64 Comments

  1. Throwing the baby out with the bath water – that is what our Editor and some Republicans are always willing to do when it comes to ignoring environmental considerations for the sake of quick profits.

    Were gasoline once again to approach or exceed $4.00 a gallon, it would be most unfortunate for the economy, granted. But unfortunately, over three decades ago, we did not respond to President Jimmy Carter’s initiative to make America independent of foreign oil. President Reagan was the first to drop the ball, but his successors, Republican and Democrats alike, followed Reagan’s lack of leadership on this issue.

    Now our backs are up against the wall, dependent on Iran not cutting off oil supplies to Europe, and dependent on incorporating more extreme methods of extracting crude and/or natural gas from the depths of our planet.

    As I pointed out before, extraction of crude from the oil sands wastes a lot of energy and lays bare the lands where the tar sands are located, not to mention the increased carbon dioxide emission from the energy intensive extraction process.

    And, as I pointed out before, the impact of fracking on the integrity of the earth’s crust and on groundwater contamination has to be carefully assessed. Mini-earthquakes have already been observed from fracking, as well as groundwater contamination.

    We have already seen how negligence can cause major environmental damage with the massive BP oil spill in the Gulf. We risk similar events with unregulated extraction of oil sands and with fracking.

    It is not pleasant, but folks do adjust to higher gasoline prices. Gasoline is over $7.50 a gallon in Great Britain. How on earth do they do it? Well they do do it!

    Isn’t it a characteristic of conservatism to be very careful before jumping into something new and different?

  2. Since my post has not yet been released from moderation by an administrator, I am going to repost it without the two links. This is very annoying, and should be fixed. It is enough of a disadvantage for commenters on this blog to be unable to post figures, and now to not be able to post more than one link, like I just said, very annoying. The posting rules here mitigate against the commenter!

    Here is the post in moderation, now posted without the links:

    “Throwing the baby out with the bath water – that is what our Editor and some Republicans are always willing to do when it comes to ignoring environmental considerations for the sake of quick profits.

    Were gasoline once again to approach or exceed $4.00 a gallon, it would be most unfortunate for the economy, granted. But unfortunately, over three decades ago, we did not respond to President Jimmy Carter’s initiative to make America independent of foreign oil. President Reagan was the first to drop the ball, but his successors, Republican and Democrats alike, followed Reagan’s lack of leadership on this issue.

    Now our backs are up against the wall, dependent on Iran not cutting off oil supplies to Europe, and dependent on incorporating more extreme methods of extracting crude and/or natural gas from the depths of our planet.

    As I pointed out before, extraction of crude from the oil sands wastes a lot of energy and lays bare the lands where the tar sands are located, not to mention the increased carbon dioxide emission from the energy intensive extraction process.

    And, as I pointed out before, the impact of fracking on the integrity of the earth’s crust and on groundwater contamination has to be carefully assessed. Mini-earthquakes have already been observed from fracking, as well as groundwater contamination.

    We have already seen how negligence can cause major environmental damage with the massive BP oil spill in the Gulf. We risk similar events with unregulated extraction of oil sands and with fracking.

    It is not pleasant, but folks do adjust to higher gasoline prices. Gasoline is over $7.50 a gallon in Great Britain. How on earth do they do it? Well they do do it!

    Isn’t it a characteristic of conservatism to be very careful before jumping into something new and different?”

  3. WW writes

    This is very annoying, and should be fixed. It is enough of a disadvantage for commenters on this blog to be unable to post figures, and now to not be able to post more than one link, like I just said, very annoying. The posting rules here mitigate against the commenter!

    Just like a typical contemporary “progressive” — given everything, then act like a spoiled child by demanding still more. You’d think you’d be a lot more grateful to Mr. Editor for giving you space for your OWN blog, let alone the admin rights you used to enjoy … not to mention the fact that he tolerates you at all here on this new site.

  4. “Just like a typical contemporary “progressive” — given everything, then act like a spoiled child by demanding still more. You’d think you’d be a lot more grateful to Mr. Editor for giving you space for your OWN blog, let alone the admin rights you used to enjoy … not to mention the fact that he tolerates you at all here on this new site.”

    Our editor is more than capable of handling this situation, without your intervention with your continual taunting and mocking, which continues to deteriorate the quality of this blog (in my view), which he continues to tolerate as well! The blog statistics here have shown that robust debate promotes interest, without which the interest slumps as evidenced by decreased participation, as recently observed.

  5. We KNOW what your view is, WW. You appear to be the ONLY one who shares it, however, especially considering your own behavior.

    All I am saying is that your tone could be more appreciative towards the Editor considering what he has done for you already. But you’re coming off (in MY view) like an arrogant spoiled child.

  6. “We KNOW what your view is, WW. You appear to be the ONLY one who shares it, however, especially considering your own behavior.”

    In case you have not noticed, the commenters on this blog are all Conservative Republicans, but for myself and now Anna Nova. So your statement is not correct, koolo.

    Moreover, having differing viewpoints on the issues of the day is not related to “behavior”, it is related to the issues of the day. The point is, that some on here cannot stand to have their views challenged, or even rejected, so they reduce themselves to making personal attacks, as Anna Nova pointed out with her examples and list several days ago.

  7. But how soon we forget that when gas spiked to about $4 under Bush, the Liberal world was up in arms about how can the poor afford this, it’s Bush’s fault, Bush and Co are oilmen and are in league with them, it was still Bush’s fault. But now that The ONE’s, the messiah’s programs are about to bring forth $4 gas what do we hear???? CRICKETS. The silence is deafening.

  8. WW wrote:

    As I pointed out before, extraction of crude from the oil sands wastes a lot of energy and lays bare the lands where the tar sands are located, not to mention the increased carbon dioxide emission from the energy intensive extraction process.

    You did point this out, more than once. But others pointed out, just as often, that President Obama’s decision does not mean that the tar sands won’t be mined and the increased CO2 emissions from “the energy intensive extraction process” won’t be incurred: it simply means that it won’t occur anywhere where American jobs will be created, where American companies can earn any profits, and the United States government can collect any taxes.

    You have said, many times, that we should be far more worried about jobs than the deficit right now. Yet, in following the President’s policies, instead of creating jobs in the United States, the jobs which are created will all be in Canada and China; unemployment will be slightly higher than it would otherwise have been in the United States, and tax revenues will be lower, so we’ll have to borrow more money from, you guessed it, China! :( None of the environmental benefits you want will be realized, but potential American jobs won’t be created; how this is a wise policy is beyond me.

