Large Scale Central

To all who think I only want to drill for oil

General Discussion
#21
Kevin Morris said:
My view, and it is directed at all of us, not just Steve, is that there is a another angle on the energy debate that seems never to be considered in North America. A few questions: 1 - Why does my neighbour drive a 3/4 ton 4x4 to the grocery store to by a litre of milk? The store is 200 metres away. 2 - Why do people here say a Jeep Cherokee is too small? 3 - Why are American buildings so hot in the winter? 4 - Why do office towers leave all their lights on at night? 5 - Why are some billboards lit up with 5kW or more of lights at night. 6 - Why are there trucks driving continuousoly up and down The Strip in Las Veags carrying nothing other than billboards? One was for a "Gentleman's Club" with the intriguing phone number of 696 9696. 7 - Why would a person pull a full-size pick-up truck behind a motorhome? 8 - Why do people habitually use the hot tap to wash their hands even in summer? 9 - Why have I never seem a Chev Suburban or Ford Behemoth with more than 4 people in it?

Perhaps if we in North America were to realise that our energy gluttony is of our own making, then we might go a long way toward reducing our dependence on foreign oil.


I think 1-10 would fall under the category of 'Freedom of Choice". Granted, not everyone makes the right choices. But it’s up to the individual to decide what is the right choice for him or her. It’s not up to me to judge what is or is not a “right” decision. Personally I would rather have the “Choice” than not have it. Then there’s Osama Obama’s answer to the problem by inflating our tires and getting a tune-up.

#22
Ken Brunt said:
Kevin Morris said:
My view, and it is directed at all of us, not just Steve, is that there is a another angle on the energy debate that seems never to be considered in North America. A few questions: 1 - Why does my neighbour drive a 3/4 ton 4x4 to the grocery store to by a litre of milk? The store is 200 metres away. 2 - Why do people here say a Jeep Cherokee is too small? 3 - Why are American buildings so hot in the winter? 4 - Why do office towers leave all their lights on at night? 5 - Why are some billboards lit up with 5kW or more of lights at night. 6 - Why are there trucks driving continuousoly up and down The Strip in Las Veags carrying nothing other than billboards? One was for a "Gentleman's Club" with the intriguing phone number of 696 9696. 7 - Why would a person pull a full-size pick-up truck behind a motorhome? 8 - Why do people habitually use the hot tap to wash their hands even in summer? 9 - Why have I never seem a Chev Suburban or Ford Behemoth with more than 4 people in it?

Perhaps if we in North America were to realise that our energy gluttony is of our own making, then we might go a long way toward reducing our dependence on foreign oil.


I think 1-10 would fall under the category of 'Freedom of Choice". Granted, not everyone makes the right choices. But it’s up to the individual to decide what is the right choice for him or her. It’s not up to me to judge what is or is not a “right” decision. Personally I would rather have the “Choice” than not have it. Then there’s Osama Obama’s answer to the problem by inflating our tires and getting a tune-up.

BINGO!!! Give the man a cigar. Thank you for anwering that Ken.

#23
Hans-Joerg Mueller said:
Ralph,

Funny, funny, funny … never mentioned who did the talking, did I? :lol: :lol:

BTW we gladly sell to the USA, we’d like it even better when it’s fair trade instead of USA fashion “free trade”.


I’d like to here your explanation of the difference between “free” and “fair” trade and, in particular, how trade between the US and Canada, is not fair?
Ralph

#24
Ken Brunt said:
Kevin Morris said:
My view, and it is directed at all of us, not just Steve, is that there is a another angle on the energy debate that seems never to be considered in North America. A few questions: 1 - Why does my neighbour drive a 3/4 ton 4x4 to the grocery store to by a litre of milk? The store is 200 metres away. 2 - Why do people here say a Jeep Cherokee is too small? 3 - Why are American buildings so hot in the winter? 4 - Why do office towers leave all their lights on at night? 5 - Why are some billboards lit up with 5kW or more of lights at night. 6 - Why are there trucks driving continuousoly up and down The Strip in Las Veags carrying nothing other than billboards? One was for a "Gentleman's Club" with the intriguing phone number of 696 9696. 7 - Why would a person pull a full-size pick-up truck behind a motorhome? 8 - Why do people habitually use the hot tap to wash their hands even in summer? 9 - Why have I never seem a Chev Suburban or Ford Behemoth with more than 4 people in it?

