ANWR: To drill or not to drill? - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

fishin · 10-01-2003, 08:42 AM

Thoughts?

Superbelt · 10-01-2003, 08:58 AM

Not to drill. Reducing consumption will help us immensely more than drilling for that 6 -18 month supply
Get rid of the Hummers, the Escalades, the Ferrari's and Expeditions that single rich people drive that get less than 10 miles to the gallon. Then the problem is pretty close to being solved.
Start giving government funding to renewables and alternative fuel sources for cars instead of subsidising oil companies and we can completely end our dependence on foreign oil.

ANWR...
Especially not the way Bush and the republican congress want it.

They want to give any oil company a water liability waiver to drill in anwr. If they spill, they don't have to pay.
How can they think they can pass a bill like that?

fishin · 10-01-2003, 09:04 AM

I am still formulating my thoughts on this one. However, I don't see the logic of "getting rid of the hummers." That would infringe on the rights of free people. It would be like saying, "don't let the liberals cause traffic jams by picketing about the latest trendy thing to be upset about."

Conservation is definitely part of the solution. However, I think that more effort needs to be put forth by the automobile industry to develop alternative fuel sources. But in the mean time, I'll drive my SUV. I don't want to drive some weak battery operated car that can go 0 to 60 in 5 minutes.

bonbonbox · 10-01-2003, 09:29 AM

Don't drill. Use the wind, the sun, the oceans, and that thing I like to call our noodle to get us off the dirty oily tit.

onetime2 · 10-01-2003, 09:30 AM

I'll say do not drill. Forget about getting rid of the Hummers and Ferraris as most aren't even used that often. The person putting 60k miles a year on their Honda creates more emissions than the one putting 2k miles on their Ferrari.

Superbelt · 10-01-2003, 09:35 AM

Driving a hummer is equivalent to just tossing gallons of gas on a fire to see it to up in smoke. Driving a Hummer is not a right.

But, I probrably wouldn't ban the hummer either. I would just quadruple gas taxes. See how many hummers and escalades and navigators are sold then.
People who drive a car with good gas mileage (31mpg and up), or are farm workers can keep their gas reciepts and turn them in to get a rebate on their tax that brings them down to the gas tax rate we are at right now.

I think that is the PERFECT solution.

fishin · 10-01-2003, 09:36 AM

I think it is quite obvious that the number of SUVs on the road have skyrocketed (I myself now own one). A lot of this has to do with marketing and a perceived "need" of the public. It is in a way a chicken or the egg thing. SUVs, however, now seem here to stay. The idea of banning them or burning them is not possible. I think the engineering of SUVs needs to be improved without compromising function. A temporary fix may be the digging of ANWR in light of the current Middle East crisis. Perhaps in time, that source will not be as urgently necessary.

fishin · 10-01-2003, 09:37 AM

Superbelt, do you think it is a right to toss gallons of gas (and a fire) on a hummer? Just curious...

Superbelt · 10-01-2003, 09:41 AM

Of course not. The people who did that didn't use their brains and caused probrably more pollution with that display that those Hummers ever would.

That isn't the right way to go about it. The way cali is doing it is right. They are imposing extra taxes on these polluting, low mileage behemoths.

Quadrupling the federal gas tax over a period of 7 years + inflation, is the next step we need to take.

Superbelt · 10-01-2003, 09:44 AM

First, drilling in ANWR wouldn't even provide us with any oil for 8 years or more. It takes a long time just to set that kind of operation up.

So it won't actually relieve anything. Then, the recoverable oil will not reduce our foreign dependence by more than 3%. Trust me on that, I did several debates and research papers on ANWR for my geology classes in college. That 3% is nothing. Drilling in ANWR is not a solution.

fishin · 10-01-2003, 09:45 AM

I personally don't think that is the answer. I do believe that incentives to other efficient automobiles is a good idea. However, to make it difficult financially so as to eliminate the SUV market seems wrong. Incentives, yes. Decentives (made up that word, I think), no.

Superbelt · 10-01-2003, 09:51 AM

Increased gas taxes is a "decentive" to buy a suv, but it is an incentive to buy a car, especially if you gain the gas tax difference back.

It's how Europe fixed their transportation problems. Gas over there costs 3-4 dollars a gallon, comparably. And it is mostly tax. Most people have smaller cars that get incredible gas mileage compared to what we get here.

There is nothing wrong with incentives to eliminate gas guzzlers. Now there is a ford and GM plan to convert one of their suv's (Escape for Ford) into a hybrid, but it keeps getting delayed. If we raise the gas tax there will be an instant market for this and Ford will work their asses off to get this to market.

ANWR will not be a temporary fix, drilling has too much lag time.