  9. First of all, Mr Editor, Obama’s action has cancelled the Keystone XL project temporarily, with a final decision to be made hopefully after a thorough review of the issue in 2013. You folks seem to forget that.

    Secondly, the Canadian company has announced that they will be reapplying for the Keystone XL, so apparently they do not plan for all their product to go to China, as they still want the pipeline route to the gulf.

    Thirdly, the number of permanent jobs created would be 30, once the pipeline is built utilizing 5,000 to 6,000 temporary jobs. Not that I am against the jobs per se, but the project needs to be vetted first.

    Fourthly, I hardly want our fingerprints on a project that has not been properly vetted wrt the environmental impact, not only of the tar sands flat lands, but also of the pipeline route across our country.

    The primal cause of this mess is that we have put off our energy source problems for three plus decades, so now it has come home to roost, causing us to need to make hurried decisions, like the negligence which caused the BP oil spill, and like the rush to begin the fracking on a massive scale, and of course like this re the tar sands. I think it is time we punish ourselves by having to wait for proper vetting, thus possibly having to pay more for gas for a year or two, and do without the newly created jobs. It’s a damn shame, but it is all for the good in the longer run!

    Why the above is not considered to be sound policy by you is indeed beyond me, Mr Editor.

  10. “WW, maybe some of us do not wake up at the crack of dawn and run to the computer to clear these.”

    Understood, Yorkshire, but that was not my point. My point is that two links in a post should not send same into moderation, which is why I was originally “hired” to be an administrator on CSPT, during which time I attempted to promptly release them, as you know. I am happy to serve the same function now, if requested.

  11. Wagonwheel says:
    February 16, 2012 at 13:05

    First of all, Mr Editor, Obama’s action has cancelled the Keystone XL project temporarily, with a final decision to be made hopefully after a thorough review of the issue in 2013. You folks seem to forget that.

    No one has forgotten that because it made NO SENSE what so ever. The reason it make NO SENSE is BO is always talking about jobs and here thousands of jobs were handed to him, and BO ran away from that as fast as possible. I know the one area of concern is Nebraska, but there were hundreds of miles of pipeline that could be started while Nebraska is settled. So, BO is hypocritical about jobs.

  12. “So, what I’m seeing is President Anti-Oil/Carbon is driving up the price of everything just to satisfy his EGO of being an alleged Enviro-whacko pleaser. So, if it costs more to do things, companies do what they need to do to stay open and that is cut back. Families will pay more to drive and use more of their paycheck for energy. And President EGO Anti-Oil/Carbon will throw more parties and keep flying aroung the world while Michelle O will use a different plane to follow him. Sorta sounds like let them eat cake Antoinette. ”

    http://current.com/shows/the-young-turks/videos/blame-oil-speculation-by-big-banks-for-rising-gas-prices-not-threats-from-iran

    —-
    Blame oil speculation by big banks for rising gas prices, not threats from Iran

    The cost of gas is expected to rise this spring and summer — but no matter how hard conservative pundits try to blame a potential threat of an oil cutoff from Iran, it’s just not the whole story.

    Speculation on oil futures — by big banks such as Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase and others — contributes to the rising cost. “They make money if the price zooms up,” Cenk says. In 2011, the average American household paid $600 more out of pocket as a result of that speculation. “It isn’t supply and demand. It isn’t the free market. It’s because these guys are playing with the market — so that they can make more money. They have got to love what is happening with Iran.”
    —-

    Since that the price rise is due to speculation what do you propose Obama do Yorkshire? Nationalize the oil industry?

  13. WW tells us more than her realized:

    I hardly want our fingerprints on a project that has not been properly vetted wrt the environmental impact, not only of the tar sands flat lands, but also of the pipeline route across our country.

    And there we have it: the tar sands flat lands will be mined, because they are in Canada, not the US, and we have no control over that. The tar sands will be refined, because the world needs the petroleum, so the stated concern about the energy-intensive cost is also beyond our control. What really bugs our Democrat from Delaware is that we might somehow sully our hands on this nasty project, concerns him enough that he’s willing to sacrifice the jobs created , the profit made and the taxes generated, to avoid that.

    It is, after all, much better if people of color get their hands dirty on this, rather people with a lack of color.

  14. Mr Editor, I gave my position here, and I don’t appreciate your misinformation about what I wrote. And you know what, I knew you would not agree! You cannot even agree to wearing a seatbelt.

    Moreover, your snide remark at the end is not impressive!

  15. Wagonwheel says:
    February 16, 2012 at 14:50

    No, Yorkshire, I would say that the President is being prudent. Let’s see where we are with this in a year, after the President starts his second term of office.

    After November when the Far Left Base has voted, then BO is free to do what he wants on Keystone. Right now, the Enviros are needed to vote for him.

  16. WW writes

    My point is that two links in a post should not send same into moderation,

    Why not? It’s a spam-filtering function.

    which is why I was originally “hired” to be an administrator on CSPT, during which time I attempted to promptly release them, as you know. I am happy to serve the same function now, if requested.

    Please, Mr. Editor, do NOT so request. We all know that “progressives” desire power, and what they actually DO with power. I read a lot of what transpired when WW had that power!

  17. AN:
    Since that the price rise is due to speculation what do you propose Obama do Yorkshire? Nationalize the oil industry?

    So, we’re back to the banks causing all this. Heard that while Bush was in office. Heard Bush and Cheney being in oil was the other reason for high oil prices. Maybe, just mostly maybe, the anti-oil, pro-green stance of BO is the problem. After BP, no more drilling in the Gulf, but gobs of money to solar companies owned by contributors to BO and them going BANKRUPT might be the problem. Anyway, it was just Billions of dollars contributing to the Trillions of Dollars deficit. Face it, BO is anti-carbon. If BO would kindly step out of the way, stop interfering with private enterprise, knock down the regulations, maybe companies would invest in energy and let the market work. Algores’ Current TV is so far left, it’s about to meet the Far, Far Right.

  18. “So, we’re back to the banks causing all this. Heard that while Bush was in office. Heard Bush and Cheney being in oil was the other reason for high oil prices. Maybe, just mostly maybe, the anti-oil, pro-green stance of BO is the problem. After BP, no more drilling in the Gulf, but gobs of money to solar companies owned by contributors to BO and them going BANKRUPT might be the problem. Anyway, it was just Billions of dollars contributing to the Trillions of Dollars deficit. Face it, BO is anti-carbon. If BO would kindly step out of the way, stop interfering with private enterprise, knock down the regulations, maybe companies would invest in energy and let the market work. Algores’ Current TV is so far left, it’s about to meet the Far, Far Right.”

