Archives




View Full Version : Conservation is key to defeating axis of oil.


xcel
09-23-2006, 01:21 PM
Chavez was right about just one thing. He said U.S. consumerism was "madness" and that Americans are wasteful with oil and energy. (http://www.pasadenastarnews.com/opinions/ci_4382104)

Kathleen Parker - Pasadena Star News - Sept. 23, 2006

http://www.cleanmpg.com/photos/data/501/Venezualen_President_Hugo_Chavez.jpg
Venezualen President Hugo Chavez - leader of America's fourth-largest foreign oil supplier.

GEORGE Bush owes Hugo Chavez a thank-you note. The Venezuelan president's goofy performance at the U.N. General Assembly on Wednesday made Bush look like Winston Churchill.

Waving a Noam Chomsky book about America's quest for global dominance, Chavez railed against Bush:

"Yesterday the devil came here," he said, referring to Bush's address to the U.N. "Right here. Right here. And it smells of sulfur still today, this table that I am now standing in front of."

Then he made the sign of the cross, looked heavenward and put his hands together as if to pray. I think we can fairly conclude that the weird have officially gone pro.

Chavez would be a hoot if he weren't so dangerous. As the leader of America's fourth-largest foreign oil supplier, he has undeserved power, both in the world and over the U.S. When he's feeling grumpy, he threatens to cut us off. Wouldn't we love not to have to entertain his mood shifts?

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said she wouldn't dignify Chavez's remarks with a response, while Margaret Beckett, the British foreign secretary, said: "It's hard to see it as helpful."

But it was helpful, if only to allow the rest of the world - and especially napping Americans - to see what we have before us. Chavez is not alone in the assorted nut bowl. One of his pals is Bolivian President Evo Morales, who came to the U.N. waving a coca leaf, saying: "Does this look like a drug to you?"

Both are buddies of Cuban leader Fidel Castro, who recently hosted the 118 nations of the Nonaligned Movement - a gathering of anti-yanquis, including Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, that should have sent chills down American spines.

How many dots do we need before we notice the gathering storm?

Ahmadinejad, who has promised to wipe Israel off the map, complained to the group that the world shouldn't have to live under the nuclear threat of the U.S. Better, presumably, that the world should live under the nuclear threat of Iran?

In an accord that sparks cognitive dissonance among the sane, the nonaligned nations agreed. Their final declaration supported Ahmadinejad's position while urging that Tehran cooperate with the International Atomic Energy Agency.

Feeling safer yet?

Even a stopped watch is right twice a day, and Chavez was right about one thing. He said U.S. consumerism was "madness" and that Americans are wasteful with oil and energy. Consuming less, he said, should be an environmental policy.

Correcto. Conservation also should be part of our foreign policy. Thugs like Chavez have power because of only one thing - oil.

Logically, our best weapon against our enemies is to neutralize them by eliminating our dependence on their oil. Not soon-ish, but now.

Even Bush, whose power base back in Texas is dripping in black gold, has said we need to wean ourselves from oil, but he has stopped short of making that goal a national mandate. He hasn't asked Americans to sacrifice or goaded industry to immediate action.

The war on terror has required much of men and women on the ground, but little of the rest of us, who continue to gorge and guzzle.

I plead guilty, but have begun doing what little I can - not because I'm virtuous, but because I don't want Chavez to have a seat on the U.N. Security Council.

Recently, we traded an SUV for a hybrid (Toyota Prius) that gets up to 60 miles per gallon.

Many other automakers are creating hybrids, but they need to be cheaper and the incentives to buy greater.

Meanwhile, there are dozens of ways to conserve individually, which, though seemingly small, have a cumulative effect.

For a quick primer on how to reduce oil dependence, pick up Laurie David's new booklet: "The Solution is You!" David is a global warming activist, but her book could be a guide to thwarting terrorism. So the planet benefits, too. What a deal.

Through leadership, incentives and legislation, we could begin to sketch a new road map to peace. It might cost us a little upfront. It might even inconvenience us a bit.

But in return, we get to ignore the bleatings of third-world despots, while defusing the power of jihad.

We can say the devil made us do it.

xcel
09-23-2006, 01:32 PM
Hi All:

___CleanMPG’s edict would not normally allow such an item to touch our pages but listening to the transcripts of this nut case the other day, it should wake each and everyone of us up. How long are we going to continue to pump billions of $’s per month into the coffers of Iran’s Ahmadinejad, Venezuela’s Chavez, and even Saudi Arabia’s Aziz (friends of the US - remember 9/11?) for the sake of driving a gas-guzzler or driving in an extremely in-efficient manner? What do those billions of $’s/month go towards anyway? At least Chavez has increased social spending in Venezuela but Iran? Imagine an Iran with just 1/10 the oil revenue that they receive today? Would they be as hostile or would they be a bit more in touch with the rest of the world in order to promote commerce and trade? It is one thing to have a virtual monopoly on a somewhat limited commodity in the world. It is another altogether when you have to compete with the rest of it on the basis of somewhat fair trade and technology.