Sparhawk · 10-01-2003, 10:11 AM

What was that statistic Gore was repeating during the 2000 elections? Something along the lines of having all the cars in america be one percent more fuel efficient was the equivalent of 2 ANWRs.

The problem is SUVs being classified as light trucks, thus allowing them by law to be as fuel -IN-efficient as they want. Change the classification and raise the standard.

fishin · 10-01-2003, 10:13 AM

The government should give Ford and the like the incentives to produce such automobiles. Not "decentivize" the public (basically arm twisting). Not all of us want to drive around a VW bug thing or mini-whatever.

Superbelt · 10-01-2003, 10:17 AM

Here's an incentive to automakers:

"Double your average fuel economy for all classes in 6 years or we'll tax the holy fuck out of your vehicles"

The ones that do, keep selling hunks of metal, the ones that don't, have to keep their now overly expensive rusting hulks of metal.

onetime2 · 10-01-2003, 10:29 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Superbelt
Here's an incentive to automakers:

"Double your average fuel economy for all classes in 6 years or we'll tax the holy fuck out of your vehicles"

The ones that do, keep selling hunks of metal, the ones that don't, have to keep their now overly expensive rusting hulks of metal.

And when it doesn't get achieved and Ford and GM start laying workers off?

Superbelt · 10-01-2003, 10:34 AM

Then those workers start working for Toyota who has stepped up production 200% to meet demand for their cars.

Superbelt · 10-01-2003, 10:35 AM

But trust me, it can be achieved. It will cost the consumer a couple extra hundred dollars for the more expensive engines.

Ford and GM have an engine they worked on jointly that is 8 cylinders 400 hp and gets 35 mpg. It is in show cars right now, but it should be coming to the truck market in the next year or two.

seretogis · 10-01-2003, 11:06 AM

We shouldn't need to drill there, but the option should be open if it is necessary for some reason -- it is possible to do so with minimal environmental impact. The automotive industry is taking it upon themselves to make more fuel efficient vehicles which will eventually become mainstream. They are solving the problem for us, isn't that nice?

archer2371 · 10-01-2003, 11:19 AM

Actually, there is no need to drill there, it's too limited of a supply to ignore the dangerous environmental effects that drilling will have there. Superbelt, your plan to quadruple gas prices wouldn't hurt the "single rich people who drive Escalades, Ferraris and the like" why? because they are single RICH people, they will be willing to pay high gas prices to drive their toys. However, you will be hurting the working class guys who need to drive trucks to do their work (i.e. Silverados, F-150s, and the like that only get around 12-13 mpg). Granted the new engines will be more fuel efficient, but, they're not available for the consumer right now, taxing such trucks would be so unpopular that it probably wouldn't even get passed.

Superbelt · 10-01-2003, 11:57 AM

Along with the gas tax break for farm workers, include it for those whose employer requires them to drive a truck to work. SUV's especially the luxury ends like the navigators and expeditions will not be honored as necessary for work vehicles.

archer2371 · 10-01-2003, 12:46 PM

I have a real problem with the government mandating what a company can and can't sell. It reeks of communism. Should there be reasonable controls? Yes. I would rather take a different approach, because this is what likely would happen, the economists in each Motor Co. presents a report to the Exec. Committee showing the benefits of producing fuel efficient cars. It is more financially beneficial for a motor company to produce these cars, companies like Toyota, Nissan, Honda, Hyundai, and Kia have shown us this. Trust me, the companies will make the change on their own without any help from the government, or they will go out of business, it's as simple as that.

splck · 10-01-2003, 01:12 PM

No matter how fuel efficient vehicle are the pressure to drill up there will only grow as the years pass. I just don't see the merit of exploiting the area when the risk outweighs the benefit by so much. What part of "animal refuge" don't proponents understand?

filtherton · 10-01-2003, 01:37 PM

Drilling in ANWR is pointless. We should invest money in fuel efficient cars and alternative sources of energy now, because we are eventually going to be forced to anyway. I think the gas tax is a good idea, considering most americans are more about the pocketbook then being responsible.
Nobody needs to drive a freakin' escalade or a hummer anyway.

BigGov · 10-01-2003, 04:12 PM

Nobody needs to drive an Escalade? Or a Hummer?

Escalade, I'll halfway buy into that arguement. But a Hummer? Those have some real useful feature for some people, but, not everyone that drives it needs it.

But everyone seems to forget one thing.

Mini-Vans.

Lower a SUV's ground clearance, extend the cabin forward a foot and add a third row, you got a Mini-Van.

So, are Mini-Van's acceptable or not?

Superbelt · 10-01-2003, 04:52 PM

Mini-Van's also get about a third extra gas mileage than the average SUV.

