As far as I've read, no one here is suggesting that we try to use as much oil as possible just because we can or that we should shun conserving oil or that we shouldn’t be using less imported oil.

The issue is that some of us see very little reason to significantly harm our economy to see an almost imperceptible benefit to the environment especially when the impetus to making those expensive changes is based on unproven theories about what might or might not be happening to the Earth’s climate.

I’d say most here, including me, are all in favor of conserving and not wasting our natural resources; of exploring alternative means of powering our vehicles and a providing for our energy needs…government incentives can help do that.

However, financially viable alternatives to the status quo don’t need government mandates and in the long run, anything that isn’t financially viable on its own merits can’t be sustained by government or by any other entity.

Getting back to the original post in this thread, I don’t think California has anything to teach the rest of the country when it comes to this subject; their own short-sightedness in providing for their own energy needs nearly caused their state economy to collapse.

 

I see. In other words, steady as she goes, then?

 

No…read my post again.

Taking reasonable steps that can be financially justified/sustained and which have meaningful benefits (benefits that we KNOW are worthwhile) is not “steady as she goes”.

However, “steady as she goes” is a far better option than wrecking our economy based on completely unproven theories about what might be happening to the environment.

 

[QUOTE=Robert_Nashville;4366908]No…read my post again.

Taking reasonable steps that can be financially justified/sustained and which have meaningful benefits (benefits that we KNOW are worthwhile) is not “steady as she goes”.
/QUOTE]

Reasonable. From your perspective, or from my perspective? I read your post twice, and unfortunately, "reasonable" and "financially justified" are pretty subjective...

 

Another unsupported claim. what is your source for these numbers?

even if you are talking about economic output, almost all of it is based on energy supplied by power plants, not oil.

Americans use four times as much petrol per head of population as the next biggest industrialised consumer nation (Japan).

when your own Government's numbers insist the energy demands from US transport and household usage alone add up to just under China's total energy output, i find your figures difficult to reconcile.

 

There doesn't need to be anything subjective about it.

Effectively, I already defined "reasonable" in my original post; "reasonable" are those steps that have measurable, quantifiable benefits (such as encouraging vehicles to have better fuel economy) and not such things a “reducing green house gases” when “green house gases” presupposes that there is such a thing as man-made “global warming” and that mankind can, therefore, do something about it.

“Financially justified” is also not nebulous…a course of action that costs more than it gives in benefits is not financially justified and cannot be sustained in the long-term. At that point, it is nothing more than a tax by another name.

 

I'm afraid you've mistaken me for somebody that actually puts faith in government statistics. Sorry.

 

This still presupposes that benefits are quantifiable and that different people will give the same value to the benefits. I think that's all subjective. I think whether or not you believe in man-made global warming is subjective. I mean lots of people do believe in it and lots don't. Is that because they've all studied the subject and are climate experts? Same question applies to whether or not you think there's anything we can do about it.

It can't help but be subjective.