___Good Luck

___Wayne

AshenGrey
09-24-2006, 10:55 AM
Well... If GM hadn't jettisoned the EV1 back in the 1990s, they could now have been king of the EV cars. We wouldn't be sending oil money to Third World hell-holes, and our air would be a heck of a lot cleaner too. As a side benefit, GM would not now be facing bankruptcy.

It's amazing how just one greed-based decision ten years ago has led to so much trouble in the present day.

Chuck
09-24-2006, 11:58 AM
As Lincoln once said - history repeats itself.

Back in 1960, Nikta Khrushchev (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikita_Khrushchev#Khrushchev.27s_personality) stomped his shoe on the desk at the UN, etc...

Chavez also said America was commiting sucide with oil - I actually agree with him.

People try to run you off the road for going the speed limit, gearheads and trollers also try to make folks like us seem like the problem....Chavez would laugh at the help he is getting....they are all nutcases. What concerns me about Chavez is his behavior does not give me hope of a detante with him after GWB. :(

Maybe I should save some of the posts the gearheads and trollers make, then repost them when gas prices are truly high.

Chuck
09-24-2006, 12:16 PM
....Imagine an Iran with just 1/10 the oil revenue that they receive today? Would they be as hostile or would they be a bit more in touch with the rest of the world in order to promote commerce and trade?

It's possible we could end our need for foreign oil, and Iran would have less money to work on a nuclear weapons program - that would be good but they would still be a threat to world peace. I won't dwell on it, but there are too many people in that part of the world that refuse to live and let live. As they continue to kill each other the situation just gets worse and worse... :(

Anyway, we could help ourselves by reducing our depentance on unfriendly governments....

PalominoJ
09-26-2006, 01:55 AM
I think most everyone is wrong about conservation. Conservation won't keep money from undesirable nations. The very freedom to choose so cherished here in the U.S. makes it impossible. Conservation equalls CHEAPER gasoline. CHEAPER gasoline will be consumed at higher rates. Once again, we have the LAW OF UNINTENDED CONSIQUENCEs. Some may think they are doing the world a favor but in reality they are making it possible and more likely (due to lower prices) that fuel will be wasted.
It is all about ECONOMICS.
Gas Hog:Banane26:

brick
09-26-2006, 06:23 AM
So you are saying that I should start doing my highway commute at 90mph in 3rd gear because it's ultimately good for my country? Sorry, but that doesn't make any sense. Saying that a successful effort to conserve ultimately consumes more is, by definition, impossible. A few would certainly use more if prices came down, but what we're talking about is the reduction of prices through truly reduced demand, isn't it? I don't disagree that it's all about economics, but writing off conservation as foolish takes it a step or two too far for my taste.

Chuck
09-26-2006, 07:48 AM
Speaking of gas prices and elections, I would not mind the price of a barrel of oil going low enough that it takes some bravado out of Chavez or even completely out of power.

I don't think the lower prices will be sustainable....

Mr. Kite
09-26-2006, 11:40 AM
I think most everyone is wrong about conservation. Conservation won't keep money from undesirable nations. The very freedom to choose so cherished here in the U.S. makes it impossible. Conservation equalls CHEAPER gasoline. CHEAPER gasoline will be consumed at higher rates. Once again, we have the LAW OF UNINTENDED CONSIQUENCEs. Some may think they are doing the world a favor but in reality they are making it possible and more likely (due to lower prices) that fuel will be wasted.
It is all about ECONOMICS.
Gas Hog:Banane26:

Am I missing something here?

Your take on conservation:
Conservation (lower gasoline consumption) = higher gasoline consumption

Your solution:
Stop conservation (higher gasoline consumption) = less wasting (lower gasoline consumption)

It is certainly your choice to waste or conserve gas, but your reasoning makes absolutely no sense. I understand how the conservation of some can be partially offset by wasting of others. However, to suggest that the conservation of some will lead to a net increase in gasoline consumption is just silly.

hobbit
09-26-2006, 06:44 PM
November 7 ... wait for it ... wait for it ...
.
_H*

PalominoJ
09-27-2006, 06:30 AM
Come now, we all know human nature. Cheap gas = a new car or two. When the price of gas increases, we still have a new car or two that we didn’t have before. And the trend continues. The other component is the insignificance of the few people who consciously try to “save” gas. As if the gas “saved” actually is preserving the “saved” quantity for the future. By any estimation, gas is easily and frequently wasted. Only economy (high prices) can cut this waste.

GAS :cool: HOG

Chuck
09-27-2006, 07:42 AM
Come now, we all know human nature. Cheap gas = a new car or two. When the price of gas increases, we still have a new car or two that we didn’t have before. And the trend continues. The other component is the insignificance of the few people who consciously try to “save” gas. As if the gas “saved” actually is preserving the “saved” quantity for the future. By any estimation, gas is easily and frequently wasted. Only economy (high prices) can cut this waste.

GAS :cool: HOG


Yeah, I know that a lot of people have a tendancy to spend too much, eat too much, other excesses....

Hey, did you notice this site is about fuel conservation? ;)

brick
09-27-2006, 09:53 AM
High prices do encourage conservation. However it's the notion that we should go ahead and waste fuel in an attempt to drive those prices up in order to conserve that doesn't make any sense. Five gallons saved is five fewer gallons that you, personally, burn over a given period of time.