Who are Hummers useful for that you can't do with something else? And do it better.

filtherton · 10-01-2003, 05:00 PM

Who needs a hummer, aside from the military? What huge problem in transportaton has now been solved with the advent of the consumer (read dumbed down) hummer? I think the general public was getting along just fine pre-hummer. None of the people i see driving them in my town need them. They are just a new way for fools and their money to be parted.

I thought that minivans actually had to conform to some standards because they aren't classified as light trucks. Maybe i'm wrong on that,

BigGov · 10-01-2003, 05:03 PM

What's better than a Hummer? A Land Rover, an H1, and a few others.

See, there are some things you can do with a Hummer you can't do with a fuel efficient vehicle. A Civic can't tow a trailer (and anything a Civic can tow certainly doesn't qualify as a trailer), a Civic can't go off-road (well, it can, but it has a hell of a time getting back on-road), a Civic can't carry as much (throw any statistic you want at me "Oh, a hummer only has x amount more, that's almost nothing!" The real life test proves different).

The only thing that absolutely blows away a Hummer in every catagory is, you guessed it, another Hummer, namely the H1, or Hum-Vee.

Now, as for Mini-Van's getting 1/3 better gas milage, that's because A) Most mini-van engines are signigantly smaller than the average SUV's and B) 1/3 of an SUV's gas milage isn't that big, say 5 MPG. So, you upgrade the engine of the van, and you have an unversitile SUV.

filtherton · 10-01-2003, 05:43 PM

Quote:

See, there are some things you can do with a Hummer you can't do with a fuel efficient vehicle. A Civic can't tow a trailer (and anything a Civic can tow certainly doesn't qualify as a trailer), a Civic can't go off-road (well, it can, but it has a hell of a time getting back on-road), a Civic can't carry as much (throw any statistic you want at me "Oh, a hummer only has x amount more, that's almost nothing!" The real life test proves different).

Any half-assed pickup can tow a trailer, many of them can also go off road. You can also do those things with an atv/ four-wheeler. Comparing a hummer to a civic in those terms is a little silly. And really, all the people i see rolling a hummer through south minneapolis are the same people who would shit their pants over a scratch in their bumper. Going off road is the last thing on their mind( i know, a generalizaton, but still accurate).

Just because you can find a use for something does not make it necessary. People were hauling trailers and off roading long before anyone could buy a commercial hummer. Hummers aren't going to increase the amount of people who haul trailers and off road either.
Most suv drivers don't even actually take advantage of their vehicles's capabilities. It is all bullshit image management. Atleast minivan drivers generally use their van for what it was intended, cause i doubt anyone would buy one for image.

BigGov · 10-01-2003, 06:51 PM

See, that's the problem though. Many people don't use SUV's to their full capability, but some do. (Particularly where I live because people like to spend money on stuff they will use)

Why should people in Wisconsin be punished for rich jackasses in California and in big cities that we don't care about in the first place?

filtherton · 10-04-2003, 01:18 PM

Nobody in wisconsin needlessly drives a truck or suv? What does brett farve drive? Bet it is a big ass truck like every other player in the NFL. You could be punished for the rich jackasses in your very own wisconsin. Besides, a gas tax would likely have exemptions for people who actually use their big trucks for what they were intended.

dimbulb · 10-04-2003, 04:02 PM

I believe in taxation on gas and high mileage vehicles. This is to pass onto consumers and corporations the true cost of having a fuel guzzling behemoth.

Being overly dependent on foreign oil leaves the country vulnerable, it pollutes the environment that we all share, it contributes to global warming etc etc..... time for the people who pollute to pay the true cost.

This is also fairer to people who own gas guzzling vehicles like Ferraris or older show cars. If you don't drive it, you won't pollute, and you won't be taxed as much.

If you are a farmer, or whoever needs it for your work, then you get taxed as well. You're polluting the environment just as much as the average joe in his SUV. No exemptions, no exclusions. Everyone should pay if they pollute. Nothing hits home like the bottom line. And the day that big corporations demand fuel efficient commercial vehicles to save on their fuel taxes, is the day the car companies will pay attention.

Kurant · 10-05-2003, 12:24 PM

It doesn't matter if they use it, or don't use it. When the goverment steps up, and puts stricter regulations on engines and emissions then you people can have somthing to bitch about. Mocking someone because they are buying a truck, simply for the fact they don't NEED one, is completely ignorant. Maybe you should point fingers at the goverment, or car manufactures for building these non-enviroment friendly cars, instead of pointing at the people because a constitutional right gives them the ability to be free, and buy whatever vehicle they want.

I'm an Alaskan, and if any of you knew 1/10th of the politics involved, or seen what that part of the State of Alaska consists of, maybe your opinion would dramatically changed. How can people that don't live here, or know the first thing about it, comment on it.

