Comments on: Develop domestic oil reserves for energy independence Thu, 21 Jul 2016 07:57:19 +0000 hourly 1 By: Irene Tue, 16 Jun 2009 20:27:30 +0000 The greatest supply of oil – that outstrips even the Arabian countries – lies under our northernmost states. Extracting ourselves from the onus of the Middle Eastern dependence should be first on our list of “must do’s.” By being able to supply our own needs, we can then look for other, better ways to implement alternative energy options.

Am I the only one who noticed how oil prices plummeted last year/early this year when the possibility of accessing our own reserves was suddenly a reality that the “oil producing nations” wanted to stave off? They understand that an energy-independent America is a stronger America, and they don’t want either.

Because as long as we are dependent upon regimes that have no compunction on raising their prices to our detriment, then we will be forever under their thumb.

By: C.D. Walker Thu, 28 May 2009 21:41:39 +0000 “If taxing any particular type of goods doesn’t work, why it is working with tobacco?”

Like i have said before, a couple of times now i believe, the “Business” making the “Product” is being taxed by the Government. Instead of the “Business” eating that tax imposed on it, like it should, “Business” places that extra burden on the “Consumer”. People just don’t have the money to pay for a LUXURY like cigs.

But NECESSITIES like gas for cooking and home heating, electricity for the home, and gas for the car, when they are taxed, “Business” again passes that burden onto the “Consumer” like they ALWAYS ALWAYS do.
With necessities, those bastards KNOW we need them, and like the soulless SOB’s they are, keep raising prices.
It is called EXTORTION, look it up, but instead of an “official” is it “Business” as usual.

By: Carney Thu, 28 May 2009 20:54:51 +0000 Both the “drill here drill now” types and the extreme greens are wrong.

Mideastern oil is not only staggeringly more abundant than ours, it is also much easier and cheaper to extract.

The US has only 4% of the world’s known energy reserves, while the Mideast has 70%. At current rates, by 2020 we’ll have 1% and they will have over 80%. It’s imperative to get off oil before we grow even more dependent on the Mideast.

But greens embrace a gaggle of solutions that are either sub-optimal (natural gas), not ready yet (electric cars), ineffective (emphasizing conservation and high MPG cars), or irrelevant (solar and wind power etc which have nothing to do with cars), or outright frauds (hydrogen fuel cells).

The real solution is the proposal put forward by former NASA rocket scientist and nuclear engineer Dr. Robert Zubrin in his book “Energy Victory”

The plan is shockingly simple, affordable, practical, effective, and ready now, with no need to wait years, lavish billions on research, or force us into crippling austerity and painfully expensive and/or slow, frail, cramped cars.

It is to mandate that all new cars sold in America be fully flex-fueled, able to run equally easily on gasoline or on any alcohol-based fuel, including methanal, ethanol, propanol, butanol, etc. Methanol is extremely cheap and can be made from coal, natural gas, or any biomass without exception, including weeds, trash, and sewage.

This technology has existed since the early 90s and is refined, reliable, and costs only $130 per car for automakers to implement.

Within a few years there would be enough alcohol compatible cars on the road for alcohol fuel to be routinely available at gas stations.

And note – sold, not made, so as to include imports – thus fully flex fueled becomes the international standard as all major automakers switch their production lines. Gasoline is then forced to compete with alcohol around the world, everywhere, not just here and Brazil, and OPEC’s inflated profits and the mischief budgets of its member states are slashed drastically and permanently.

By: Anonymous Thu, 28 May 2009 20:04:52 +0000 C.D. Walker,
If taxing any particular type of goods doesn’t work, why it is working with tobacco? Federal tax, state tax, local tax, the lawsuit settlement costs that is just another way of taxing cigarettes – as a result the price of a pack is what – $7? $8? – and still rising. I don’t pay attention to the price because I’m not interested anymore. But the stats (at least as represented in radio news I listen to when commute) tell that the proportion of smokers is going down. I bet when the price of a pack will go over $20 there will be much less smokers. And when it goes up above $100 there will be probably as many smokers as there are Rolls Royce drivers.
I bet taxing the disposables will result in much lesser consumption of these – exactly because the manufacturers/distributors will pass the costs to consumers. If Styrofoam cups and plates cost as much as stoneware, you’ll see people taking to the parks old style picnic baskets with actual stoneware and silverware instead of packs of disposables that often are left right where they were used, making picnic areas disgusting mess.

By: C.D. Walker Thu, 28 May 2009 19:23:03 +0000 Anon-

You need to take your own advice about reading posts.

“I didn’t advocate taxing necessities. However I would applaud taxing unnecessary pollutants, like packaging, disposable plates, cups, and utensils, plastic bottles, and tons of other stuff destined to end up in landfills – in best case”

Like i said earlier, putting a tax on any of the items you listed will do nothing to make the producers of such items change their ways of manufacturing, or their business model of a “Throwaway” society. If government puts a tax on “Business” why doesn’t “Business” be responsible for that tax? Instead they ALWAYS, ALWAYS place that burden on the Consumer, THEN, like the bastards they are, place the blame on government, when Business is the one who is supposed to pay the TAX!

Business screws us twice! The first time is placing the extra cost on US.
The second is by not paying the TAX themselves.