There are no quick fixes to our problem. Economics play a part, but so does attitude. Our job at CleanMPG is to encourage the attitude that conservation is not only worth it, but can be achieved by anyone. That much is a FACT. Maybe my twenty-odd percent improvement in gas mileage doesn't change the global picture. But it might encourage someone else to try for that same improvement. And someone else, and someone else, and they will show others that it is possible as well. Over the long-haul, if a group of a few dozen people on the internet sparks something that spreads to hundreds, then thousands, then tens of thousands, etc. then it was well worth the effort. It isn't the end-game, but it might buy us time.

All we are doing is taking the tools we have and the cars we own and TRYING. If you don't try you are doomed to fail. Spreading the notion thet there is no point to even trying is, at best, a cop-out. At worst it is the propagation of a disease.

PalominoJ
09-27-2006, 09:12 PM
Hope I didn't offend. The point was mainly to demonstrate how powerless in the face of a free market and human nature we are to affect world wide events. And contrary to what some have extrapolated from my statements, the choices are not limited to Conservation or Excessive usage. :)

GAS HOG

tbaleno
09-27-2006, 09:40 PM
first. Why are you here if you are a "GAS HOG". Second. I don't understand why "we are powerless in the face of a free market and human nature." I don't think we are. I'm human and I live in a free market. As people see what life will be like without our dependance on oil I think lots of them will like that feeling of freedom. Sure, one drop doesn't make a difference, but when you put the drops together you get a puddle, then a pond, then a lake, then an ocean. The trick is to gather the drops together in the first place so they don't just get soaked up into the ground. By throwing up your hands and saying you don't make a difference you are being absorbed into the ground.

PalominoJ
09-28-2006, 12:29 AM
My signature, gas hog, is due to the Large vehicle I drive, albiet more efficiently now. I am a part of this forum to learn how to squeeze as much milage out of my "gashog". Not so much because I want to save the world but because I want to save money. Is there someting wrong with wanting to save the world? Of course not! I was young and idealistic once too. Now am just more realistic and practicle. To "conserve" a commodity in the traditional sense of the word is self defeating. Europe has been on a selfimposed gas conservation mode for sometime and what has happened? The United States simply gobbles up their "conserved" share. I am not here to discourage anyone from getting the most out of their gas! I find your tips and techniques very helpful and enjoyable. Keep them coming. I will pipe down about the whole "conservation" facade.
Sorry about sidetracking everyone.
Gas Hog:o

tbaleno
09-28-2006, 12:35 AM
Heh. No problem. I misunderstood your point. Sorry about that.

tigerhonaker
09-28-2006, 07:14 AM
My signature, gas hog, is due to the Large vehicle I drive, albiet more efficiently now. I am a part of this forum to learn how to squeeze as much milage out of my "gashog". Not so much because I want to save the world but because I want to save money. Is there someting wrong with wanting to save the world? Of course not! I was young and idealistic once too. Now am just more realistic and practicle. To "conserve" a commodity in the traditional sense of the word is self defeating. Europe has been on a selfimposed gas conservation mode for sometime and what has happened? The United States simply gobbles up their "conserved" share. I am not here to discourage anyone from getting the most out of their gas! I find your tips and techniques very helpful and enjoyable. Keep them coming. I will pipe down about the whole "conservation" facade.
Sorry about sidetracking everyone.
Gas Hog:o

:Banane37: Hey Palomino I find your Ideas refreshing to read. It is nice every once in

awhile to read a different take on any given subject, in this case FE (Fuel Economy). Most of us that have been on this Forum CleanMPG came from another Forum and we all know what our opinions are on just about ant given subject, so reading a New Person's opinions to me are really nice for a change. I personally see where you are coming from as well as a friend of mine that has I guess in his way a different take on the exact same subject. Neither is wrong just a difference of opinion on what makes the Biggest difference in the Big-Picture of Fuel Savings. I for one hope you and others will continue to voice your opinions on the Threads/Post here and continue to be with us here on CleanMPG. Let's face it without all our different opinions on subjects, how are we ever going to possibly open our eyes up to different ways of looking at the same subject. Of course we would not in most cases because we would be reading our own take on those subjects without New and Refreshing Thoughts from others.

Thanks for joining up here at CleanMPG and I hope we will continue to offer the most up to date informative Threads to attract New Members like yourself and then hopefully we will continue to Post Articles that will continue to hold your interest as well as the other Newer Members.

Have a Nice-Day. :)

Regards;

Terry (tiger)

brick
09-28-2006, 07:24 AM
I remember when he arrived looking for advice on reducing fuel consumption, and I also remember him doing quite well with his truck. I just want to say that this little debate isn't personal. It is a very interesting viewpoint, whether I agree with it or not.

Chuck
09-28-2006, 12:03 PM
PalminoJ,

Glad that got cleared up.

Sadly, it seems like a few people join a forum simply to question their reason for being and I've seen too many of them. :( As you make more posts, it will be clearer that was not your intent.



Copyright 2006 Clean MPG, LLC. All Rights Reserved.