Gas prices rise another 2.5 cents per gallon

[Winnow]

High gas prices will definately cut down on new SUV purchases.

I'm more worried about the price of everything else due to transportation costs right down to the pizza delivery. Sucks. This issue ranks high on my agenda for the next elections but I doubt it would matter who gets elected. (negativity!)

Someone convince me Kerry would make a difference! Be sure to tell me how he will be able to ignore big oil unlike every other demo or rep president hasn't been able to do.

[Lalanae]

Someone convince me Kerry would make a difference! Be sure to tell me how he will be able to ignore big oil unlike every other demo or rep president hasn't been able to do.

I suppose you will vote for Bush because no one can prove that Kerry will do a better job, is that right?

Do you realize that is the same logic people use when they say "Prove to me God doesn't exist?" Instead of basing your decisions on what you CAN prove, you are basing them on what cannot be proved: the nonexistence of something.

[Winnow]

Someone convince me Kerry would make a difference! Be sure to tell me how he will be able to ignore big oil unlike every other demo or rep president hasn't been able to do.

I suppose you will vote for Bush because no one can prove that Kerry will do a better job, is that right?

Do you realize that is the same logic people use when they say "Prove to me God doesn't exist?" Instead of basing your decisions on what you CAN prove, you are basing them on what cannot be proved: the nonexistence of something.

Nay, there's a difference between Kerry saying, "Gas prices suck. We need to change things." and, "Gas prices suck. I'm going to do this, this, this and this to lower the price of oil, clean up the environment and make alternative fuels and transportation a priority. Here's how I'm going to do it...."

[Lalanae]

Someone convince me Kerry would make a difference! Be sure to tell me how he will be able to ignore big oil unlike every other demo or rep president hasn't been able to do.

I suppose you will vote for Bush because no one can prove that Kerry will do a better job, is that right?

Do you realize that is the same logic people use when they say "Prove to me God doesn't exist?" Instead of basing your decisions on what you CAN prove, you are basing them on what cannot be proved: the nonexistence of something.

Nay, there's a difference between Kerry saying, "Gas prices suck. We need to change things." and, "Gas prices suck. I'm going to do this, this, this and this to lower the price of oil, clean up the environment and make alternative fuels and transportation a priority. Here's how I'm going to do it...."

I was speaking about your approach in general. Its not the first time you've said "Prove to me that Kerry will be better!" as a response.

Still, I don't see how you can justify supporting Bush just because Kerry hasn't unveiled all his plans for office. Bush's track record vs. the unknown: I know which place I feel more comfortable in. Kerry could say that he plans to lower gas prices by subsidizing camel trasportation and I'll still skip to the ballot box with Kerry on the brain. After all, could it be any more fucked up than what Bush is doing?

no

[Winnow]

I was speaking about your approach in general. Its not the first time you've said "Prove to me that Kerry will be better!" as a response.

Still, I don't see how you can justify supporting Bush just because Kerry hasn't unveiled all his plans for office. Bush's track record vs. the unknown: I know which place I feel more comfortable in. Kerry could say that he plans to lower gas prices by subsidizing camel trasportation and I'll still skip to the ballot box with Kerry on the brain. After all, could it be any more fucked up than what Bush is doing?

no

Call me a skeptic when it comes to politicians.

Try this analogy out. Compare the presidency to an apartment you lease with a forced lease renewal every four years. You like your apartment but it has some things that could use fixing. For example, the fucking shower leaks but it really doesn't affect you but your neighbors below (mexico) are stuck with crappy water oozing into their apartment (colorado river). On the other hand, the residents above you (canada) keep stealing your cable (American culture) and and play loud music sometimes (Paul Anka) but they really aren't that bad because you can always borrow cooking ingredients from them from time to time when you run out (take their natural resources as payment for stealing your culture). Your carpet sucks because your dog pissed and shit all over it and a bottle of red wine was spilled on it (self caused problems)

So you're coming up on the end of your lease and the apartment complex around the corner is promising apartments with new carpeting and leakproof showers. At first glance, it sounds good...afterall, those are two things that could use improvement in your current abode. You sign the lease with the new apartment because it can't be any worse than what you have now plus you get new carpeting and a leakproof shower right?