I hunt in ANWR every year in the Brooks Range, I spend 28 days up there a year. I've seen what it looks like and what is there. You can sit here all day and criticize about it, but until you see it, your just as ignorant as the rest.

I'm all for it. Drill away.

redravin40 · 10-05-2003, 03:27 PM

Before we assume that all Alaskans want to drill, I can say that the feelings here are as mixed as they are in the states.
Having been involved in the oil spill cleanup from the Exxon Valdez. I can say that there are many people who are not interested in seeing that happen to ANWR.

filtherton · 10-05-2003, 03:46 PM

Quote:

t doesn't matter if they use it, or don't use it. When the goverment steps up, and puts stricter regulations on engines and emissions then you people can have somthing to bitch about. Mocking someone because they are buying a truck, simply for the fact they don't NEED one, is completely ignorant. Maybe you should point fingers at the goverment, or car manufactures for building these non-enviroment friendly cars, instead of pointing at the people because a constitutional right gives them the ability to be free, and buy whatever vehicle they want.

I wasn't mocking, but you have to admit that it is rather shortsighted for humanity as a species to put unnescesary stress on the atmosphere for the sake of image. It is ignorant to buy a truck just because you want to look cool, or just because you want to drive some macho ass climatechanger.

You could point fingers a the automakers, but they're just doing what any company wants to do- sell a popular product to an eager consumer. The fact is, until there is no demand anymore for vehicular metaphors for excess, automakers will continue to make these vehicles. I would point fingers at the gov't, but only because they're not keeping car manufacturers in check.

Quote:

I'm an Alaskan, and if any of you knew 1/10th of the politics involved, or seen what that part of the State of Alaska consists of, maybe your opinion would dramatically changed. How can people that don't live here, or know the first thing about it, comment on it.

Maybe you'll enlighten me on the 1/10th of the politics involved so i can understand your informed opinion instead of just pulling the "you just don't understand" card. Right now all i know is that some oil corporations want to open up a national wildlife refuge to oil drilling for what could amount to an inconsequential amount of oil. As such i know ex-alaskans who don't favor drilling, why shoulld i listen to you over them?

David2000 · 10-05-2003, 04:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by fishin
Conservation is definitely part of the solution. However, I think that more effort needs to be put forth by the automobile industry to develop alternative fuel sources. But in the mean time, I'll drive my SUV. I don't want to drive some weak battery operated car that can go 0 to 60 in 5 minutes.

Fishin obviously suffers from the same sort of ignorance that plagues the rest of america about electric cars--they don't realize that electric cars have FANTASTIC acceleration compared to gas cars of the same class. The old GE electric car (forget the model #) could do 0-60 in 6 seconds because of the great amount of torque that electric engines produce. gas cars have better top speed of course, but who needs a car that can go 200 if they have one that can get to 100 in no time at all? If people only took time to learn about the reality of the situation, we'd have more converts instead of more ignorance.

Remember: condemnation without investigation is at the height of ignorance.

Superbelt · 10-05-2003, 05:03 PM

You wanna know 1/10 of the politics of drilling in Alaska?

Alaskans survive on corporate welfare. Without it, that state would be a barren wasteland from west shore to eastern border.

Alaskans don't pay much in taxes. There is no state income tax because the oil revenues pay for almost all state functions. Additionally every Alaskan gets a yearly check for their portion of the oil revenues. Drill in ANWR and every alaskan becomes a little bit richer. That's the bare bones of it.

My fiancee has a cousin who moved to Alaska. He works part-time as a pizza delivery boy and crashes at a friends house. He writes back home complaining about how the democrats suck for trying to stop this because it's hard enough to survive in Alaska as it is.

Fuck em, if you can't survive without oil revenues that you didn't earn. It's just welfare. We don't need to support a welfare state on the back of environmental degradation.

Kurant · 10-06-2003, 06:32 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Superbelt
You wanna know 1/10 of the politics of drilling in Alaska?

Alaskans survive on corporate welfare. Without it, that state would be a barren wasteland from west shore to eastern border.

Alaskans don't pay much in taxes. There is no state income tax because the oil revenues pay for almost all state functions. Additionally every Alaskan gets a yearly check for their portion of the oil revenues. Drill in ANWR and every alaskan becomes a little bit richer. That's the bare bones of it.

My fiancee has a cousin who moved to Alaska. He works part-time as a pizza delivery boy and crashes at a friends house. He writes back home complaining about how the democrats suck for trying to stop this because it's hard enough to survive in Alaska as it is.

Fuck em, if you can't survive without oil revenues that you didn't earn. It's just welfare. We don't need to support a welfare state on the back of environmental degradation.

LOL.

Your opinion is generalized because of 1 person with a biased opinion because he can't find a job? Ignorance. He's right about the democrats however.