Perhaps if we in North America were to realise that our energy gluttony is of our own making, then we might go a long way toward reducing our dependence on foreign oil.


I think 1-10 would fall under the category of 'Freedom of Choice". Granted, not everyone makes the right choices. But it’s up to the individual to decide what is the right choice for him or her. It’s not up to me to judge what is or is not a “right” decision. Personally I would rather have the “Choice” than not have it. Then there’s Osama Obama’s answer to the problem by inflating our tires and getting a tune-up.

Making sure your tires are properly inflated and tuning your vehicle is indeed, the first step in saving gasoline. Properly inflated tires save up to 7%. Doesn’t cost a dime either. And the savings start immediately.
I agree with freedom of choice. I don’t agree with ridicule of a very valid solution to immediately save gas at no cost.
We reduced our oil consumption by 4% over three months. This was enough to drop oil from over $140 a barrel to under $120 a barrel.
Just because you don’t like the messenger…there is no reason to crap on the message.
Ralph

#25

I ridiculed the messenger because he thinks we’re too stupid to have already thought of it. People driving less and foregoing long vacation trips because they couldn’t afford it is the reason we reduced our oil consumption the last three months, not because everyone ran out and got a tune-up and a tire pressure gauge. As for the messenger, how much as he done in congress to alleviate our dependence on foreign energy?

#26
Ralph Berg said:
Hans-Joerg Mueller said:
Ralph,

Funny, funny, funny … never mentioned who did the talking, did I? :lol: :lol:

BTW we gladly sell to the USA, we’d like it even better when it’s fair trade instead of USA fashion “free trade”.


I’d like to here your explanation of the difference between “free” and “fair” trade and, in particular, how trade between the US and Canada, is not fair?
Ralph

I seriously doubt that you would like what you’d get to hear. :wink: :slight_smile:

#27
Hans-Joerg Mueller said:
Ralph Berg said:
Hans-Joerg Mueller said:
Ralph,

Funny, funny, funny … never mentioned who did the talking, did I? :lol: :lol:

BTW we gladly sell to the USA, we’d like it even better when it’s fair trade instead of USA fashion “free trade”.


I’d like to here your explanation of the difference between “free” and “fair” trade and, in particular, how trade between the US and Canada, is not fair?
Ralph

I seriously doubt that you would like what you’d get to hear. :wink: :slight_smile:

Try me.
If you have a valid point, I’d like to hear it.
Ralph

#28

I seriously doubt he likes innuendos either…

#29
Ken Brunt said:
I ridiculed the messenger because he thinks we're too stupid to have already thought of it. People driving less and foregoing long vacation trips because they couldn't afford it is the reason we reduced our oil consumption the last three months, not because everyone ran out and got a tune-up and a tire pressure gauge. As for the messenger, how much as he done in congress to alleviate our dependence on foreign energy?
I am not enamored with the messenger either. It is still a valid message. You and I may have been doing this for years. But I see many vehicles on the road that could use air in the tires and a tune-up as well. Ralph
#30
Ken Brunt said:
I seriously doubt he likes innuendos either.............
The best (worst?) example is the Softwood Lumber Agreement or Non-Agreements as far back as I can remember! The largest impediment: the inability of the US lumber barons to accept the fact that there are different economic models that make use of what is owned by the people - as in forests are owned and administered by the provincial/territorial governments who set the rates/conditions applicable to such resources.

The “funny” part is US lumber companies have no problem making use of those same regimes, as a matter of fact they then join the Canadian chorus that protests the machinations of the US lumber barons - most of whom are located in the South!

Other examples: trade in beef, grain! And the list goes on!

It mainly is inability to accept other “models”, but that extends far beyond the trade issue. Any nation who takes it upon itself to “export our democracy” could be mistaken for practicing any one of the three “A”; “Arrogance”; “Attitude”; “Aggression”!

#31
Hans-Joerg Mueller said:
Ken Brunt said:
I seriously doubt he likes innuendos either.............
The best (worst?) example is the Softwood Lumber Agreement or Non-Agreements as far back as I can remember! The largest impediment: the inability of the US lumber barons to accept the fact that there are different economic models that make use of what is owned by the people - as in forests are owned and administered by the provincial/territorial governments who set the rates/conditions applicable to such resources.

The “funny” part is US lumber companies have no problem making use of those same regimes, as a matter of fact they then join the Canadian chorus that protests the machinations of the US lumber barons - most of whom are located in the South!

