How much have the Democrats cost you at the pump?

[Peikko 1,575]

Why not kill the US poor along the way? Oh, right that would happen anyway as it's mostly the poorer sections of society that end up as foot soldiers.

[mawilson 2,133]

Why not kill the US poor along the way? Oh, right that would happen anyway as it's mostly the poorer sections of society that end up as foot soldiers.

I like the way your mind works.

[HAL 9000 96]

You mean 5% of the world population consuming 25% of the planet's resources doesn't seem a little odd to you?

No, 25% is the right amount of resources for us. The problem is the fact that we're only 5% -

we need to work on reducing the world's population by about 3 billion people - through war,

famine, disease and any other means necessary.

Nice joke. 25% is the 'right' amount for our 5%, and its precisely why we are major contributors to the energy imbalance currently afflicting our pocketbooks. Since common sense doesn't work on many folks here, perhaps some forward-thinking econ will.

[GaryC 7]

That's just bizarre Gary. You would rather obsess over a metaphor than consider the implications of the headlong consumption of non renewables.

Words mean things PH. His choice was interesting. I think it says something of his opinion of our country.

[HAL 9000 96]

That's just bizarre Gary. You would rather obsess over a metaphor than consider the implications of the headlong consumption of non renewables.

Words mean things PH. His choice was interesting. I think it says something of his opinion of our country.

And I asked you, what do those words mean, genius?

Other than the obvious, of course... we are overconsuming our lot, and its having bad side effects at all levels.

[GaryC 7]

That's just bizarre Gary. You would rather obsess over a metaphor than consider the implications of the headlong consumption of non renewables.

Words mean things PH. His choice was interesting. I think it says something of his opinion of our country.

And I asked you, what do those words mean, genius?

Other than the obvious, of course... we are overconsuming our lot, and its having bad side effects at all levels.

You can say we are over consuming if you like. That may be a valid point. But to call us leaches does say something about your opinion of us.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

The facts about Drilling in ANWR

1. The USGS estimates that between 4 and 16 billion barrels of recoverable oil exists in ANWR. These are the official US government figures not from the Sierra Club or Wilderness Society

2. Americans consume 20 million barrels every day or 7.3 billion barrels per year thus the oil that exists in ANWR will only last us from one half to two years at current rates of consumption.

3. Only 1 million barrels per day can be delivered through the Alaskan oil pipeline. This means that we can supply 5% of our oil use for the next 11 to 44 years at current rates of consumption. American oil consumption is expected to increase by 50% in the next 20 years due to increases in both population and per-capita consumption, thus it is likely that under the best case scenario, in 30-40 years the maximum we could get from Alaskan oil supplies is 1-2% of consumption.

4. While any amount will help, drilling in ANWR will not solve any of our oil consumption problems. For instance, we currently import 60% of our oil. Drilling in ANWR would allow us to reduce that amount to 55%, but in less than 5 years it will be back to 60% as our consumption increases, and domestic production decreases.

http://millermountainllc.com/ANWR.htm

[mawilson 2,133]

Other than the obvious, of course... we are overconsuming our lot, and its having bad side effects at all levels.

Dude, there's no such thing as "overconsumption". We don't have a "lot" allocated to us.

Money talks - we consume whatever we can afford. If it becomes too expensive to drive,

people will stop driving and find other ways of getting to work - it's as simple as that.

[Sister Fracas 5]

You can say we are over consuming if you like. That may be a valid point. But to call us leaches does say something about your opinion of us.

I don't think he counts himself out of that description since he doesn't make more energy than he uses...

Edited May 23, 2008 by Sister Fracas

[HAL 9000 96]

That's just bizarre Gary. You would rather obsess over a metaphor than consider the implications of the headlong consumption of non renewables.

Words mean things PH. His choice was interesting. I think it says something of his opinion of our country.

And I asked you, what do those words mean, genius?

Other than the obvious, of course... we are overconsuming our lot, and its having bad side effects at all levels.

You can say we are over consuming if you like. That may be a valid point. But to call us leaches does say something about your opinion of us.

Simple math, Gary-

5% of any population consuming 25% of its habitat's resources means that 95% of the rest of the population will have to contend with 75% of the resources. That makes the 5% pretty much a leech population. If that offends you then perhaps you should be doing something to act more consonant with what you need to consume instead of overdoing it.

And of course, it is a bad metaphor. A leech can only suck until its saturated. Far less than the 5% to 25% ratio.

[Peikko 1,575]

I don't think you are right on this one Gary. The metaphor applies to the economics of the US, the excessive consumption compared to the size of the population. It is not sustainable as it stands - well, not in the way it's done now.

[HAL 9000 96]

Other than the obvious, of course... we are overconsuming our lot, and its having bad side effects at all levels.

Dude, there's no such thing as "overconsumption". We don't have a "lot" allocated to us.

Money talks - we consume whatever we can afford. If it becomes too expensive to drive,

people will stop driving and find other ways of getting to work - it's as simple as that.

And we haven't hit that threshold yet. That doesn't stop some of us from being preemptive though.

Overconsumption in relation to what the planet has to offer. Its common sense that there is one concept called necessity and we on average are well above that as a population.

[GaryC 7]

That's just bizarre Gary. You would rather obsess over a metaphor than consider the implications of the headlong consumption of non renewables.

Words mean things PH. His choice was interesting. I think it says something of his opinion of our country.

And I asked you, what do those words mean, genius?

Other than the obvious, of course... we are overconsuming our lot, and its having bad side effects at all levels.

You can say we are over consuming if you like. That may be a valid point. But to call us leaches does say something about your opinion of us.

Simple math, Gary-

5% of any population consuming 25% of its habitat's resources means that 95% of the rest of the population will have to contend with 75% of the resources. That makes the 5% pretty much a leech population. If that offends you then perhaps you should be doing something to act more consonant with what you need to consume instead of overdoing it.

And of course, it is a bad metaphor. A leech can only suck until its saturated. Far less than the 5% to 25% ratio.

Tell you what Mav, set an example for all of us. Give up your car, central heat, air conditioning, move into a studio apartment, give up your TV, give up your computer, grow all your own food and then come back and pass judgment on the rest of us.

[mawilson 2,133]

5% of any population consuming 25% of its habitat's resources means that 95% of the rest of the population will have to contend with 75% of the resources. That makes the 5% pretty much a leech population. If that offends you then perhaps you should be doing something to act more consonant with what you need to consume instead of overdoing it.

And of course, it is a bad metaphor. A leech can only suck until its saturated. Far less than the 5% to 25% ratio.

Doesn't mean sh!t, mavi.

We "overconsume" because we "overearn" - the average per capita income in the third world

is less than $1000 dollars a year, which is about what the average American makes per week.

[Peikko 1,575]

Gary, that is just silly. One person can only make so much of a difference and that difference can be easily negated by another's lack of concern. The only way one can change things like this is to do so at govermental level. Of course you can just allow survival of the fittest to take sway because that is what it will come down to if as a country the US doesn't shift its economic model.

Edited May 23, 2008 by Purple_Hibiscus