If all he tells you that the democrats are trying to take it away, instead of telling you why, then he doesn't know anything about it. I'm not going to explain it, because it really doesn't matter. You generalzation is as ignorant as they come, so is your assumption the PFD's are strictly paid from oil revenue.

Superbelt · 10-06-2003, 06:51 AM

I wasn't generalizing. I was telling you what another alaskan reacts to and how he lives up there.

And tell me how my generalizations about the welfare state that is Alaska is incorrect.

There is no income tax, oil revenues take care of that. Much of what is left from the oil revenues are divided up amongst the residents. Drilling in ANWR would make revenues increase, putting more money into every Alaskans pocket.

But it's money most didn't earn, they are enriched by residency.

How is that an ignorant generalization?

Superbelt · 10-06-2003, 06:58 AM

FYI:

It's called the PFD check. Permanent Fund Divident
Look it up, you'll see some stupid shit.

2002's check to every Alaskan was $1540.76

10-01-2003, 08:42 AM	#1 (permalink)
fishin Crazy	ANWR: To drill or not to drill? Thoughts?

10-01-2003, 09:30 AM	#5 (permalink)
onetime2 Junkie Location: NJ	I'll say do not drill. Forget about getting rid of the Hummers and Ferraris as most aren't even used that often. The person putting 60k miles a year on their Honda creates more emissions than the one putting 2k miles on their Ferrari. __________________ Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

10-01-2003, 10:11 AM	#13 (permalink)
Sparhawk Dubya Location: VA	What was that statistic Gore was repeating during the 2000 elections? Something along the lines of having all the cars in america be one percent more fuel efficient was the equivalent of 2 ANWRs. The problem is SUVs being classified as light trucks, thus allowing them by law to be as fuel -IN-efficient as they want. Change the classification and raise the standard. __________________ "In Iraq, no doubt about it, it's tough. It's hard work. It's incredibly hard. It's - and it's hard work. I understand how hard it is. I get the casualty reports every day. I see on the TV screens how hard it is. But it's necessary work. We're making progress. It is hard work."

10-01-2003, 11:06 AM	#19 (permalink)
seretogis Huggles, sir? Location: Seattle	We shouldn't need to drill there, but the option should be open if it is necessary for some reason -- it is possible to do so with minimal environmental impact. The automotive industry is taking it upon themselves to make more fuel efficient vehicles which will eventually become mainstream. They are solving the problem for us, isn't that nice? __________________ seretogis - sieg heil perfect little dream the kind that hurts the most, forgot how it feels well almost no one to blame always the same, open my eyes wake up in flames

10-01-2003, 11:19 AM	#20 (permalink)
archer2371 Sarge of Blood Gulch Red Outpost Number One Location: On the front lines against our very enemy	Actually, there is no need to drill there, it's too limited of a supply to ignore the dangerous environmental effects that drilling will have there. Superbelt, your plan to quadruple gas prices wouldn't hurt the "single rich people who drive Escalades, Ferraris and the like" why? because they are single RICH people, they will be willing to pay high gas prices to drive their toys. However, you will be hurting the working class guys who need to drive trucks to do their work (i.e. Silverados, F-150s, and the like that only get around 12-13 mpg). Granted the new engines will be more fuel efficient, but, they're not available for the consumer right now, taxing such trucks would be so unpopular that it probably wouldn't even get passed. __________________ "This ain't no Ice Cream Social!" "Hey Grif, Chupathingy...how bout that? I like it...got a ring to it." "I have no earthly idea what it is I just saw, or what this place is, or where in the hell O'Malley is! My only choice is to blame Grif for coming up with such a flawed plan. Stupid, stupid Grif."

10-01-2003, 08:58 AM	#2 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	Not to drill. Reducing consumption will help us immensely more than drilling for that 6 -18 month supply Get rid of the Hummers, the Escalades, the Ferrari's and Expeditions that single rich people drive that get less than 10 miles to the gallon. Then the problem is pretty close to being solved. Start giving government funding to renewables and alternative fuel sources for cars instead of subsidising oil companies and we can completely end our dependence on foreign oil. ANWR... Especially not the way Bush and the republican congress want it. They want to give any oil company a water liability waiver to drill in anwr. If they spill, they don't have to pay. How can they think they can pass a bill like that?

10-01-2003, 09:04 AM	#3 (permalink)
fishin Crazy	I am still formulating my thoughts on this one. However, I don't see the logic of "getting rid of the hummers." That would infringe on the rights of free people. It would be like saying, "don't let the liberals cause traffic jams by picketing about the latest trendy thing to be upset about." Conservation is definitely part of the solution. However, I think that more effort needs to be put forth by the automobile industry to develop alternative fuel sources. But in the mean time, I'll drive my SUV. I don't want to drive some weak battery operated car that can go 0 to 60 in 5 minutes.