So you move into your new apartment and...wham!....the toilet backs up and shit and piss flood all over the place (but doesn't leak to your neighbors below at least), the neighbors above you are still loud and steal your cable but they won't give you sugar like your old neighbors.

So what happened? You did get some nice new things and fixes but now your apartment is full of shit and piss and has ruined that great new carpet anyway and your cable is still being stolen but you aren't getting anything back in return for it. The only people that win are your downstairs neigbors (mexicans) as you stopped leaking on them and your new leak problem is contained in your own home.

All I'm saying is that the new promises are nice, but I'd want to get more details and check out everthing about the apartment and check the plumbing before signing the lease as along with imrpovements can come new problems which may screw up some of those new improvements.

[Dregor Thule]

You know what, forget it, analogies are stupid. It's your country, if you enjoy it being regarded as shit to the rest of the world while you're enduring shit at home as well, then hey, vote Bush. If the past 4 years hasn't been an example of why he's a bad choice, then you're beyond hope anyways.

[Winnow]

You know what, forget it, analogies are stupid. It's your country, if you enjoy it being regarded as shit to the rest of the world while you're enduring shit at home as well, then hey, vote Bush. If the past 4 years hasn't been an example of why he's a bad choice, then you're beyond hope anyways.

I don't see why Kerry spends a dime on his campaign besides maybe taking out a full page ad in USA Today the Friday before the election with the phrase,

"Bush sucks. Vote Kerry"

I can see why people that really don't care about specifics would want Kerry as he likes to vote on both sides of issues. On second thought...that's a brilliant strategy.

I actually heard him interviewed by a local radio station last week here in Phoenix. Yes, he was wishy washing..."I don't approve of this...but on the other hand we may have to do this..." He was asked about illegal immigrants and gun control among other things. After the interview, I still don't know what his position is. Ah, OK....here's the presidency Kerry...I have no clue what you're going to do ...but Bush sucks!

That may work for you but I'm not voting for someone just for the hell of it. Maybe closer to the election he'll actually say something solid although you guys would vote for Mr Hanky the Christmas Poo if that were the candidate because "Bush sucks!"

[Vetiria]

And what does Bush believe in? What's going to happen (besides the draft) in his second term in office?

[Winnow]

And what does Bush believe in? What's going to happen (besides the draft) in his second term in office?

And what does Kerry believe in?

And what does Bush believe in? What's going to happen (besides the draft) in his second term in office?

And what does Kerry believe in?

And what does Bush believe in? What's going to happen (besides the draft) in his second term in office?

And what does Kerry believe in?

[Deward]

Bush, Kerry, we're fucked either way. I will vote Libertarian with a clear conscience.

[Vetiria]

How about answering the question. What is Bush going to do in his second term? I've heard more from Kerry on his health care plan alone than I've heard from Bush on anything.

Edit: I'm seriously interested. I just went to Bush's website and there is nothing there about what he's going to do in his 2nd term. It just lists everything he's failed at in his first term.

[Arborealus]

How about answering the question. What is Bush going to do in his second term? I've heard more from Kerry on his health care plan alone than I've heard from Bush on anything.

Edit: I'm seriously interested. I just went to Bush's website and there is nothing there about what he's going to do in his 2nd term. It just lists everything he's failed at in his first term.

Well when the depression hits, he will declare martial law and I will disappear quietly in the night...

[Lalanae]

so winnow, with your logic, you would stay in the apartment because there is a chance things could be no better and a slimmer chance that they could be worse.