    So this would be Obama’s fault because he restricted the supply of gas?

    http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-02-14/oil-drops-from-five-week-high-on-u-s-supplies-europe-downgrade.html

    —-
    Feb. 14 (Bloomberg) — Oil fell from the highest price in almost five weeks on speculation that U.S. crude supplies are rising and demand for fuel may falter as Europe grapples with lower credit ratings.
    —-
    U.S. crude inventories probably increased by 1.6 million barrels last week in the longest buildup since April, according to the median of 10 analyst estimates in the Bloomberg News survey. Gasoline supplies may have gained 675,000 barrels, the survey showed.

    Extraordinary Meeting

    Distillate supply fell 1.1 million barrels to 145.5 million, the survey showed. Distillate fuels, which include heating oil and diesel, gained 1.17 million barrels to 146.6 million in the week ended Feb. 3.
    —-

    In the longer term, peak oil suggests the US will need to reduce demand for oil as the price increases. The best way to do this would be to raise taxes on oil BEFORE this happens and fund alternative energy sources – two measures the Republicans oppose. And when peak oil really kicks in and prices rise worldwide permanently, will you still be blaming Obama?

  19. So this would be Obama’s fault because he restricted the supply of gas?

    Well, yes. BO talks out of three sides of his mouth on oil. He talks about the “poor”, well they’re hit the hardest on price rising. He blames banks, but is more than happy in 2008 when they bankrolled his campaign. He talks about Green jobs, and the country is bankrolling losers. He bails out GM, and screws the Bondholders by breaking bankruptcy laws, but no one has bothered to sanction him on that. And with GM, the taxpayers are backing another loser, the VOLT. GM’s says we lose on every Volt sold, but we make it up in volume. Or, the volt just burns up.

  20. “So this would be Obama’s fault because he restricted the supply of gas?

    Well, yes.”

    So when you read

    —-
    U.S. crude inventories probably increased by 1.6 million barrels last week in the longest buildup since April, according to the median of 10 analyst estimates in the Bloomberg News survey. Gasoline supplies may have gained 675,000 barrels, the survey showed.
    —-

    how exactly do you reconcile this with your theory that supplies have been restricted over that period?

    You have a long litany against Obama but your simple problem is that reality doesn’t agree with you. Inventories have been building – supply has been HIGHER than demand – since April last year. During the period under discussion supply has not been an issue. The price rise is due to speculation. That’s what the facts say.

    And then there’s this

    http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/aswift/the_first_keystone_tar_sands_p.html

    —-
    The first Keystone tar sands pipeline, constructed less than a year ago, has sprung its twelfth leak, spilling up to 2,100 gallons of raw tar sands crude oil in Kansas on May 29th when a pipeline fitting around a pressure transmitter failed. This comes just three weeks after a broken pipe fitting on Keystone resulted in a 60’ geyser of tar sands crude, spewing 21,000 gallons in North Dakota. Surely this appalling record of spills should send a message to the State Department as it goes through the permitting process for a second tar sands pipeline – Keystone XL – by the same company that we need better pipeline safety assessments and regulations in place before building another tar sands pipeline through sensitive U.S. lands and waters. We have an agency that handles pipeline safety – the Department of Transportation’s Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA). They should be making the assessment of the safety of diluted bitumen pipelines a priority.
    —-
    The State Department doesn’t seem to be taking these concerns seriously. Despite Keystone I’s short and troubled history, the State Department included some spill projections for Keystone XL in its Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement (SDEIS) that border on the ridiculous. For instance, the State Department predicts that 1,980 mile Keystone XL pipeline will have a leak due to flooding and washout once every 87,800 years. In another unprecedented prediction, it expects an incident on the pipeline due to corrosion once every 3,400 years.
    —-

  21. Anna Nova says:
    February 16, 2012 at 17:54

    “So this would be Obama’s fault because he restricted the supply of gas?

    Well, yes.”

    So when you read

    —-
    U.S. crude inventories probably increased by 1.6 million barrels last week in the longest buildup since April, according to the median of 10 analyst estimates in the Bloomberg News survey. Gasoline supplies may have gained 675,000 barrels, the survey showed.
    —-

    how exactly do you reconcile this with your theory that supplies have been restricted over that period?

    The amount of “reserve” is a proverbial drop in the bucket. 1.6 million, or 675K barrels of oil may look impressive, but the US uses 18 to 20 Million Barrels per day. There is about 800 million barrels of crude oil in the Strategic oil supply, but it’s for emergency use only. So, with the price high now, yes consumption will go down, but the drop will not be 10 million barrels or anything like that.

  22. WW wrote:

    Mr Editor, I gave my position here, and I don’t appreciate your misinformation about what I wrote. And you know what, I knew you would not agree! You cannot even agree to wearing a seatbelt.

    Yes, that is exactly where you related your position, and that is exactly from where I quoted you. Moreover, I believe that I am correct on that.

    Beyond that, you continued:

    The primal cause of this mess is that we have put off our energy source problems for three plus decades, so now it has come home to roost, causing us to need to make hurried decisions, like the negligence which caused the BP oil spill, and like the rush to begin the fracking on a massive scale, and of course like this re the tar sands. I think it is time we punish ourselves by having to wait for proper vetting, thus possibly having to pay more for gas for a year or two, and do without the newly created jobs. It’s a damn shame, but it is all for the good in the longer run!

    Emphases mine. I note that, at every turn, when it comes to hydrocarbon energy, you counsel, “Wait, not now, let’s study it some more, let’s be cautious.” And while you once wrote, “The newly understood availability of cheap natural gas in the US, which has the potential of significantly reducing our dependence on foreign fossil fuels, while simultaneously causing less greenhouse gas emissions, are all favorable factors in going slow on the Keystone XL pipeline,” but, even with that, you have complained about the fracking process necessary to recover natural gas from the new sources.

    You complain that we haven’t developed alternative energy sources, but energy prices came down after Jimmy Carter was defeated, and there was no real economic incentive to do so: there was no money to be made by private corporations, and it isn’t the government’s business to do that. Now it’s, once again, becoming profitable to do the research into alternative energy sources, and private corporations are doing so. It’s when the government gets involved that you get Solyndra, and the eleven other similar solar ventures that also went belly up after getting federal dollars. We have private corporations engaged in producing solar panels and wind-power turbines, and that’s fine with me: their investments, their risksd their profits if they guessed right.

    You, of course, want to see us pay more for gas (here as well as what I quoted above), and you want to see us lose jobs, all because you don’t approve of hydrocarbon-sourced energy.