10-01-2003, 09:29 AM	#4 (permalink)
bonbonbox Banned	Don't drill. Use the wind, the sun, the oceans, and that thing I like to call our noodle to get us off the dirty oily tit.

10-01-2003, 09:35 AM	#6 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	Driving a hummer is equivalent to just tossing gallons of gas on a fire to see it to up in smoke. Driving a Hummer is not a right. But, I probrably wouldn't ban the hummer either. I would just quadruple gas taxes. See how many hummers and escalades and navigators are sold then. People who drive a car with good gas mileage (31mpg and up), or are farm workers can keep their gas reciepts and turn them in to get a rebate on their tax that brings them down to the gas tax rate we are at right now. I think that is the PERFECT solution.

10-01-2003, 09:36 AM	#7 (permalink)
fishin Crazy	I think it is quite obvious that the number of SUVs on the road have skyrocketed (I myself now own one). A lot of this has to do with marketing and a perceived "need" of the public. It is in a way a chicken or the egg thing. SUVs, however, now seem here to stay. The idea of banning them or burning them is not possible. I think the engineering of SUVs needs to be improved without compromising function. A temporary fix may be the digging of ANWR in light of the current Middle East crisis. Perhaps in time, that source will not be as urgently necessary.

10-01-2003, 09:37 AM	#8 (permalink)
fishin Crazy	Superbelt, do you think it is a right to toss gallons of gas (and a fire) on a hummer? Just curious...

10-01-2003, 09:41 AM	#9 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	Of course not. The people who did that didn't use their brains and caused probrably more pollution with that display that those Hummers ever would. That isn't the right way to go about it. The way cali is doing it is right. They are imposing extra taxes on these polluting, low mileage behemoths. Quadrupling the federal gas tax over a period of 7 years + inflation, is the next step we need to take.

10-01-2003, 09:44 AM	#10 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	First, drilling in ANWR wouldn't even provide us with any oil for 8 years or more. It takes a long time just to set that kind of operation up. So it won't actually relieve anything. Then, the recoverable oil will not reduce our foreign dependence by more than 3%. Trust me on that, I did several debates and research papers on ANWR for my geology classes in college. That 3% is nothing. Drilling in ANWR is not a solution.

10-01-2003, 09:45 AM	#11 (permalink)
fishin Crazy	I personally don't think that is the answer. I do believe that incentives to other efficient automobiles is a good idea. However, to make it difficult financially so as to eliminate the SUV market seems wrong. Incentives, yes. Decentives (made up that word, I think), no.

10-01-2003, 09:51 AM	#12 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	Increased gas taxes is a "decentive" to buy a suv, but it is an incentive to buy a car, especially if you gain the gas tax difference back. It's how Europe fixed their transportation problems. Gas over there costs 3-4 dollars a gallon, comparably. And it is mostly tax. Most people have smaller cars that get incredible gas mileage compared to what we get here. There is nothing wrong with incentives to eliminate gas guzzlers. Now there is a ford and GM plan to convert one of their suv's (Escape for Ford) into a hybrid, but it keeps getting delayed. If we raise the gas tax there will be an instant market for this and Ford will work their asses off to get this to market. ANWR will not be a temporary fix, drilling has too much lag time.

10-01-2003, 10:13 AM	#14 (permalink)
fishin Crazy	The government should give Ford and the like the incentives to produce such automobiles. Not "decentivize" the public (basically arm twisting). Not all of us want to drive around a VW bug thing or mini-whatever.

10-01-2003, 10:17 AM	#15 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	Here's an incentive to automakers: "Double your average fuel economy for all classes in 6 years or we'll tax the holy fuck out of your vehicles" The ones that do, keep selling hunks of metal, the ones that don't, have to keep their now overly expensive rusting hulks of metal.

10-01-2003, 10:34 AM	#17 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	Then those workers start working for Toyota who has stepped up production 200% to meet demand for their cars.

10-01-2003, 10:35 AM	#18 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	But trust me, it can be achieved. It will cost the consumer a couple extra hundred dollars for the more expensive engines. Ford and GM have an engine they worked on jointly that is 8 cylinders 400 hp and gets 35 mpg. It is in show cars right now, but it should be coming to the truck market in the next year or two.

10-01-2003, 11:57 AM	#21 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	Along with the gas tax break for farm workers, include it for those whose employer requires them to drive a truck to work. SUV's especially the luxury ends like the navigators and expeditions will not be honored as necessary for work vehicles.