Pardon me, but that lacks common sense. Common sense dictates that if something is broke, fix it or continue to suffer. Fixing things sometimes involves risk, but the risk is usually small.

If someone has proven they are incapable of a decent job, especially when compared to others who have occupyed that position and have NOT made a mockery of it, you don't just sit back and say well I'll keep them around because ya never know, it could be worse if I did something about it. I find that to be a defeatist attitude.

[Winnow]

Pardon me, but that lacks common sense. Common sense dictates that if something is broke, fix it or continue to suffer. Fixing things sometimes involves risk, but the risk is usually small.

One possibility is staying where you are and fixing the current problems. Fix that leaky shower and buy or rent a steam cleaner for the carpet!

[Vetiria]

But you don't have any money to fix any of that because you just took 3 paycuts and spent $250 billion on killing ants that weren't bothering anyone.

[Sueven]

Hey look guys, Winnow has again succeeded in posting a bunch of worthless shit to distract us from his continued failure to construct an actual argument!

[Truant]

Pardon me, but that lacks common sense. Common sense dictates that if something is broke, fix it or continue to suffer. Fixing things sometimes involves risk, but the risk is usually small.

One possibility is staying where you are and fixing the current problems. Fix that leaky shower and buy or rent a steam cleaner for the carpet!

Please explain to us how you are going to fix Bush. Because that's what your rediculous analogy has now led to.

Explain, please.

[noel]

Winnow,

I see your point. I think it's a good and valid point, despite:

A) the way you're presenting it

and

B) the reaction it's getting

As such, I want to clarify my position for you. I will vote for whichever candidate seems most likely to:

A) Have a chance to win the election - This means, no Liberatarian, no green party, no third party crap. My vote will go to a legitimate contender to beat Bush in an the next election.

B) Get our troops out of Iraq in the most expedient manner possible, and begin to recover our world image. - I don't believe that the Bush administration is in any rush to get us out of Iraq, and I don't feel we're doing any additional good there. I'm certainly not willing to give them four more years to prove me wrong.

Since Kerry seems to meet those two requirements, I'll be voting for Kerry.

Kerry might fuck up the economy, fuck up any other number of things, but I'm willing to accept that and live with that if it means our troops get to come home sooner, and our image to the world has a chance of improving. I don't expect everything to be perfect, but I feel that our involvement in the international community, specifically Iraq, but the rest of the world as well, has no chance to improve in any way with Bush continuing to hold office. As such, I'll be voting for Kerry. I'm a registered Republican, and I voted for Bush in the last election. I've voted Republican in the '92, '96, and '00 elections. It's not an issue of partisanship as I hate the fiscal irresponsibility of the Democrats. It's entirely what I think is best for our country at this time.

[Winnow]

Kerry might fuck up the economy, fuck up any other number of things, but I'm willing to accept that and live with that if it means our troops get to come home sooner, and our image to the world has a chance of improving.

Yep, it's all about priorities and what's most important to you. My analogy is just a basic example and doesn't relate exactly to the president or candidates.

I'm tired of seeing baseless cheerleading for Kerry just because Bush sucks in their mind. I'll be taking a look at all the issues and most likely will end up voting for Kerry but not before more detailed investigation.

I'm not blind and can see Bush hasn't done a great job.

[masteen]

The problem I see with the "get our troops home ASAP, no matter what the consequences" is that we'll just have to go back there in another 10 years to clean up the mess we leave behind.

We must finish what we've started. If Kerry came out and gave ANY indication that he has a clear concept of the issues we're facing over there other than the blatantly obvious facts that those people don't like us and keep shooting at out troops, I'd seriously consider him.

OTOH, if Bush and company keep ignoring the advice of every military commander and keep dragging this shit out over the next 6 months, perhaps any change would be for the better. I guess we'll have to see exactly how pigheaded Rummy and co. truly are.

We also still have Afghanistan to deal with. I know it's not a big issue for the talking heads, but it's fucking important to the stability of the entire southwest Asia region.

