Is he against mass-transportation alternatives or just bad mass-transportation alternatives? I'm all for mass-transportation. Heck, just go to Paris or London and sees how well those subway systems work and how convenient they are. But if Houston impliments a mass-transit system it out to be one that is well thought out, stays out of trafic (i.e. does not contribute to it) and works for our city/climate. I'm just not sure that our lite rail is the best solution. So, you can be against the Houston light rail system but not against mass-transportation alternatives.
Completely FALSE. You need to learn how to read. I am very much pro mass transit in Houston. I am against RAIL as a form of mass transit, however. I am not stupid enough to think that rail is the one and only form of mass transit available, unlike many. I have supported the rapid transit bus lanes like Metro just announced for a long time.
Granted Bill Clinton and Al Gore didn't do nearly as enough to come up with strategic energy policies to lessen our nation's dependence on foreign oil, too much blame is squarely placed on them. You glaringly omitted the failures on Ronald Reagan's part. One of the first things Reagan did when he took office was removing Jimmy Carter's solar panels from the roof of the White House. And he subsequently reversed most of Carter's conservation and alternative energy policies. In all, the Reagan Administration cut funding for the renewable energy program by 90% in the early 1980s. I am not saying Clinton and Gore did anything noteworthy on energy, but if you want to point the finger, you need to look further back.
My point in blaming Clinton/Gore is the environment is what they stand for! Did you really expect Reagen or Bush to do it? Gore is Mr. Environment and environmental causes (which are tied to alternative sources of energy) are claimed by the Democratic party. So, they are the ones (like Carter) who we expect to work towards alternative energy goals. We don't expect people like Clinton or Carter to win Cold Wars - Reagan and Bush did that. So, you can blame Reagan but what did you expect? You guys are always accusing the Bush's of being tied to Big Oil so what do you expect from them? Also, public sentement wasn't for conservation so politicians weren't going to push it. What we need is a politician who does something he feels is necessary despite public opinion. Clinton/Gore had the economy, some would say the popularity and the party philosophy to initiate that change. They just didn't have the guts and that's where they failed. Look at the fire that Bush takes for trying to fix SS. I don't think private accounts are the answer (I'm not against them, however) but the Democratic rebuttal has been "It's not broke!" or "We don't have to do anything for 40 years!" That's partisan BS when we all know something needs to be done. At least Bush is pushing the idea when it should be addressed regardless of public (or partisan) sentiment.
Reagan willingly destroyed some grand programs already running on their courses, while Clinton would have to rebuild something long trashed by his predecessors. They are very different in nature. What Reagan did, in his campaign against energy conservation and short-changing the alternative fuel R&D, with the false sense of "morning in America", was a breach of moral and economical principles with regard to the future generations of this nation, and the world.
This report came out a couple months ago, but in light of what's going on I thought it was relevant. Oil @ $105? Yes, says Goldman Sachs April 01, 2005 17:45 IST World oil prices shot up to $55 per barrel on Friday following a warning by global investment bank Goldman Sachs that crude oil might have entered a 'super-spike' period which can push up oil prices to an astronomical $105 a barrel. Goldman's Global Investment Research note, which came up with the warning, also raised the crude price forecast for 2005 and 2006 to $50 and $55, respectively, from the earlier $41 and $40. The bank said that the surge in prices will be fuelled by burgeoning demand for energy globally. It said that these high prices would help reduce energy consumption. If oil prices hit $100 levels, experts believe that stock markets the world over will crash and economies will be plunged into recession. The Indian economy, amongst the fastest growing in the world, will be badly hit if oil prices hit the stratosphere. The general level of prices would shoot up with consumers having to pay more as companies and manufacturers pass on the extra load to the buyer. However, India has been desperately trying to attain some amount of oil security by bidding for oil fields and stakes in international oil companies. Yet, analysts feel that prices in excess of $100 could put paid to speedy growth and progress.
Poor planning aside, urban sprawl has a lot more to do with people pursuing the American Dreams - bigger houses on bigger lots in suburbs.