By: Anonymous Thu, 28 May 2009 18:33:31 +0000 C.D. Walker,
Before replying please read the posts you replying with a bit of attention.
I didn’t advocate taxing necessities. However I would applaud taxing unnecessary pollutants, like packaging, disposable plates, cups, and utensils, plastic bottles, and tons of other stuff destined to end up in landfills – in best case. In worst case they are thrown, blown by the wind, carried by drainage, and end up polluting our forests, lakes, and seas.
I would like to see deposit prices on plastic, Al, and glass containers comparable with the price of content, not just a mere nickel or dime. While these deposits are technically not tax, they work similarly. I’d like to see taxes on chewing gum at the same scale as tobacco taxes. If you ever stepped on that gum spat by someone, you’d understand. And fines on the gum chewers who spit it indiscriminately, too. It worked in Singapore, why not here?
In fact, I wouldn’t mind energy taxes, but only under condition they are accompanied by equally sized income tax cut. Then – what the hell – I might bite the bullet and use these income tax savings (and then some – it’d be not cheap) to insulate my house – it was built when fiber glass insulation wasn’t common yet. I might even replace my old trusty Volvo with one of those smaller hybrids. At least energy tax, unlike income tax, give you a choice to conserve or pay up. Just like tobacco tax gives you a choice to quit smoking or pay up.
As for “Executive BASTARDS”, I’m not defending them a single bit. Even more, I wouldn’t shed a tear if they end up right there with your “friend” Dennis Kozlowski of Tyco, where they belong.

By: C.D. Walker Thu, 28 May 2009 17:18:00 +0000 Anon-
“Higher prices inevitably result in lesser sales volume.”

Not if your talking about necessities of life like ENERGY!
Energy companies, (Electricity, gas, oil) have us by the balls because we NEED energy to heat our homes, our places of work, our cars, for cooking. These industries can continually raise prices KNOWING we cannot live the life we have become used to. And those Executive BASTARDS know this fact and keep EXTORTING more and more out of us each year.

Who are you defending and why? You like being used by these people? If you do, go to China and be a slave wage maker, this is a free country.

By: Anonymous Thu, 28 May 2009 14:11:22 +0000 “I have to dissagree with going after the smoker in his car, the but is cotton and will degrade” – Posted by C. D. Walker
Either you never smoked or things changed a lot since I quit. As far as I remember, the filter would melt if the cigarette smoked all the way. Melting is not exactly what you’d expect from cotton, but perfectly consistent with synthetic fibers which are, well, plastic.
As for taxing not working, you admitted yourself that it would be “used (like it always is) as an excuse to charge the consumer more”. Higher prices inevitably result in lesser sales volume. Case in point – smokes. Lots of people quit because a pack is over $7 (I quit when it was still under $2, but at $7 probably would not have started at all). Besides, if higher taxes on polluting packaging like plastic or laminated paper (hate this – it can’t be recycled with either plastic or paper) make it too expensive, it will be abandoned in favor of old good cardboard boxes – at least these are fully recyclable and biodegradable. The flashy glossy packaging is usually just another marketing ploy to make the wares “stick out” from store shelf. If it’s eliminated, the goods will compete more on the merit of content rather than the package looks. Also there will be less buying on a sudden urge provoked by flashy packaging, meaning less overall consumption. Which is good, because most of consumption these days means more money to China Commies.

By: C.D. Walker Thu, 28 May 2009 00:37:13 +0000 I have to dissagree with going after the smoker in his car, the but is cotton and will degrade; eventually, but the waste these Major Firms dump, then hide, or litigate to eternity (See Chevron’s 15 year lawsuit in South America) need to be stopped immediately.

Taxing is never going to work because the “Tax” put on the product will be used (like it always is) as an excuse to charge the consumer more, thus not effecting the Plastic manufacturers way of doing business. We have to Make these businesses do the right thing, because OBVIOUSLY they are not going to be RESPONSIBLE for their actions, HIDE behind Lawyers, and courts, and paperwork, and lies, like they always have.

By: Anonymous Wed, 27 May 2009 19:23:45 +0000 C.D. Walker,
At least there’s something we agree on. Pollution is our common enemy. Waste is our common enemy. If you ask me, no fine on polluters can be too steep. And I mean all of them, from a smoker throwing out the car window a butt with filter made of plastic, to big companies dumping their industrial waste, and everyone in between.
The plastic waste issue can be solved relatively easily. Tax the plastics, and everything made of it, especially packaging, will become so expensive that the prices of everything packaged will go up and, as a result, sales will go down. But I imagine both sides of the isle hopping mad. Republicans because they are against any and all taxes. Dems because it will hurt their low-income constituency more than others. So, unfortunately, it’s a non-starter because of politicians (these, unlike lawyers and bankers you hate so much, are real scum).
As for switching back to glass, it’s not exactly the solution for all plastic bottle ills. Have you seen fed police posted at national park entrance searching bags and coolers of every visitor for – bombs? guns? drugs? nope – glass containers. Glass is strictly prohibited there. I’ve been searched – not that I object, because I understand why. Have you ever walked barefoot and stepped on a shard of glass? Happened to me once on a beach, and I don’t want a repeat. Also please note that glass manufacturing is energy hungry. Glass weighs more than comparable plastic/Al container, so there will be higher transportation costs in both money and fuel. And while glass bottle can be made to survive an occasional drop on the floor, it can’t stand against a kid who just drank too much beer out of it.
Nor is corn-derived plastic the magic bullet. It requires high temp to “bio-degrade”, and it can’t replace oil-derived plastics for all applications. For instance, would you like your car’s bumper to bio-degrade? If you leave your car out in the sun, the temp will be just right.