[Arborealus]

We also still have Afghanistan to deal with. I know it's not a big issue for the talking heads, but it's fucking important to the stability of the entire southwest Asia region.

I gotta call bullshit there...Not that we shouldn't finish up what we started there on principle...We definitely should...But Afghanistan's stability has never been a critical state in terms of asia's stability...Though general goodwill there would be nice in terms of chilling terrorism...

[Kylere]

You know I hate to be Cassandra here, but some of you need to face some facts;

Regardless of who wins the next election....
- we will never again see a day without a moderate deployment of troops to the middle east ( moderate defined as 30k plus personnel, counting naval)
- gas prices will continue to rise
- the environment will get worse
- kids will be shooting each other in elementary schools
- Kyoukan will just switch to blaming the Republican legislature or the republican president or both, or blaming the repblican minority in either house, since that is easier than actual debate
- the US will slide deeper into a more fascist, less open society
- the world will still hate the US

[Zaelath]

You know I hate to be Cassandra here, but some of you need to face some facts;

Regardless of who wins the next election....
- we will never again see a day without a moderate deployment of troops to the middle east ( moderate defined as 30k plus personnel, counting naval)
- gas prices will continue to rise
- the environment will get worse
- kids will be shooting each other in elementary schools
- Kyoukan will just switch to blaming the Republican legislature or the republican president or both, or blaming the repblican minority in either house, since that is easier than actual debate
- the US will slide deeper into a more fascist, less open society
- the world will still hate the US

Hrmm, I think your first and last points are inextricably linked..

The environment will only continue to get worse in that humans will continue to make the world less habitable for themselves. The environment will recover pretty rapidly once we're gone.

Kids shoot each other in elementary schools now where you have a mixture of guns and retarded parents.

At least if the US slides into a facist society it will be more honest than the current fallacy of a utopian democratic ideal.

[Kylere]

Actually Zaelath they are not linked, before we deployed to Iraq most of the middle east hated the US, before the drooling idiots we call reservists brought great shame on the uniform, the middle east hated the US. Before the first Gulf War the middle east hated the US. Before the hostages were taken and held in Iran, the middle east hated the US, before the formation of Israel the middle east hated the US. Before the formation of the US, the middle east hated Christians ( and I for one do not blame them).

People love to hate 'The Man" it is simpler than actually fixing the local situation which is another reason humanity will keep slapping itself down.

[Cartalas]

Holy Shit I fell for it Hook,line and sinker!!!! I found myself filling up this morning thinking "well at least its under $2"

[Chmee]

You know I hate to be Cassandra here, but some of you need to face some facts;

I have disagreements with some of your facts.

Regardless of who wins the next election....
- we will never again see a day without a moderate deployment of troops to the middle east ( moderate defined as 30k plus personnel, counting naval)

We will likely have a somewhat signficant presence there for some time yes. Not so sure if this will be true in 10-20 years (it could be, but I don't think it is a certainty).

- gas prices will continue to rise

Certainly Possible. I think the most likely probability though is that over time, the inflation adjusted price of gas will decrease.

- the environment will get worse

The environment will most likely get better, just like it has for the last 30 or so years. Certainly pollution may get worse for a time in various developing countries as they modernize. Generally speaking though as societies get wealthy enough so that they can afford to while still providing a decent standard of living, they will work to improve the environment.

- kids will be shooting each other in elementary schools

Probably. When you are talking about millions of kids the likelhood of something like this happening is significant enough that it probably won't disappear anytime in the foreseeable future.

- Kyoukan will just switch to blaming the Republican legislature or the republican president or both, or blaming the repblican minority in either house, since that is easier than actual debate

Don't know what arguments Kyoukan is likely to make and not going to hazard a guess.

- the US will slide deeper into a more fascist, less open society

Although I certainly am concerned about the loss of various freedoms, and the state's tendency to get larger, I don't think this is a given. I think that there will likely be some losses in some areas and gains in some others.