    I would absolutely love it is we didn’t have to use oil for anything other than lubricants, if we could get all of our power from completely clean sources like we see on Star Trek. But I’m smart enough to realize that Star Trek is science fiction, and if we ever do achieve such, it will be long after all of us here are dead and buried. We still need energy now, and while research and development is always wise, we need to invest in the sources which are mature technology and can keep us supplied until newer sources can be developed.

  23. WW writes

    Really! Like what, koolo. Be specific, please.

    Like editing posts w/o attribution. But please! Can we get back to discussing the issues? You keep diverting, which brings down the atmosphere of this blog, in my view.

  24. WW wrote:

    I think it is time we punish ourselves by having to wait for proper vetting, thus possibly having to pay more for gas for a year or two, and do without the newly created jobs. It’s a damn shame, but it is all for the good in the longer run!

    Why the above is not considered to be sound policy by you is indeed beyond me, Mr Editor.

    You have, yourself, said that jobs, jobs, jobs are far more important than attacking the deficit, and that we have to be willing to continue some form of Keynesian economics, to stimulate the economy and produce more jobs for the American people, before reducing the deficit. Yet here, you are telling us that we must “do without the newly created jobs” and “punish ourselves” by “possibly having to pay more for gas for a year or two.” Higher fuel prices mean higher prices for virtually everything: virtually everything we produce is, at some point, shipped by rail and/or truck, which means that increasing the price of fuel increases the price of everything we have to buy. It means increasing the cost of getting to and from work, and it means, quite literally, depressing our economy as people can afford less for the same amount of money, and more of our money leaves the economy, to be shipped to foreign oil producers.

    That’s really quite a plan, when you put it all together. You want to:

    • Borrow more money from China, to create more American jobs; and
    • Reduce the number of potential American jobs by killing the Keystone XL pipeline and slowing down, if not stopping the fracking process for natural gas extraction; and
    • Buy more oil and fuel from overseas producers, rather than producing more here, which sends more of our energy expenses overseas; and
    • Increase the costs of hydrocarbon-sourced fuel so that Americans have less money available to buy other things, because more of it is going overseas for fuel.

    And you wonder why I don’t see that as “sound policy?”

    I freely admit: the obvious brilliance of your position on this is simply more than my limited intelligence can comprehend.

  25. WW wrote:

    Isn’t it a characteristic of conservatism to be very careful before jumping into something new and different?

    It is a characteristic of entrepreneurs to estimate the odds of success, and jump into new and different things, to try to make a profit. If some private individual or corporation believe that they can make money doing something, more power to them. If they happen to have guessed wrong and lose money, well it was their money and their risk.

  26. “The amount of “reserve” is a proverbial drop in the bucket. 1.6 million, or 675K barrels of oil may look impressive, but the US uses 18 to 20 Million Barrels per day”

    Yorkshire, your entire argument is based on price rises being due to restricted supply. Supply is not retricted if inventories are going UP. Arguing that the increase is “only” 3-4% of actual usage is besides the point – IF PRICES WERE GOING UP BECAUSE OF A SUPPLY SQUEEZE, INVENTORIES WOULD NOT BE GOING UP.

    As I said – you have a long litany against Obama but your simple problem is that reality doesn’t agree with you. Inventories have been building – supply has been HIGHER than demand – since April last year. During the period under discussion supply has not been an issue. The price rise is due to speculation. That’s what the facts say.

  27. “The amount of “reserve” is a proverbial drop in the bucket. 1.6 million, or 675K barrels of oil may look impressive, but the US uses 18 to 20 Million Barrels per day”

    1.6 million Barrels is less than 10% of a day’s use. I would say you’re on to something if there was a reserve (not the strategic reserve) of a 160 million barrels. Like the last time there was a large supply, the prices came down dramatically. A 10% “reserve” of ONE DAY is not going to lower prices.

    Also, part of my argument is also BO has had numerous chances of increasing domestic supplies and decided the Environmentalist needed to be placated over 300million+ citizens. That is a President with a narrow focus on his legacy, not citizens.

  28. “1.6 million Barrels is less than 10% of a day’s use. I would say you’re on to something if there was a reserve (not the strategic reserve) of a 160 million barrels. Like the last time there was a large supply, the prices came down dramatically. A 10% “reserve” of ONE DAY is not going to lower prices.”

    —-
    U.S. crude inventories probably increased by 1.6 million barrels last week in the longest buildup since April, according to the median of 10 analyst estimates in the Bloomberg News survey. Gasoline supplies may have gained 675,000 barrels, the survey showed.
    —-

    Get it? They increased by 1.6 million barrels over one week. Not a “reserve” but an increase in inventories. And not over a year – over a week.

    And still you seem to be evading the point – if a lack of supply was causing the price rises, you would see inventories go down and get squeezed before prices started rising. THIS IS NOT HAPPENING. Inventories have been increasing SINCE APRIL LAST YEAR. Prices are rising at the same time as more is being supplied than is being demanded. Quibbling over exactly how much extra is pointless – MORE IS BEING SUPPLIED THAN IS DEMANDED.

    Price increases are due to speculation.

    “Also, part of my argument is also BO has had numerous chances of increasing domestic supplies”

    Yes, but your argument is proved wrong in that SUPPLIES ARE NOT THE PROBLEM over the period in discussion. Whatever Obama may or may not have done didn’t affect prices due to restricting supply.

  29. “Like editing posts w/o attribution. But please! Can we get back to discussing the issues? You keep diverting, which brings down the atmosphere of this blog, in my view.”

    You are the one who brought this up, koolo.

    I requested that you be specific. You have not. So your charge is baseless. Moreover, it is wrong.

    I dutifully performed the task for which I was granted administrative access, which was to bring posts out of moderation. On occasion, I corrected format errors, without complaints materializing.

    Next time you make a personal charge, koolo, back it up or apologize, or don’t make the charge to begin with.

  30. Anna Nova, you have demonstrated the crude oil prices, translated to gasoline prices, is based on speculation, not on supply/demand considerations. This is a serious problem which must be addressed.

    And I would not be surprised if there were also political manipulations underway, aimed at undermining President Obama in an election year!

  31. “It is a characteristic of entrepreneurs to estimate the odds of success, and jump into new and different things, to try to make a profit. If some private individual or corporation believe that they can make money doing something, more power to them. If they happen to have guessed wrong and lose money, well it was their money and their risk.”