Interesting... http://observer.guardian.co.uk/business/story/0,6903,1519745,00.html Oil 'will hit $100 by winter' Worst-ever crisis looms, says analyst ยท Surging demand to keep prices high Heather Stewart, economics correspondent Sunday July 3, 2005 The Observer Oil prices could rocket to $100 within six months, plunging the world into an unprecedented fuel crisis, controversial Texan oil analyst Matt Simmons has warned. After crude surged through $60 a barrel last week, nervous investors were pinning their hopes on a build-up in US oil-stocks to depress prices in the coming months. But Simmons believes surging demand will keep prices bubbling well above $50. 'We could be at $100 by this winter. We have the biggest risk we have ever had of demand exceeding supply. We are now just about to face up to the biggest crisis we have ever had,' he said. Opec producers held emergency talks last week to consider making their second 500,000 a barrel increase in production quotas in a fortnight: but the discussions were suspended last Thursday after prices dipped back below $60. The looming oil crisis is not high up the agenda at this week's G8 meeting, although the heads of state are expected to repeat their finance ministers' call for greater transparency from Opec and other oil-producing nations about their reserves. However, global warming is one of Britain's two major priorities, and Tony Blair hopes to secure a pledge to pour more cash into developing alternatives to the oil-intensive technologies that cause climate change. Simmons believes such moves will be too little, too late. He will publish a hard-hitting book this week in which he argues that Saudi Arabia, the world's largest producer, is running out of oil, and further price rises are inevitable as supplies decline. He warns that the scramble for resources could eventually descend into war. Many analysts expect extra production over the next year, as high prices boost investment by energy firms. But Simmons says after many years of underinvestment, there is even a shortage of drilling rigs. 'Many of these projects are aspirations; many of them won't create peak production in the first year, and many of them within five years will be in decline,' he said. However, the Economist Intelligence Unit predicts that oil prices will peak by the end of this year, and decline by 10 per cent in 2006 as the Chinese economy slows, reducing demand. Chinese imports have been crucial to propping up the oil price in the last two years. But the EIU warned that its forecasts - which show a 30 per cent increase in oil prices for 2005 - could prove too conservative if there are further wobbles in supply. 'The narrow margin of spare production capacity has made prices vulnerable to unforeseen reductions in supply or rises in demand,' it said. Paul Horsnell, head of commodities analysis at Barclays Capital, said supply constraints would continue to bite for the rest of the year. 'It's all getting a bit tight' Brent crude closed almost $2 a barrel higher in New York on Friday night, while futures contracts for heating oil, widely used in the US, hit a record high, which analysts said was unusual for summer. 'It's fear,' said Kyle Cooper, an analyst at Citigroup. 'It's not based on what is happening now. It's based on fear of what could happen.'
i'm thinking the word "controversial" preceding the words, "oil analyst" throw a pretty dark shadow on that article. nevertheless, gas is friggin $2.25/gallon at the Shell closest to my home. what the hell is that?? did the war in Iraq NOT take the 2nd leading oil producer in the world off the world market and drive up prices???
You could get one of these... The Accord Hybrid. It has 255 horsepower, gets 37 mpg on the highway and 29 in the city, and will go from 0-60 in 6.6 seconds, according to Motor Trend. http://motortrend.com/roadtests/sedan/369_0506_rev_accord_hybrid/index1.html Fit the bill?
Hybrid does make sense, and in the long run, oil just needs to be replaced. But to confess, I still secretly have the desire to own a SUV myself, not without guilt, and hasn't stepped forward. But I guess it does give you a feeling for better view and more robustness, and others will yield away on the road Which makes me realize that we do know right from wrong, lots of times, but whether we can do the right thing is just another story.
real_egal, we bought a Honda Odyssey '05 van during the winter. The thing seats 8 people, weighs 4300+ pounds, has a 255 HP V-6, and the last time I checked the mileage, we got 23.75 mpg. That's a hair under 24 miles per gallon. It's engine, when you aren't giving it the gas, going up hill, etc., uses only 3 of the 6 available cylinders. You don't notice it at all, except for a little light on the dash when half the cylinders are offline. We can do a great deal to cut gas consumption. Detroit needs to get off it's butt and use the technology that's out there (and build quality cars!).
I am holding out hope for some Jeep hybrids by the time my 98 Cherokee is ready to be sent out to pasture.
Those Accord Hybrids also cost 30 grand. That's too much if this technology is going to go into widespread use. That's where competition will help. The sooner Detroit starts cranking these things out the cheaper they'll be, and the better they will do with sales. We love the van, and I don't see why similar technology couldn't be used by others. It's not a hybrid, but beats the pants off anything else in it's size for economy and performance, in my opinion. Wish it'd been cheaper!
Did you get the Touring edition one? That's kinda of pricey for a minivan, I must admit. I would much rather just hop in a mid-size that seats 5, has good power, looks trendy, and gets a decent mpg rating. The Accord fits the bill, but I am getting the coupe though