- the world will still hate the US

I don't really think that "the world" has one opinion about anything. Undoubtably some will hate us. Some won't.

[Kylere]

Chmee if you want to take the single most optimistic viewpoint and hold it deep in your heart to gain comfort, I encourage you to do so. I honestly wish I could blind my eyes to reality enough to be able to be a full optimist, or even to cross the line the other way and be a complete pessimist. But once you have accepted reality there is no going back.

I hope you are right, I want with all of my mind, heart and soul for you to be entirely right and for me to be entirely wrong.

But in the end, you are wrong.

[Kelshara]

The environment will most likely get better, just like it has for the last 30 or so years.

Erh it has gotten better over the last 30 years?

[Syenye Squirrellyelf]

- gas prices will continue to rise

it's been predicted that they'll peak early next month then fall back to where they are now and stabilize there for a bit. i can see prices falling when the price of steel goes back down.

[Chmee]

Chmee if you want to take the single most optimistic viewpoint and hold it deep in your heart to gain comfort, I encourage you to do so. I honestly wish I could blind my eyes to reality enough to be able to be a full optimist, or even to cross the line the other way and be a complete pessimist. But once you have accepted reality there is no going back.

I hope you are right, I want with all of my mind, heart and soul for you to be entirely right and for me to be entirely wrong.

But in the end, you are wrong.

Single most optimistic viewpoint? Mostly I am arguing for a continuance of trend.

[Kylere]

- gas prices will continue to rise

it's been predicted that they'll peak early next month then fall back to where they are now and stabilize there for a bit. i can see prices falling when the price of steel goes back down.

Yes but you will not see it hit $1.75 or less ever, get comfortable, and it is economically realistic that it will be 3.00 a gallon by 2006, and 5 a gallon by 2010.

You are ignoring history, even flowers become worth more in a shortage and their is a finite supply of oil. A "price drop" that never returns to the original costs is not a price drop. In 1996 I bought gas at 96 cents a gallon, for every 20 cent hike since then we have only gotten a 10 cent cut coming back, and it happened under Saint Clinton, just as it has under Devil Bush. Or Saitn Bush, Devil Clinton as you believe.

[Chmee]

The environment will most likely get better, just like it has for the last 30 or so years.

Erh it has gotten better over the last 30 years?

Yep, its gotten better.

http://reason.com/rauch/00_04_29.shtml

Cheer up, environmentalists. You have one of the great American success stories to tell. In June 1969, the Cuyahoga River in Cleveland caught fire (not for the first time); that river burns no longer, and the Environmental Protection Agency estimates that the proportion of major lakes, rivers, and streams that are safe for fishing and swimming has doubled since 1970 to about 70 percent. Today the only toxic thing about the Potomac River is the view of Rosslyn, Va.

Aggregate emissions of all the major air pollutants are way down since 1970, even though the population has grown by almost a third and vehicle-miles and gross domestic product have more than doubled. Sulfur dioxides and carbon monoxide are down by two-thirds, nitrogen oxides by almost 40 percent, ozone by 30 percent; lead is effectively banished. In the cities, unhealthy-air days are down by more than half, just since 1988. Releases of toxic materials into the environment have declined 42 percent since then; soil erosion falls by about 40 million tons a year; on and on.

http://reason.com/0005/fe.rb.earth.shtml

In January 1970, Life reported, "Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support...the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution...by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half...." Ecologist Kenneth Watt told Time that, "At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it's only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable." Barry Commoner cited a National Research Council report that had estimated "that by 1980 the oxygen demand due to municipal wastes will equal the oxygen content of the total flow of all the U.S. river systems in the summer months." Translation: Decaying organic pollutants would use up all of the oxygen in America's rivers, causing freshwater fish to suffocate.