    Mr Editor, my point about conservatism leading to your comment above, was meant to address environmental concerns as well as entrepreneurial issues. I claim that preserving the environment is also a legitimate concern of Conservatives, or at least it should be. I sense that this element of conservatism is not one which you embrace.

  32. WW writes

    Next time you make a personal charge, koolo, back it up or apologize, or don’t make the charge to begin with.

    I did back it up. It’s at CSPT. Aside from Hube who made charges over there, Hitchcock did too. But, given it’s you, we know you’re never at fault. It’s always everyone else.

    As for apologizing, I’m still waiting for you to apologize for threatening me.

  33. “I did back it up. It’s at CSPT. Aside from Hube who made charges over there, Hitchcock did too. But, given it’s you, we know you’re never at fault. It’s always everyone else.”

    You have been given access to CSPT, which I do not have anymore, so it is up to you to be specific about your allegation regarding my behavior, koolo, otherwise it is just more meaningless personal dribble from you.

    Regarding the threat you perceive, with me it is past threat to blatantly revealing my identity by Mr Hitchcock, multiple times. But that is not on you, so I will offer you my apology for your perceived threat. However, you might wish to explain how revealing the name of the school where you teach is a threat. Does it have something to do with your behavior, your personal attacks, on this blog, koolo?

    The bottom line is that all of us would do better by focusing on our differences on the important issues of the day, rather than seeking ways to mock, bully, and personally attack one another. I would site our editor, Yorkshire, and Ms Anna Bova as models for this ideal behavior on this blog.

  34. WW writes

    However, you might wish to explain how revealing the name of the school where you teach is a threat. Does it have something to do with your behavior, your personal attacks, on this blog, koolo?

    Sure, I’ll explain. 1) You don’t know where I teach, but if you have somehow managed to figure it out (which wouldn’t surprise me in the least), the simple answer is because I do not wish it. Just as you do not wish people to use your full name (despite the fact that you yourself have used it many, many times on various sites). 2) No, it has nothing to do with my behavior on this blog — because there’s nothing which you can point to which is inappropriate based on the content of whatever post in question. Feel free to point out just where I posted anything “inappropriate” in FSJ’s comment section — keeping in mind, of course, the point of view of an objective outside observer, not an extremely biased individual like yourself!

  35. WW wrote:

    You have been given access to CSPT, which I do not have anymore

    This is incorrect. CSPT still exists, for archival purposes, but no one adds to it, and no one has administrative access other than me.

  36. Mr Editor, I appreciate the update on admin access to CSPT.

    To koolo:

    If I don’t know where you teach, koolo, then how do you perceive the “threat” to reveal it as a real threat. Paranoia pervades this place.

    That said, I respect your desire for anonymity, just as you need to respect mine on this blog, irrespective of what may or may not have been revealed elsewhere. You simply have no appreciation for what a level playing field is, moreover, you are “extremely biased” as well, so enough of your “hooey” already.

    Now back on topic:

    “HARDISTY, Calgary – On an unusually warm February morning — at least by the rugged standards of rural northern Alberta– a dozen construction workers were bundled up welding together the steel framework for the huge oil containers that will mark the starting point for the Keystone XL pipeline.

    But where the pipeline goes remains a question for Canadian and U.S. officials.

    Progress on building the three 350,000-barrel containment vats — each of which covers the size of a city block — may have slowed a bit after President Obama’s decision last month to block a permit allowing for the pipeline to cross into the United States, but that hasn’t stopped the work here.

    Nor has it quelled the optimism of leading officials in Alberta that the pipeline will be built — if not to the United States, as planned and still wanted, then to somewhere else– perhaps even west to access the insatiable demand of Asian markets.”

    The bold is mine, inferring the possibility that the Keystone XL pipeline is still in play, since President Obama has not rejected it, I repeat, he has put the decision off pending more study, to 2013. I support his position, which I believe the Canadians understand, as evidenced above.

    It is only those who disregard environmental issues who are raising a commotion on this issue, like our Editor here!

  37. None of us here “disregard environmental issues”, Wagonwheel. What we do is weigh said issues against the benefits in jobs, national security, energy needs and independance, and economic development. Sorry if we come up with a different answer than someone who considers only environmental issues. However, when it comes to those environmental issuse I would submit it is far better and safer for the environment for the US to handle the crude that to ship it to China and have them refine it. Strictly from an environmental aspect.

  38. “None of us here “disregard environmental issues”, Wagonwheel. What we do is weigh said issues against the benefits in jobs, national security, energy needs and independance, and economic development. Sorry if we come up with a different answer than someone who considers only environmental issues. However, when it comes to those environmental issuse I would submit it is far better and safer for the environment for the US to handle the crude that to ship it to China and have them refine it. Strictly from an environmental aspect.”

    That just is not true, Hoagie.

    Show me where any of you has said one word in the past about being concerned about the environment. With you folks, it is all about profit, that’s it!

    And on your comment on China’s refining of crude. That may be, but you’ve supplied no evidence, just opinion, so not convincing at all.

    The fact of the matter is that China leads the globe in investment in renewable energy, $473 billion/5 years, which will benefit them in striving for energy independence, and in less reliance on fossil fuels, and in striving for cleaner air, not to mention the reduction on greenhouse gas emissions.

    (Continued in next post, to avoid being thrown into moderation.)

    Pretty laudable, eh?

  39. WW writes

    Note that China is first, Germany is second, and we, the richest economy, have slipped from first to third, due to the origin of our do-nothing Congress

    The Chinese have, have had, and will continue to have some of the most ridiculously polluted cities on the planet. Don’t you recall the scenes from the Olympics four years ago — despite the best NBC did to hide it? They have to make investments in clean[er] energy if they don’t want see their life expectancy drop to around 30. Please.

    As for the perpetual blaming of the GOP Congress, you’re not a Generation Y-er, WW, but you certainly fall into many of its delusions: http://reason.com/blog/2012/02/17/the-dumbest-generation?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+reason%2FHitandRun+%28Reason+Online+-+Hit+%26+Run+Blog%29

  40. “And on your comment on China’s refining of crude. That may be, but you’ve supplied no evidence, just opinion, so not convincing at all.”

    Really Wagonwheel? Really? You expect me to run around the blogospher citing and linking things we all know are true just to appease you? I think not. I have better things to do thank you. But if you need citations simply read something other than left wing environmental propaganda on Kos.

    Now you OTOH, linked all kinds of stuff showing just how advanced China is in renewable energy without pointing out that those “investments” including the ones from the US are in China because of the economic reality of doing business in a poorly regulated state with low wages. China leads the world because it’s not economically viable to build that junk anywhere else. Duh! China is just the location of the technology because of costs, not because they “care”. They don’t give a rats butt except they will tak our money and that of the rest of the world to do business there.

