile, the exhaust valves open up, and you see the fuel still burning as it's going out the exhaust.
If any of you have ever watched NASCAR, or seen race cars etc., you see flames shooting out the exhaust. If you were to remove the exhaust manifold on your own vehicles, you'd see the same thing. This is because the rate at which your fuel is burned, is not fast enough for the fuel to complete it's burn within the combustion chamber itself. The exhaust valves open up, and the fuel is still burning as it's going out the exhaust. Your vehicle is not getting the benefit of all the fuel that has been put into it. Simply put, ...you're wasting fuel.
If you were to light gasoline containing a ferrous oxide catalyst in a 10" X 100' vacuum tube, the catalyst continues the hydrocracking process, breaking out the free hydrogen in the fuel, creating a hydrogen fuse, and when you mix the two together, the hydrogen fuse brings the combustion of the entire mixture along with it. As a result, it would take 2 seconds to burn through to the other end.
The burn occurs during the first 20 - 30 degrees of the crank, and the combustion is completed by the time it gets to the bottom of the power stroke, before the exhaust valves open up.
This results in more power to the engine, as well as a more efficient burn to the fuel itself. Because you now have all the fuel burning within the combustion chamber, rather than burning out the exhaust. The benefit is two-fold. In addition to a more efficient burn, increased mileage, and less fuel consumed, ...you also see a dramatic reduction in pollutants and specifically NOx.
Nitrogen + Oxygen = NOx.
NOx is the precursor for both smog and acid-rain, and it comes from automobile exhaust.
It is both temperature dependant, as well as time dependant.
By speeding up the rate of the fuel burn, NOx is not permitted sufficient time to form.
The end result of using a ferrous oxide catalyst is that the fuel in your tank takes you even further.
Merely getting an additional 3 or 4 miles per gallon of increased mileage will reduce America's consumption of fuel by 1 million barrels a day, which is the same amount that the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge could produce at best.
The overall result is improved mileage, less fuel consumed, less foreign oil imported, a longer lasting, more efficient engine, and a dramatic decrease in smog & acid-rain precursors, environmental pollution, climate change gasses and fuel costs.
Gavin, your right, American's traditionally like larger vehicles...but SUV sales in the past couple months have dropped and hybrid sales have increased. People in the US typically have to drive a lot more than in Europe because everything is so spread out here (plus public transportation is not nearly as efficient). Nonetheless, people should downsize to some degree.
As much as I'd love to see it, I don't think downsizing is as practical a solution as we'd all want it to be.
Granted some SUV's are merely vanity statements, ...but for some families, a mini-van is a must, ..especially in this neck of the woods. Try getting the kids off to hockey practice and loading up all that equipment in your SMART car? :D
Society's infrastructure is such where the internal combustion engine and the burning of fossil fuels will be with us for quite some time. Until such time as alternative sources of energy, and/or more fuel efficient engines that don't increase pollution, and drive up food prices are designed, ...the solution is imo to use a ferrous oxide combustion catalyst.
-
Obama May Levy $15 Billion Tax on Oil Company Profit...
May 1 (Bloomberg) -- Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama's proposal for a windfall profits tax on oil companies could cost $15 billion a year at last year's profit levels, a campaign adviser said.
The plan would target profit from the biggest oil companies by taxing each barrel of oil costing more than $80, according to a fact sheet on the proposal. The tax would help pay for a $1,000 tax cut for working families, an expansion of the earned- income tax credit and assistance for people who can't afford their energy bills.
``The profits right now are so remarkable that one could trim them 10 percent or so, which would turn out to be somewhere in the $15 billion range,'' said Jason Grumet, an adviser to the Obama campaign.
Obama's plan may be three times larger than the $50 billion, 10-year plan contemplated by his Democratic rival, New York Senator Hillary Clinton. Republican candidate John McCain, an Arizona senator, has no plan to raise oil and gas industry taxes, said his economic adviser, Douglas Holtz-Eakin.
Oil companies would still have ample reason to ``continue to pursue production, while at the same time providing relief to consumers,'' Grumet said.
A flurry of energy proposals from presidential candidates and lawmakers has come after crude oil futures prices reached $119.93 a barrel on April 28. Retail gasoline prices hit a record $3.603 a gallon this week, according to the U.S. Energy Department.
Yeah - you voted for bob Barr. ::)