10-01-2003, 12:46 PM	#22 (permalink)
archer2371 Sarge of Blood Gulch Red Outpost Number One Location: On the front lines against our very enemy	I have a real problem with the government mandating what a company can and can't sell. It reeks of communism. Should there be reasonable controls? Yes. I would rather take a different approach, because this is what likely would happen, the economists in each Motor Co. presents a report to the Exec. Committee showing the benefits of producing fuel efficient cars. It is more financially beneficial for a motor company to produce these cars, companies like Toyota, Nissan, Honda, Hyundai, and Kia have shown us this. Trust me, the companies will make the change on their own without any help from the government, or they will go out of business, it's as simple as that. __________________ "This ain't no Ice Cream Social!" "Hey Grif, Chupathingy...how bout that? I like it...got a ring to it." "I have no earthly idea what it is I just saw, or what this place is, or where in the hell O'Malley is! My only choice is to blame Grif for coming up with such a flawed plan. Stupid, stupid Grif."

10-01-2003, 01:12 PM	#23 (permalink)
splck it's jam Location: Lowerainland BC	No matter how fuel efficient vehicle are the pressure to drill up there will only grow as the years pass. I just don't see the merit of exploiting the area when the risk outweighs the benefit by so much. What part of "animal refuge" don't proponents understand? __________________ nice line eh?

10-01-2003, 01:37 PM	#24 (permalink)
filtherton Junkie Location: In the land of ice and snow.	Drilling in ANWR is pointless. We should invest money in fuel efficient cars and alternative sources of energy now, because we are eventually going to be forced to anyway. I think the gas tax is a good idea, considering most americans are more about the pocketbook then being responsible. Nobody needs to drive a freakin' escalade or a hummer anyway.

10-01-2003, 04:12 PM	#25 (permalink)
BigGov WoW or Class... Location: UWW	Nobody needs to drive an Escalade? Or a Hummer? Escalade, I'll halfway buy into that arguement. But a Hummer? Those have some real useful feature for some people, but, not everyone that drives it needs it. But everyone seems to forget one thing. Mini-Vans. Lower a SUV's ground clearance, extend the cabin forward a foot and add a third row, you got a Mini-Van. So, are Mini-Van's acceptable or not? __________________ One day an Englishman, a Scotsman, and an Irishman walked into a pub together. They each bought a pint of Guinness. Just as they were about to enjoy their creamy beverage, three flies landed in each of their pints. The Englishman pushed his beer away in disgust. The Scotsman fished the fly out of his beer and continued drinking it, as if nothing had happened. The Irishman, too, picked the fly out of his drink but then held it out over the beer and yelled "SPIT IT OUT, SPIT IT OUT, YOU BASTARD!"

10-01-2003, 04:52 PM	#26 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	Mini-Van's also get about a third extra gas mileage than the average SUV. Who are Hummers useful for that you can't do with something else? And do it better.

10-01-2003, 05:00 PM	#27 (permalink)
filtherton Junkie Location: In the land of ice and snow.	Who needs a hummer, aside from the military? What huge problem in transportaton has now been solved with the advent of the consumer (read dumbed down) hummer? I think the general public was getting along just fine pre-hummer. None of the people i see driving them in my town need them. They are just a new way for fools and their money to be parted. I thought that minivans actually had to conform to some standards because they aren't classified as light trucks. Maybe i'm wrong on that,

10-01-2003, 05:03 PM	#28 (permalink)
BigGov WoW or Class... Location: UWW	What's better than a Hummer? A Land Rover, an H1, and a few others. See, there are some things you can do with a Hummer you can't do with a fuel efficient vehicle. A Civic can't tow a trailer (and anything a Civic can tow certainly doesn't qualify as a trailer), a Civic can't go off-road (well, it can, but it has a hell of a time getting back on-road), a Civic can't carry as much (throw any statistic you want at me "Oh, a hummer only has x amount more, that's almost nothing!" The real life test proves different). The only thing that absolutely blows away a Hummer in every catagory is, you guessed it, another Hummer, namely the H1, or Hum-Vee. Now, as for Mini-Van's getting 1/3 better gas milage, that's because A) Most mini-van engines are signigantly smaller than the average SUV's and B) 1/3 of an SUV's gas milage isn't that big, say 5 MPG. So, you upgrade the engine of the van, and you have an unversitile SUV. __________________ One day an Englishman, a Scotsman, and an Irishman walked into a pub together. They each bought a pint of Guinness. Just as they were about to enjoy their creamy beverage, three flies landed in each of their pints. The Englishman pushed his beer away in disgust. The Scotsman fished the fly out of his beer and continued drinking it, as if nothing had happened. The Irishman, too, picked the fly out of his drink but then held it out over the beer and yelled "SPIT IT OUT, SPIT IT OUT, YOU BASTARD!"