    Have you ever been to China Wagonwheel? Have you ever seen, smelled or breathed the air there? I doubt it. Think “Olympics”. Have you ever tried to drink a glass of tap water in China. Don’t it could kill you. But these are the guys you want to refine oil which we could do here safer. Puleeze!

    And your little ditty: “Show me where any of you has said one word in the past about being concerned about the environment. With you folks, it is all about profit, that’s it!” won’t fly. That’s like me saying all you care about possible problems of environmentyal impact but you don’t care about jobs, economics, national security or the balance of trade. Would that be fair? Waddaya think we want dirty air, water and polluted land? Are you that narrow minded? As I tried to explain above it’s you who are the “one trick pony”, concerned only about environment. Rather, it is we who consider more than just the “one trick” and its costs and impact on many other aspects of American life.

  41. Hoagie, you continue not to tell the truth as you make stuff up.

    There is no one on here more concerned about jobs than I am, which is why I have been the only one on here to defend Obama’s stimulus policies. The rest of you on the Right want austerity immediately. As I’ve pointed out, the UK is trying that, and their economy is in decline. I have called for austerity too, to be phased in as the economy recovers, and the economy is recovering!!! The President’s policies have helped, creating more jobs than you folks created in your eight years. So your “one trick pony” isn’t, and your unsubstantiated opinion isn’t either, in my view.

    I understand well that China has major air and water pollution problems, as we did ourselves when I was growing up in Philly. The Schuylkill River was a major garbage dump, covered with debris and filled with fecal material and urine, as could be detected when in the vicinity of the river. And the Delaware River was not much better, with large quantities of industrial wastes dumped directly into it. In those days there were no controls!

    And air pollution was horrible, with many homes post WWII heated by coal, as well as coal fired electricity generation. There was usually the smell of sulfur in the air, and the air was filled with fly ash, which deposited inside on everything, since there was no A/C and the windows were open in the warm weather. The drinking water smelled of the high doses of chlorine which had to be used in those days, and it was not unusual to find colored water coming out of the faucet.

    This is the stage that the Chinese are now in. I credit them for investing in the future, as we began doing back 50 or so years ago. But now we have an additional concern, and that is global warming, of which you and your party are in denial and do not want to address.

    So be it, we Dems will continue to press forward on creating conditions to help make our economy grow, to train and employ more people, to strive for a decent wage for a day’s hard work, and a more just tax system so which does not assist moving wealth to the top 1-2% of which they have not earned, but had redistributed to them.

    PS: And speaking of environmental issues, I do not believe I have ever read any of you voicing any concern, the latest being the Keystone XL pipeline issue. Be honest, you on the Right do not give environmental concerns very much thought, now do you? Be honest!

    There’s lots of work to do. Will you join in, Hoagie, and stop obstructing? How about you, koolo?

  42. “Meanwhile, total US natural gas reserves = 4.244 quadrillion cubic feet, enough to meet current electricity demand for 575 years. But … let’s go solar!!”

    I understand that, koolo. And a good bit of it is trapped in certain subterranean rock formations, requiring fracture in order to liberate the gas.

    Moreover, there is the issue carbon dioxide emissions from the combustion of natural gas for the next 575 years.

    It is telling that you mention the huge available supply of natural gas, without concurrently mentioning the downsides. This is the problem with you folks, koolo. You fix yourselves on only one aspect of an issue, when many corollary issues need to be addressed as well.

    To borrow from Hoagie, you all are the “one trick” thinkers!

  43. “Hoagie, you continue not to tell the truth as you make stuff up.”

    Poorly worded this, sorry. My point is, that you state your opinion as if it were the god’s honest truth, when this is not necessarily the case, even if you think it is. I’m sure you learned at Princeton, that without documentation, your opinion is not worth so much. But have at it anyway, Hoagie, your choice! We all do it.

  44. WW writes

    I credit them for investing in the future, as we began doing back 50 or so years ago. But now we have an additional concern, and that is global warming, of which you and your party are in denial and do not want to address.

    Right. You act as if they actually CARE about the environment. What possible incentive does an authoritarian government have to clean up its environment when the most important thing is the bottom line? Are there environmentalist groups in China, WW? Is there a Chinese equivalent of the EPA? You see, this is what Hoagie was talking about when he wrote

    “China is just the location of the technology because of costs, not because they ‘care’. They don’t give a rats butt except they will tak our money and that of the rest of the world to do business there.”

    It’s exactly why the old Soviet Union was an environmental disaster, as well. Why ALL such governments are. To make the comparisons you do defies reason. Even more unreasonable is making these comparisons, then chiding conservatives/Republicans as if THEY are (or, act like) the actual Chinese apparatchiks … the ones you’ve been so fooled into thinking are so “enlightened,” much like the NY Times’ Thomas Friedman. You are a devotee of the silly principle (whose term escapes me at present) which says that nothing can be undertaken unless all risk or uncertainty has been eliminated. Your continued worship at the altar of global warming alarmism is but one example; your constant siding with the current administration against things like Keystone and accessing natural gas is another.

  45. WW wrote:

    “None of us here “disregard environmental issues”, Wagonwheel. What we do is weigh said issues against the benefits in jobs, national security, energy needs and independance, and economic development. Sorry if we come up with a different answer than someone who considers only environmental issues. However, when it comes to those environmental issuse I would submit it is far better and safer for the environment for the US to handle the crude that to ship it to China and have them refine it. Strictly from an environmental aspect.” (Hoagie)

    That just is not true, Hoagie.

    Show me where any of you has said one word in the past about being concerned about the environment. With you folks, it is all about profit, that’s it!

    Really? Just from this thread, we have this comment, in which it was noted that the cancellation of Keystone XL will have zero environmental benefits, because the tar sands will all be used anyway, and that the only difference was who would profit, and here, where I noted that research and development are good things, but that we need to continue to provide for our energy needs now, and not just hope for a Star Trek future.

    You seem to assume that if we don’t come to the same conclusions you have — “I think it is time we punish ourselves by having to wait for proper vetting, thus possibly having to pay more for gas for a year or two, and do without the newly created jobs. It’s a damn shame, but it is all for the good in the longer run!” — we must be wholly unconcerned.

