Kyle R. Mcallister wrote: >Then give me my Monte Carlo back and tax me less, with 28mpg average, and >even less if and when I drive the efficiency up higher.
Of course people who drive more efficient cars should pay less! That is my point. People who walk should pay practially nothing. >Beg to differ here. And in case you didn't notice, this is not Europe nor >Japan. We are no less clever or resourceful than they are. I do not think Americans require special coddling. If they can pay the full cost for their energy, we can too. >> You are saying that the rest of us to pay for your lifestyle. > >The hell I am. I work for a living and pay my taxes . . . But not enough to cover the cost of pollution or the war -- which is mainly a war for oil. That is why the nation runs a deficit, and why the pollution problem has not been fixed. >To where? Most of us cannot afford to leave...transitioning means time with >no income, and the cost to move. That's why I said the rest of the country has to help, for a while. If I move X miles, under your system, I >also have to pay X mileage tax. Either YOU pay it, or I pay it. Since you are the one who is moving you should pay it. >I pay for my car, my fuel, upkeep and repairs on my own, you don't. No you do not. That's the problem. Your fuel costs you $2 per gallon and it costs the rest of us $3 extra in hidden costs. You are forcing the rest of us to bail you out. As far >as global warming, I don't want to hear it. It is still being debated, and >should be. No it should not. It is a sure thing. You might as well debate whether cold fusion is real. >As far as pollution, some of us are actively trying to find ways >to reduce it or get rid of it by experimentation. Do you do experiments, or >just rock back and forth in your chair and shout orders to us dirty, >polluting little people? What are YOU doing to make a difference? I am helping people do cold fusion experiments, in many ways. >Can't be made economical with today's technology....yet it worked 50 years >ago. Exactly. Resources are scarcer. The Chinese and Indians now want oil and they can afford to buy it. Technology is ever changing. >How about Pelosi and her jet she has been demanding? You and the media have this story backwards. She wants to ride commercial jets. The government asked her to take a small government jet instead for security reseans. She said 'either provide a larger jet or I will take a commercial flight.' I think the security should butt out an let her fly commercial. There is no significant danger. >Why are you preaching to me about "help" lasting for 20 years? I was the one >who complained about multitudes of blacks and other minorities on welfare >for no reason other than not wanting to work. Why do you not see that YOU too want something for nothing? You want us to put you on permanent welfare and support your oil addiction, and let you live in a part of the country where there is not enough work. I do not see any difference between your demands and the demands of people who do not want to work at all. Both of you cost me. At least the people who do not work are not polluting or forcing us into war in the Middle East. Frankly, I would rather pay you to sit on your butt than to burn up lots of gasoline. >There is no reason we cannot make synthetic fuels using energy derived from >solar power, as far as I know. I think it would be more practical to use the solar power directly, for electricity and heat. To make synthetic fuel nuclear energy might be a better choice. >This has nothing to do with how the middle >and lower class people live their lives, it has to do with the people on top >not being willing to get off their asses and do something about it. Only the top people at U.S. corporations. Toyota is selling hundreds of thousands of Prius automobiles. If everyone drove one, the U.S. would be exporting oil. GM is selling SUVs. Our corporations and consumers are at fault. Some leaders in the U.S., such as the U.S. Toyota managers, and some U.S. consumers -- such as me -- have done a lot to fix these problems. >Actually "Cold fusion" >ain't the damned answer either, and it looks like it never will be in the >forseeable future. I disagree. If it has been developed properly starting in 1989, I am pretty sure that by now it would supply most of energy, or all of our energy. > Post something here explaining exactly how to do it and >make it generate enough excess heat to boil me a pot of coffee . . . I have posted 500 papers explaining exactly how to do it. No one on earth has circulated more information about cold fusion than I. Of course it is not easy, and you cannot reduce it to single formula, but that is true of all other energy systems and complex technology. I cannot post a message here explaining exactly how to make a Pentium processor or a nuclear fission reactor either. >Dog eat dog, eh? Ok. How about a federal ban on any environmental impact >studies when we start paving the desert with solar collectors. There is no need to pave the desert when installing solar collectors! This would be a very bad idea, in fact. You have to leave the open dirt under the collectors to absorb rainwater. In Europe they grow grass under collectors, and graze sheep. >Ditto for >windmill generators. You mean wind turbine generators. They take up practically no space on the ground. A megawatt generator takes up about as much space as a couple of phone booths. Wind energy has the smallest land-use "footprint" of any energy source, including nuclear when you account for the space taken up by uranium mining and processing. - Jed