Of course, the irrepressible Ehrlich chimed in, predicting in his Mademoiselle interview that "air pollution...is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone." In Ramparts, Ehrlich sketched a scenario in which 200,000 Americans would die in 1973 during "smog disasters" in New York and Los Angeles.

So has air pollution gotten worse? Quite the contrary. In the most recent National Air Quality Trends report, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency--itself created three decades ago partly as a response to Earth Day celebrations--had this to say: "Since 1970, total U.S. population increased 29 percent, vehicle miles traveled increased 121 percent, and the gross domestic product (GDP) increased 104 percent. During that same period, notable reductions in air quality concentrations and emissions took place." Since 1970, ambient levels of sulfur dioxide and carbon monoxide have fallen by 75 percent, while total suspended particulates like smoke, soot, and dust have been cut by 50 percent since the 1950s.

In 1988, the particulate standard was changed to account for smaller particles. Even under this tougher standard, particulates have declined an additional 15 percent. Ambient ozone and nitrogen dioxide, prime constituents of smog, are both down by 30 percent since the 1970s. According to the EPA, the total number of days with air pollution alerts dropped 56 percent in Southern California and 66 percent in the remaining major cities in the United States between 1988 and 1997. Since at least the early 1990s, residents of infamously smogged-in Los Angeles have been able to see that their city is surrounded by mountains.

It is now evident that countries undergo various environmental transitions as they become wealthier. Fortune's special "ecology" edition in February 1970 was far more prescient than the doomsters when it noted, "If pollution is the brother of affluence, concern about pollution is affluence's child." In 1992, a World Bank analysis found that concentrations of particulates and sulfur dioxide peak at per capita incomes of $3,280 and $3,670, respectively. Once these income thresholds are crossed, societies start to purchase increased environmental amenities such as clean air and water.

In the U.S., air quality has been improving rapidly since before the first Earth Day--and before the federal Clean Air Act of 1970. In fact, ambient levels of particulates and sulfur dioxide have been declining ever since accurate records have been kept. Between 1960 and 1970, for instance, particulates declined by 25 percent; sulfur dioxide decreased by 35 percent between 1962 and 1970. More concretely, it takes 20 new cars to produce the same emissions that one car produced in the 1960s.

Similar trends can be found when it comes to water pollution. The warning sign is gone from the Potomac and I can swim and fish in that river again. Lake Erie once again supports a $600 million fishing industry, and an upscale shopping and entertainment district now lines the Cuyahoga River in Cleveland. The EPA estimates that between 60 percent and 70 percent of lakes, rivers, and streams meet state quality goals. That's up from about 30 percent to 40 percent 30 years ago.

"We are prospecting for the very last of our resources and using up the nonrenewable things many times faster than we are finding new ones," warned Sierra Club director Martin Litton in Time's February 2, 1970, special "environmental report." Ecologist Kenneth Watt declared, "By the year 2000, if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate...that there won't be any more crude oil. You'll drive up to the pump and say, `Fill 'er up, buddy,' and he'll say, `I am very sorry, there isn't any.'" Later that year, Harrison Brown, a scientist at the National Academy of Sciences, published a chart in Scientific American that looked at metal reserves and estimated the humanity would totally run out of copper shortly after 2000. Lead, zinc, tin, gold, and silver would be gone before 1990.

Of course this didn't happen. The prices of all metals and minerals have dropped by more than 50 percent since 1970, according to the World Resources Institute. As we all know, lower prices mean that things are becoming more abundant, not less. The U.S. Geological Survey estimates that at present rates of mining, reserves of copper will last 54 years; zinc, 56 years; silver, 26 years; tin, 55 years; gold, 30 years; and lead, 47 years. What about oil? The survey estimates that global reserves could be as much as 2.1 trillion barrels of crude oil--enough to supply the world for the next 90 years. These reserve figures are constantly moving targets--as they get drawn down, miners and drillers find new sources of supply or develop more efficient technologies for exploiting the resources.