  46. Yes, as more and more scientists are leaving the Glowball Warming scam (which gets billions of dollars in government money to continue) due to its being a scam (CO2 increases follow warming increases by centuries, meaning they are a result and not a cause, there is a point where CO2 ppm increases no longer has an insulating effect), Wagonwheel continues to be a Glowball Warming Alarmist lemming. And this “I care about jobs more than anyone else here” bovine byproduct is laughable. It’s hard to parody or caricature Wagonwheel because “how do you parody a parody?” and “how do you caricature a caricature?”

    Even Wagonwheel’s comment over on Patterico’s Pontifications brought immediate disbelief that someone could actually believe the silliness Wagonwheel believes. A well-informed, well-educated regular over on PP thought WW might actually be doing parody.

  47. Gas prices surging beyond $4 a gallon — and they will go higher

    By Gary Richards grichards@mercurynews.comcontracostatimes.com
    Posted: 02/17/2012 04:00:59 PM PST
    February 18, 2012 1:43 AM GMT Updated: 02/17/2012 05:43:24 PM PST

    Gasoline prices are rising at an almost unheard-of pace, and painfully so in California, where the cost for a fill-up now exceeds $4 a gallon in five cities and is approaching that dreaded mark in numerous others, including San Jose and Oakland.

    The statewide average of $3.96 on Friday is 25 cents higher than just a month ago and 46 cents more than this time last year. The price jumped a nickel from Thursday, a huge increase, as day-to-day changes are usually measured in fractions of a penny.

    Some oil analysts predict $4.50 a gallon or more by Memorial Day on the West Coast and major cities across the United States such as Chicago, New York and Atlanta. Prices in that range could be a major issue in the presidential campaign, especially if they slow the nation’s economic recovery.

    More here:

    http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_19990275

    And we’re exporting refined products. That’s driving the price on the world market. It’s not a USA driven market anymore, and BO couldn’t be happier so he can push his Green, Stone Age agenda.

  48. In the past 2 months, the price of gasoline for me has risen from 2.89 a gallon to 3.32 a gallon here in low-cost and Conservative, oil-rich Texas. Where I buy gives a 10-cent discount for people who make 5-dollar purchases in the store, and the price of what I buy is the same as if I bought it at Wal-Mart, so I always get that discount. Even in Texas, they’re talking about 5-dollar-a-gallon gasoline for this summer. Not a good idea nationwide if oil-averse Democrats actually want votes.

  49. Hoagie says:

    “None of us here “disregard environmental issues”, Wagonwheel.”

    John Hitchcock says:

    “Yes, as more and more scientists are leaving the Glowball Warming scam (which gets billions of dollars in government money to continue) due to its being a scam (CO2 increases follow warming increases by centuries, meaning they are a result and not a cause, there is a point where CO2 ppm increases no longer has an insulating effect), Wagonwheel continues to be a Glowball Warming Alarmist lemming.”

    So, Hoagie, do you agree with John Hitchcock and do you regard resorting to ridiculous conspiracy theories to be addressing environmental issues?

  50. Yes Anna Nova I do agree with John Hitchcock that Glowball Warming is a scam and that Globall Warming itself isthe ridiculous conspiracy theory currently addressing environmental issues. The entire idea that all human development and consumption must be brought to its knees because somewhere, someone may pollute something is foolish.

    We can address environmental issues and we can eliminate a great deal of pollution but we cannot eliminate all pollution as long as there are humans who need to heat their homes, drive to work and create industry. Nothing will ever be perfect. There is a balance between the environment and human progress.

  51. Here’s a Glowball Warming question that the die-hard adherents to the faux threory have never answered. They won’t answer because it ruins the theory. Below is a picture of a retreating glacier from about 8 years ago in Alaska. If you note carefully, there are Tree Stumps that were under the glacier. In order for tree stumps to be There, it had to be WARM enough to grow trees, then cold enough for a glacier to rip them off, then warm enough for the glacier to retreat. Now if Glowball Warming happened before and long enough to grow trees, why is it so BAD NOW? Or is this the Progressive/Liberal/Socialist way to get the Proles in line and obey all of Big Brother’s Orders.

  52. Yorkshire asked:

    Now if Glowball Warming happened before and long enough to grow trees, why is it so BAD NOW?

    It’s clear that the planet is cooler than it has been at some points in the past, just as the planet is warmer now than it has been at some points in the past. The climate changing is a natural occurrence in our history. The question is: is the current slight warming trend natural or either caused by, or contributed to by industrial activity?

    It has been noted that there appears to be a slight amount of global warming on Mars; if so, human industrial activity wouldn’t account for that. Neptune’s moon Triton appears to have warmed up by a whopping 3º F, from -392º to -389º, which is leading to atmospheric changes. There is evidence for local warming on Jupiter. The easy conclusion is that there is a slight increase in solar heat being received on those bodies, but other factors could be at work.

    The problem on earth is a political one: the conclusions are being driven by what people want the conclusions to be. It may turn out that industrial activity has some effect here on earth, but that has not been proved, and the “solutions” advanced by those who accept the premise of industrially-created climate change are solutions which would involve vast transfers of wealth and end the dominance of the evil, industrialized West, which is what they want!

    I, for one, see no reason to impoverish ourselves on the basis of an unproven theory advanced by people with a political agenda. If it turns out that climate change is actually occurring on the extent they claim it is, human beings, who have managed to survive from the Gobi Desert to the African rain forests to the frozen wastelands of the Arctic, who have survived warmer times even in recorded history (around the first century AD) and cooler periods (the “Little Ice Age”), will adapt and survive that as well. Some current coastal areas may change, but we’ll survive that. Slowly adapting to gradual changes is a far wiser economic policy than a radical change which impoverishes the industrialized areas and which may not make any difference anyway.

    Wagonwheel wrote:

    I think it is time we punish ourselves by having to wait for proper vetting, thus possibly having to pay more for gas for a year or two, and do without the newly created jobs. It’s a damn shame, but it is all for the good in the longer run!

    You know, that’s a pretty easy thing for him to say, given that he is retired, and doesn’t have to worry about one of the jobs not created being his, and that, however his income is structured, he is at least well enough off to have purchased a new Toyota Highlander Hybrid a few years ago; those aren’t cheap!

  53. “I think it is time we punish ourselves by having to wait for proper vetting, thus possibly having to pay more for gas for a year or two, and do without the newly created jobs. It’s a damn shame, but it is all for the good in the longer run!”

    Those two sentences are the money line. Therein lies all the white guilt/ liberal guilt one ever needs to know. We must be “punished”. Three years of “vetting” isn’t enough, paying more for gas is okay, not creating jobs is just the price we pay. That’s why progressives are anything but progressive.

