The journey from there to here

As the debates rage on about oil companies and their absurd profit margins, I am outraged by the number of Americans demanding government intervention to regulate oil companies' profits. It's the political "cause du jour" sponsored by the left, and, like the majority of the left's platforms, it stinks like rancid 2 week old catfish on a hot July day.

See, what these leftist leaders are convincing me is that they're unable to read their own writings. As they sneer at the lady with 6 kids getting into an SUV (which, by the way, is one of the few vehicle types large enough to HOLD their family of 8), and spam my email account with emails suggesting I boycott this station or that on this day or that, they are ignoring the message they've preached for over 30 years.

The message is CONSERVATION. As a child who went through grade school in the 70's, I got SEVERAL earsful of movies, TV shows, commercials and cartoons all telling me to "do my part" to reduce my impact on the environment. When "reduce, reuse and recycle" came into vogue, its message was plastered onto millions of posters (the ironic casualties being the trees that had to die to get the message out, but I digress), and since that time every soda can has carried the little triangle logo that expresses the concept.

See, if you reduce the DEMAND on the oil companies, they will have to sell their product at a lower cost. It's just that simple. The recent gas price surges, while obscene, were brought about by an American public that steadfastly REFUSED to reduce their consumption to bring down the prices. And if the left has the mandate it claims, being the victim of two stolen presidential elections and countless stolen Congressional elections (voice said DRIPPING with sarcasm in the absence of that much needed sarcasm font), then the left should have had a whole ARMY full of liberals who abandoned their vehicles for pedestrian and bicycle traffic. Birkenstock and Schwinn stocks should have soared, rather than Exxon stocks. America's obesity problem AND our energy problem would have BOTH been solved in one fell swoop!

But it didn't happen. Because the vast majority of environmental pretenders would rather theorize and WRITE about solutions to environmental problems rather than DO something. And if THEY won't make the change, why do they expect US to do so?


Comments (Page 2)
2 Pages1 2 
on Nov 07, 2005
If you have 10 apples to sell and 20 people approach you at the same time,


The extra ten people represent China. Granted this is a problem but the current oil reserves dispute this. Even Katrina, Rita and Wilma, other than power outages, met the demand. Obviously over time the demand will exceed supply and why conservation is imperative.
on Nov 07, 2005

I'd point out that driving slower isn't necessarily more fuel efficient, unless you drive really fast. There is always a "sweet spot" for each car, and going faster OR slower isn't as efficient.

I drive 30 of my 45 mile commute on expressway, so slower is more fuel efficient. 

Speed limits were not adjusted to be higher for fuel efficiency.  They were raised because we were not in a fuel crisis and people wanted to drive faster. 

On a moderately flat road, a car going 65 mph will use less gas than one going 75 mph.  Your engine cranks a lot more rpm's going 75 versus 65, therefore using more fuel.  I drive a manual shift Ion (manuals always get better mileage than automatics, anyway).  If I drive 68mph versus the "fast lane" flow of 75mph, I get about 4mpg better mileage.  Add that up over a year, and it's significant.  I used to drive a Monte Carlo, but it only got 28 mpg (at best), whereas I get 10+ mpg better with this car. 

With mileage and speed, it's really all physics.  It takes a lot more power to propel a car 75 mph versus 65 mph, and that power is greater for heavier cars than for lighter.  Driving styles also matter.  If you floor it after each stop, you use an extreme amount of power.

Of course, we could have a whole discussion about torque converters and cruise control in relation to gas savings, but that would be taking it a bit off topic

On another note, does anyone know of an inexpensive source for solar panels?  I would like to replace some of our electricity use with solar, but the investment seems extreme.

on Nov 07, 2005
I'd point out that driving slower isn't necessarily more fuel efficient, unless you drive really fast. There is always a "sweet spot" for each car, and going faster OR slower isn't as efficient.


Yes, there is a "sweet spot", and on most vehicles I've driven, I've found that sweet spot to hover somewhere in the 45 to 55 MPH range (on road trips, 55's about as slow as you can practically drive and actually GET somewhere, so it's where my cruise control is pretty much perpetually set). As you climb above 55, however, the mileage drops pretty quick; at 70 MPH or above, you might as well be dumping it out on the road on most cars unless the road is long and flat (let's not forget the role terrain plays in all this as well).
on Nov 27, 2005
It's hard to defend an industry that makes PROFITS in the Billions. I say again this is profit and not gross we are talking about. Hmm...I wonder what kind of power and influence can you buy with billions at your disposal? Want to guess?
on Nov 27, 2005
It's hard to defend an industry that makes PROFITS in the Billions. I say again this is profit and not gross we are talking about. Hmm...I wonder what kind of power and influence can you buy with billions at your disposal? Want to guess?


They make billions, because it costs billions. When you go to invest your money, would you invest in a company getting a fraction of a percent return? They may make billions, but that is on investments of billions. So there returns, usually, are a very small percent.

Sory if I am not outraged by simple economics.
2 Pages1 2