Worries about declining biodiversity have become popular lately. On the first Earth Day, participants were concerned about saving a few particularly charismatic species such as the bald eagle and the peregrine falcon. But even then some foresaw a coming holocaust. As Sen. Gaylord Nelson wrote in Look, "Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, secretary of the Smithsonian Institute, believes that in 25 years, somewhere between 75 and 80 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct." Writing just five years after the first Earth Day, Paul Ehrlich and his biologist wife, Anne Ehrlich, predicted that "since more than nine-tenths of the original tropical rainforests will be removed in most areas within the next 30 years or so, it is expected that half of the organisms in these areas will vanish with it."

There's only one problem: Most species that were alive in 1970 are still around today. "Documented animal extinctions peaked in the 1930s, and the number of extinctions has been declining since then," according to Stephen Edwards, an ecologist with the World Conservation Union, a leading international conservation organization whose members are non-governmental organizations, international agencies, and national conservation agencies. Edwards notes that a 1994 World Conservation Union report found known extinctions since 1600 encompassed 258 animal species, 368 insect species, and 384 vascular plants. Most of these species, he explains, were "island endemics" like the Dodo. As a result, they are particularly vulnerable to habitat disruption, hunting, and competition from invading species. Since 1973, only seven species have gone extinct in the United States.

[Kelshara]

Funny, I bet the ozone layer would disagree with you. Oh wait, Bush claims there isn't a problem with that..

[Kylere]

Chmee, it does not matter how things improve in one country. The environment is global and it is being polluted all over the planet.

Of course environmental collapse is one of the least of our problems I do agree that far.

[Chmee]

Chmee, it does not matter how things improve in one country. The environment is global and it is being polluted all over the planet.

Of course environmental collapse is one of the least of our problems I do agree that far.

A piece of text I had quoted above ...

It is now evident that countries undergo various environmental transitions as they become wealthier. Fortune's special "ecology" edition in February 1970 was far more prescient than the doomsters when it noted, "If pollution is the brother of affluence, concern about pollution is affluence's child." In 1992, a World Bank analysis found that concentrations of particulates and sulfur dioxide peak at per capita incomes of $3,280 and $3,670, respectively. Once these income thresholds are crossed, societies start to purchase increased environmental amenities such as clean air and water.

As I mentioned before, as countries develop, they will typically go through a phase where pollution does increase. Nothing suprising, when poor enough things like sufficient food, shelter, clothing, basic medicine etc. are typically valued more. As countries do get wealthier though, people like a clean environment, and will typically use some of that wealth to achieve it. So worldwide there will be fluctuations as countries develop, but overall I still contend that the general long term trend will be positive.

[Kylere]

Okay Chmee you have convinced me, I will not worry about the environment until the wars brought on by lack of cheap energy leaves rotting corpses all over the place, some covered in radiactive materials with a half life of 2000 years, others starved from lack of food since without gas for the tractors, or petrochemicals for the fertilizers we cannot feed everyone regardless of the environment.

Do I think all the oil goes away tomorrow or even in 100 years? nope, but I think once it drops below the ability to meet demand it will double in price, and then people will start to starve within the next 50 years.

[Cartalas]

And then we see this

[Lynks]

As of yesterday, we're paying 96.9c/L in my town. Thats about 2.75$/Gallon in the US.

[Kylere]

No news to me Lynks I spent a fourth of my life in Europe, and the rest near to Canada. Canada just like Europe has a more socialized form of government and as such you have higher tax burdens.

Comparing the two costs is impossible, since both sides are paying the same price for a barrel of oil. Your government makes a higher amount per gallon/litre delivered to the consumer than mine does.

I have always been surprised that no one bitched, especially in the Germany in the late 80's when it ran 3-4 US dollars a gallon. Of course getting pregnant without a provable father gives a young woman a life of payments from the government and I guess that has to be paid for somehow.