    “paying more for gas” does not just mean a $5 gallon at the pump Wagonwheel. It means everything that moves will cost more, food, clothing, everything. It means home heating oil will increase. The cost to run ships and planes will increase. And all those “poor and middle” you are always worried about will carry bthe brunt of it.

    But its all for the good in “the longer run”. How? How is financially harming our citizens, not creating jobs and sending that crude to China to be refined with fewer regulations all for the good? How will refining the oil in China with fewer regulations, more pollution and less safety all for the good? How is having our money going to another country, our jobs going to another country all for the good?

    Oh, I forgot. It’s all for the good because we get punished.

  54. Hoagie says:
    February 17, 2012 at 11:45

    “None of us here “disregard environmental issues”, Wagonwheel.”

    Hoagie says: February 18, 2012 at 13:20

    “Yes Anna Nova I do agree with John Hitchcock that Glowball Warming is a scam and that Globall Warming itself isthe ridiculous conspiracy theory currently addressing environmental issues. ”

    If you didn’t “disregard” these issues, THEN WHY ARE YOU NOT AWARE THAT ALL OF THE THINGS YOU HAVE RAISED HAVE BEEN THOROUGHLY DEBUNKED? You have as much credibility as a Holocaust Denier or a 911 Truther, and your claims deserve to be taken as seriously.

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php – this specifically references the outer space planetary and glacier myths.

    You cannot claim to be unaware of the statements of the actual science. If you continue to spout stuff you know is untrue, you know what that makes you.

  55. http://blog.nj.com/njv_editorial_page/2012/02/heartland_institute_leak_shows.html

    —-
    The nation’s leading skeptics of climate change science were dealt a blow this week when hundreds of private internal documents — detailing donors, spending and the group’s anti-science strategy — were leaked to the public.

    The documents betrayed the inner workings of the Heartland Institute, the most vocal of U.S. climate change “deniers” who, despite decades of scientific data proving that the Earth’s climate is warming, promote skepticism and doubt.

    The leak is the smoking gun that climate scientists have been waiting for — and should be a warning to anyone who buys into the idea that “global warming is just a theory.”

    You’re being played.

    The Heartland Institute’s key strategy has been to create doubt in the American public by saying that climate change is a controversial, unproven theory.

    The truth is that, while climate scientists might disagree over minor points, there is no controversy: Every major scientific organization agrees that climate change is real and that human activity has a direct impact.
    —-

  56. “But its all for the good in “the longer run”. How? How is financially harming our citizens, not creating jobs and sending that crude to China to be refined with fewer regulations all for the good? How will refining the oil in China with fewer regulations, more pollution and less safety all for the good? How is having our money going to another country, our jobs going to another country all for the good?”

    I agree with all that, Hoagie. But we are stuck due to our past lack of vision and preparedness, so our neglect has now come home to roost.

    President Carter realized how toxic our growing dependence on foreign oil was back in the late ’70′s, when we had experienced two shocks, crude oil price increases arbitrarily generated by OPEC, causing sudden fuel shortages. Remember that, getting in line for hours to fill the tank? Carter then initiated a new energy policy in his “Crisis of Confidence” speech on July 15, 1979, in which he said this:

    “The energy crisis is real. It is worldwide. It is a clear and present danger to our nation. These are facts and we simply must face them …

    I am tonight setting a clear goal for the energy policy of the United States. Beginning this moment, this nation will never use more foreign oil than we did in 1977 — never. From now on, every new addition to our demand for energy will be met from our own production and our own conservation…

    I will soon submit legislation to Congress calling for the creation of this nation’s first solar bank, which will help us achieve the crucial goal of 20% of our energy coming from solar power by the year 2000…

    To give us energy security, I am asking for the most massive peacetime commitment of funds and resources in our nation’s history to develop America’s own alternative sources of fuel — from coal, from oil shale, from plant products for gasohol, from unconventional gas, from the sun…

    I will urge Congress to create an energy mobilization board which will have the responsibility and authority to cut through the red tape, the delays, and the endless roadblocks to completing key energy projects. We will protect our environment. But when this nation critically needs a refinery or a pipeline, we will build it…

    I’m proposing a bold conservation program to involve every state, county, and city and every average American in our energy battle. This effort will permit you to build conservation into your homes and your lives at a cost you can afford. To further conserve energy, I’m proposing tonight an extra $10 billion over the next decade to strengthen our public transportation systems. And I’m asking you for your good and for your nation’s security to take no unnecessary trips, to use carpools or public transportation whenever you can, to park your car one extra day per week, to obey the speed limit, and to set your thermostats to save fuel. Every act of energy conservation like this is more than just common sense — I tell you it is an act of patriotism.”

    Did Ronald Reagan and subsequent administrations follow up on this Carter initiative? You know the answer, so we are where we are now. President Obama has stepped up to address this problem, only to be pretty much shot down by the opposition Republican do-nothing party.

    I might point out that the European nations saw the handwriting on the wall, and added a heavy tax on gasoline at that time which persists to this day, in which case they are now paying over $7. per gallon. This prompted heavy investment in public transportation. Anyone who travels in Europe today, and I have, extensively, knows how complete public transportation is there, and relatively cheap too. The same goes for Japan, where I have spent almost two years.

    We did not follow suit, instead, we neglected this issue, so that we are now where we are on it today. Therefore, we are now on the precipice of a rather sudden 20% increase in fuel prices, which will cause all the havoc which you have described, Hoagie.

    And the Keystone XL pipeline will do nothing to alleviate it, because it is a nit. But our massive in-country natural gas sources will help, if only we can discover a fracking process which does no significant damage.

    So yes, we are in for some punishment, due to our own negligence, punishment that will impact most of the 99%, and ironically, will not touch the 1%, which is just one more indicator of how vulnerable most of us are.

    And then there is also global warming now, …!

  57. WW wrote:

    But our massive in-country natural gas sources will help, if only we can discover a fracking process which does no significant damage.

    And if we can’t, then you’ll oppose exploiting those natural gas resources completely, won’t you?

    You can complain all you want about not following up on President Carter’s proposals, but that’s over and done with, and cannot be undone. I understand that you want us to punish ourselves for that, but we certainly don’t need to do that: we can produce the energy we want and need, if only we’ll stop paying attention to the environmentalist whackos who want to stop all progress while we wait for Star Trek fusion-power generators.

    However, rising gasoline prices could well have one very good result; they could help retire President Obama four years earlier than he had hoped. :) I’ll willingly pay $4.25 a gallon to achieve that result!

Comments are closed.