10-01-2003, 06:51 PM	#30 (permalink)
BigGov WoW or Class... Location: UWW	See, that's the problem though. Many people don't use SUV's to their full capability, but some do. (Particularly where I live because people like to spend money on stuff they will use) Why should people in Wisconsin be punished for rich jackasses in California and in big cities that we don't care about in the first place? __________________ One day an Englishman, a Scotsman, and an Irishman walked into a pub together. They each bought a pint of Guinness. Just as they were about to enjoy their creamy beverage, three flies landed in each of their pints. The Englishman pushed his beer away in disgust. The Scotsman fished the fly out of his beer and continued drinking it, as if nothing had happened. The Irishman, too, picked the fly out of his drink but then held it out over the beer and yelled "SPIT IT OUT, SPIT IT OUT, YOU BASTARD!"

10-04-2003, 01:18 PM	#31 (permalink)
filtherton Junkie Location: In the land of ice and snow.	Nobody in wisconsin needlessly drives a truck or suv? What does brett farve drive? Bet it is a big ass truck like every other player in the NFL. You could be punished for the rich jackasses in your very own wisconsin. Besides, a gas tax would likely have exemptions for people who actually use their big trucks for what they were intended.

10-04-2003, 04:02 PM	#32 (permalink)
dimbulb Riiiiight........	I believe in taxation on gas and high mileage vehicles. This is to pass onto consumers and corporations the true cost of having a fuel guzzling behemoth. Being overly dependent on foreign oil leaves the country vulnerable, it pollutes the environment that we all share, it contributes to global warming etc etc..... time for the people who pollute to pay the true cost. This is also fairer to people who own gas guzzling vehicles like Ferraris or older show cars. If you don't drive it, you won't pollute, and you won't be taxed as much. If you are a farmer, or whoever needs it for your work, then you get taxed as well. You're polluting the environment just as much as the average joe in his SUV. No exemptions, no exclusions. Everyone should pay if they pollute. Nothing hits home like the bottom line. And the day that big corporations demand fuel efficient commercial vehicles to save on their fuel taxes, is the day the car companies will pay attention.

10-05-2003, 12:24 PM	#33 (permalink)
Kurant Junkie Location: Don't worry about it.	It doesn't matter if they use it, or don't use it. When the goverment steps up, and puts stricter regulations on engines and emissions then you people can have somthing to bitch about. Mocking someone because they are buying a truck, simply for the fact they don't NEED one, is completely ignorant. Maybe you should point fingers at the goverment, or car manufactures for building these non-enviroment friendly cars, instead of pointing at the people because a constitutional right gives them the ability to be free, and buy whatever vehicle they want. I'm an Alaskan, and if any of you knew 1/10th of the politics involved, or seen what that part of the State of Alaska consists of, maybe your opinion would dramatically changed. How can people that don't live here, or know the first thing about it, comment on it. I hunt in ANWR every year in the Brooks Range, I spend 28 days up there a year. I've seen what it looks like and what is there. You can sit here all day and criticize about it, but until you see it, your just as ignorant as the rest. I'm all for it. Drill away.

10-05-2003, 03:27 PM	#34 (permalink)
redravin40 Loser Location: With Jadzia	Before we assume that all Alaskans want to drill, I can say that the feelings here are as mixed as they are in the states. Having been involved in the oil spill cleanup from the Exxon Valdez. I can say that there are many people who are not interested in seeing that happen to ANWR.

10-05-2003, 05:03 PM	#37 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	You wanna know 1/10 of the politics of drilling in Alaska? Alaskans survive on corporate welfare. Without it, that state would be a barren wasteland from west shore to eastern border. Alaskans don't pay much in taxes. There is no state income tax because the oil revenues pay for almost all state functions. Additionally every Alaskan gets a yearly check for their portion of the oil revenues. Drill in ANWR and every alaskan becomes a little bit richer. That's the bare bones of it. My fiancee has a cousin who moved to Alaska. He works part-time as a pizza delivery boy and crashes at a friends house. He writes back home complaining about how the democrats suck for trying to stop this because it's hard enough to survive in Alaska as it is. Fuck em, if you can't survive without oil revenues that you didn't earn. It's just welfare. We don't need to support a welfare state on the back of environmental degradation. Last edited by Superbelt; 10-05-2003 at 05:05 PM..

10-06-2003, 06:51 AM	#39 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	I wasn't generalizing. I was telling you what another alaskan reacts to and how he lives up there. And tell me how my generalizations about the welfare state that is Alaska is incorrect. There is no income tax, oil revenues take care of that. Much of what is left from the oil revenues are divided up amongst the residents. Drilling in ANWR would make revenues increase, putting more money into every Alaskans pocket. But it's money most didn't earn, they are enriched by residency. How is that an ignorant generalization?

10-06-2003, 06:58 AM	#40 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	FYI: It's called the PFD check. Permanent Fund Divident Look it up, you'll see some stupid shit. 2002's check to every Alaskan was $1540.76