Remember the politicians during the $4.00 a gallon gas 'crisis'? THIS ARTICLE written in 2006 (its short) will remind you. It brings up the "Republicans" joining the left in the outcry against high prices, and blaming greedy oil companies and gas station owners. I know a few gas station owners. If you want to live the good life - don't buy a gas station! One way the Republicans were able to distinguish themselves from the left, was that they acknowledged openly that the tax on a gallon of gas was too high.
One thing that you didn't hear from anyone on the right, was Al Gore's (and others') statements that a higher price for a gallon of gas was actually a good thing. After all, it would reduce the amount of people driving around polluting the environment. (Al Gore hit this one in his Presidential bid for 2000...can't believe he only lost by a few thousand votes).
What happened when the average price of a gallon of gasoline in the United States topped $4.00? People bought more gas. To his credit, I think Al Gore advocated $8-$9 a gallon for his theory to work, but I'm not up for researching it.
I know that where I work, where everybody has a 'company car', there was forced carpooling, and they published a monthly ranking of everybody's gas bill in an attempt at humiliation (I was consistently in the top 5 thank you very much). Most people found a way to avoid carpooling, or found creative ways of paying for the gas (there is still an open investigation in the Peter vs Paul case).
That's economics baby. Its worth it for most people to pay $4.00 a gallon, rather than ride a bus (ha ha ha, ha ha haaa ha ha), or a bike or carpool. At what price people actually stop driving, I don't know, but I suspect its lower than Al's number.
If we look at it, Al Gore's theory exposed an underlying belief, where he would actually be correct. Oil is not a finite resource. On this planet anyway. Economics baby! A higher price of $9.00 a gallon would reduce demand (or at least the ability part of it) for most American drivers...and extend in the long term the availability of oil for other uses, and for those willing to pay the higher price. Thereby doing NOTHING to our overall oil consumption.
The main stream media buys it hook, line and sinker. More dumberer than the leftist politicians, are the leftist journalists. They really live in their own little bubble.
Study: American Food Waste is a Huge Energy Drain
Is you serious?
I'm all for not wasting food or electricity - but only because we have to pay for it. We are not running out.
I love the outdoors. Hate to be in the city too much. I get upset when I see good trees being cut down (if its in the way, its in the way, but who wants to live in a neighborhood with no trees, no shade? You don't know if its windy until you walk outside, and then its goodbye hat! Don't get me started on trees*. Anywho...)
The left has to decide what they want. Don't use it up because we need to preserve it, or use it up so we can move on to clean green. As for me, I'd much rather clean up an oil spill than ruin the environment with those stupid windmills.
*Tree story: I used to work for a city government. Another city employee asked me to meet him in a parking lot. He arrived first, and was parked in the shade of a big tree. I arrived, and started to back into the space next to him so we could have a conversation while staying in our air-conditioned cars. As I was backing in, I saw a tree in my rear view mirror. Yes, the very tree that was providing our shade. I saw what looked like notches in the tree...about bumper level if you get my drift. I slowly backed up so that our driver door windows were lined up. Crash. It was less than 5 mph, but due to the angle of the tree, it hit square in the middle of my trunk. It was a small dent, but I had to report it to the city, and an accident report was written up. About a month later I was scheduled for a committee review of my accident. They scheduled it on my day off, which meant I was to be paid 3 hours of overtime ($121). When I got there, I found a committee of 21 people from various departments. They all introduced themselves, and then I was asked to recount my version of the accident. They each followed in their packet of approximately 10 pages of paper. Then, there was a lengthy discussion about the angle of the tree, and my eyewitness account of the numerous 'notches' on the tree, where other vehicles had similarly struck it. At the conclusion of the testimony, the committee decided to postpone my sentence until they could convene with the arborists. Arborists can't be cheap. I was thanked by the committee for my candor and was released to enjoy my day off (and the $121). One guy from my department was on the committee, and he walked me out. We got outside and laughed at the folly of the whole thing, and he told me that yes, he too was on overtime ($121). Several weeks later I was notified that I was being placed on 'driving probation' for one year. However, the tree was going to be cut down, AND, while my accident was not the sole cause, it may have been the straw that broke the camel's wallet - back-up sensors and alarms were being added to all city vehicles.
The damage to the trunk of my car was $700 (it could have been pulled out by a city mechanic for nothing). But the bureaucracy decided to add $242 on overtime from my department, plus the hourly rate for all those other city employees, the arborists, etc...and...the City of Scottsdale has one less shade tree...
blue on black just isn't doin' it for me, bro.
Hello, you're commenting waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay late. It wasn't blue on black when I made it.
Post a Comment