First of all, the majority of our oil comes from Venezuela, Mexico and Canada--not the middle-east. The oil we are planning to plunder from the Alsakan Tundra will cost MUCH more per barrel than what we can import.
If only we could find a way to clone Ross Perot, Jr. and put a clone in every large city. I mean, the one in Dallas is getting the taxpayers (by way of the supposedly anti-business Mayor Laura Miller) to pony up hundreds of millions of dollars to build him a tollroad connecting one of his properties to another.
You stated this as if it were a fact. Can you explain the logic? What about the hybrid SUVs set to debut this and next year? There are alternatives to small cars if you don't like them, but shouldn't we be actively working to improve fuel efficiency? Is it really that important for people to be able to go 0-60 in 4 seconds? OK, so how does this change the fact that eventually, we will run out of oil? Or are you from the camp that believes that more will just bubble up eventually? As far as Alaska, the drilling would affect a fairly small portion, but the pipeline, infrastructure, and road construction across the entire state would affect more than a small portion, and would be prohibitively expensive. Personally, I would rather that the oil stay there in case oil does run out someday. Then, we have a modest reserve which, at that time, might be profitable to exploit.
Miles per gallon is expressed in terms of miles traveled per gallon. When you're stuck in gridlock and your engine is still burning fuel, albeit at a smaller rate, going 2 ft. every couple of minutes, your mpg will suffer greatly. On the oil issue, with new technology, we are able to extract more oil out of a field than ever before. Also, it's not like new oil is not being made, because fields once thought to be dry in the Gulf of Mexico have been found by scientists to be filling up again. For years we've heard the chicken little scientists bleat and moan about how we're going to run out of oil in 40 years, blah, blah, blah..... Well, last time I checked, we have plenty. There are so many unexploited fields that if tapped, could supply my children and their children and then some. And so what if it runs out? The free market will DEMAND private companies build new ways of supplying energy to everything. Lastly, if you've ever driven in Atlanta traffic where everyone flies by at 120 mph, you had best merge like you mean it. I got rid of my 4 cylinder daily driver car (I own the aforementioned 74 Scout and a 1986 Porsche 928 as well) which got 40 mpg to get a used Maxima that gets 30 mpg, but has a six so I can merge onto the freeways without killing myself. Driving a car with no h/p up here is like asking for death. And to all of those who would advocate raising gasoline taxes, remember that the main way of getting around in this country is the POV. Not everyplace has a MARTA system like in the Atlanta area and the cost to build one of these systems is prohibitive at best. I don't want to surrender the independence that driving myself to work 100 miles roundtrip everyday gives me. If you're on the bus, it's not like that you can get them to stop for milk if your wife calls you to do so. Penalizing people for buying a life-essential commodity is just ridiculous. In Europe, public transportation is the norm because of their collectivist nature where the individual is not as stressed. Here, individualism and freedom are the cardinal virtues and we will not allow such tyranny to proceed. Folks, the Earth is not fragile. God is a much better builder of universes than many of you give Him credit for.
Guys, we would reduce pollution and raise MPG if we would simply BUILD more highways. You realize we already have a $450 billion federal deficit, right? Highways aren't cheap.
And every car taken off the road by mass transit will reduce fuel consumption and pollution, arguably more than providing more freeway space. I don't know when the oil will run out, but I do believe that it will not last forever. In the meantime, I think it behooves us to conserve for more reasons than just an eventual supply crunch. I think it would be a smart move for the country to lower dependance on foreign oil through conservation and alternate energy. We would reduce pollution that way also and once the oil does run low, we won't be scrambling to try to find alternative energy sources, those sources and technologies will have matured if we begin researching in ernest now. From what I understand, the new 6 cylinder hybrid SUV gets 30 MPG, has ample horsepower, and seats up to 8 comfortably. Are you telling me that everyone in Atlanta needs a Porsche to merge on the freeway? The Earth is not fragile, but our continued existence on it could be threatened. At worst, we (humans) are a gnat buzzing around the planet, creating a minor annoyance. We cannot KILL the Earth, but we can change the ecosystem to the point of human extinction. Cars are not life essential commodities despite what you may think. Besides, I don't want to penalize people, I just want people to have to THINK before they blithely consume gas at the rate of 10-15 MPG. YOUR consumption isn't an issue, IMO, because you are not driving an Escalade 100 miles a day at 12 MPG.
Totally agreed. Highways are VERY expensive when you take into account the number of people conveyed.
Actually, the decision way back then by the US to build highways rather than mass-transit systems such as passenger railways was the reason why we are what we are now. Driving is part of the ingrained culture of America. It wouldn't matter how much gasoline tax the government imposes, it's too late for America to abandon driving. The only impact it would make would be more carpooling and more efficient cars. It would not make a whole lot of difference in terms of saving natural resources (unless someone could actually make pure solar-cell cars practical). Higher gas taxation works in Europe because they already have the mass-transit systems in place. The higher gas prices simply force people to use the systems. BTW, I think SUVs are the most impractical vehicles invented apart from the 2-seated sports cars.
My point is I just don't want government raising taxes on gasoline to force compliance with what should be an individual issue. If you believe in saving the Earth by driving a hybrid, be my guest, but don't force me through government to have to drive one as well. I'm doing my part (my truck has a new Cummins diesel that is both thrifty [25 mpg on the hwy sans trailer, 14 mpg with trailer] and has lower pollutants per mile than any other diesel, according to the Cummins diesel company). Also, raising prices on gasoline will force people to live closer into cities where they don't want to live. The reason suburbs are so expansive is because people don't want to live inside the city limits because of crime, poor schools, etc. Freedom and independence are what drives them to the suburbs. This campaign on "urban sprawl" is nothing more than a great liberal crusade against people leaving blighted cities for the suburbs. Raising taxes on gasoline will have a horrible effect on an economy that depends largely on tourism and shipping based on oil. And lastly, it's not like the major automakers are not researching privately alternative fuels. The technology is years away from evem close to being economically feasible. Lastly, SUV's are a very, very stupid fad. I remember my father drove trucks because he hauled things and now he dismissively sneers at every suburban mom with one of those gas guzzlers in the driveway. Eventually, the market will go away, just like the van craze in the seventies (yikes!) and sports cars in the eighties (bummer!). The move to crossover vehicles (tall station wagons) already portends a trend where SUVs evolve from uncarlike body on frame, heavy, inefficent designs to car-based tall station wagons like that new Infiniti FX45 (it gets 25 mpg with a big 8 cyl on the hwy) and the Acura one (don't remember the name right now).