Other examples: trade in beef, grain! And the list goes on!

It mainly is inability to accept other “models”, but that extends far beyond the trade issue. Any nation who takes it upon itself to “export our democracy” could be mistaken for practicing any one of the three “A”; “Arrogance”; “Attitude”; “Aggression”!


What is inequitable about our trade in beef or grain?
I’m not familiar with the Softwood Lumber Agreement. What is inequitable here? If there is an inequity…who signed the agreement? Agreements… are they not signed by all parties involved?
For someone whose motto is “attention to details”…your answer is sorely lacking in details.

“It mainly is inability to accept other “models”, but that extends far beyond the trade issue. Any nation who takes it upon itself to “export our democracy” could be mistaken for practicing any one of the three “A”; “Arrogance”; “Attitude”; “Aggression”!”

I guess this is a feeble attempt to change the focus of the discussion. This may or may not be a valid point. But this is not what we were discussing.
Ralph

#32
Ralph Berg said:
................

For someone whose motto is “attention to details”…your answer is sorely lacking in details.

“It mainly is inability to accept other “models”, but that extends far beyond the trade issue. Any nation who takes it upon itself to “export our democracy” could be mistaken for practicing any one of the three “A”; “Arrogance”; “Attitude”; “Aggression”!”

I guess this is a feeble attempt to change the focus of the discussion. This may or may not be a valid point. But this is not what we were discussing.
Ralph


My attention to details doesn’t absolve you from doing your own reading on the background information. There have been volumes!

As far as changing the focus, not at all, the three “A” are part and parcel of the same phenomenon that permeates the trade issues.

#33
Ralph Berg said:
Ken Brunt said:
I ridiculed the messenger because he thinks we're too stupid to have already thought of it. People driving less and foregoing long vacation trips because they couldn't afford it is the reason we reduced our oil consumption the last three months, not because everyone ran out and got a tune-up and a tire pressure gauge. As for the messenger, how much as he done in congress to alleviate our dependence on foreign energy?
I am not enamored with the messenger either. It is still a valid message. You and I may have been doing this for years. But I see many vehicles on the road that could use air in the tires and a tune-up as well. Ralph
I'm not sure who Ken is referring to here. But if he was was suggesting that I think a lot of people are too stupid to see another side of the energy equation, then he is absolutlely correct.

There have been any number of threads here related to alternative energy sources and the crippling dependence on foreign oil but there seems to have been nothing mentioned of this orgy of energy consumption that North America is current on. Maybe people have thought of it but it seems nobody is giving it a thought.

I’m not just criticising you Yanks. We Canadians are, on a per capita basis, the biggest energy pigs in the world. I’ve heard it calculated that if everyone on Earth consumed energy like a Canadian we would need 14 planets to support us.

Freedom of choice is a wonderful thing. Like “Greens and Nimbys” it serves as a great excuse for doing nothing. I don’t buy a smaller car because I want freedom of choice. I don’t turn off some lights because I want freedom of choice. What is it Paul Harvey is always going on about - freedom without self-discipline …?

I personally have reduced my fuel consumption by almost 20%, simply by slowing down to the speed limit. It’s amazing how often I get criticzed for it. Interestingly, the loudest criticism usually comes from people who immediately go on to talk about "The Amazing Race, or “American Idol”, or Oprah. These people don’t necessarily want freedom of choice. It seems they want freedom from choice, so they can get back to staring at “Survivor” and drooling.

I’m not suggesting we need legislation to limit people’s choices. Perhaps what we need is education. Look at the reduction in smoking over the past 30 years. People who once criticized smoking were immediately criticized as wanting to limit freedom of choice.

#34

It seems to me we think as if some kind of single energy solution can be fund, and we want a single energy solution because out energy infrastructure developed around oil. And it developed around oil because oil was relatively easy to monopolize. Standard oil had 90% of US oil production and sales in 1890, do to the invention of the holding cpmpany or “trust” and the innovation of horizontal integration. There’s no reason you could not have viable industrial economy based on a wide range of energy sources, but in the US, by 1900, energy and manufacturing was all being run by the same guys, who funded research that would make use of their products and existing plants. We got a vibrant and innovative economy that concentrated wealth in a few key industries. It was a specific moment in history when the combination of cheap resources and business innovation combined to give us our modern oil-driven economy.

There will be no single solution–we’ll end up using a motley mix of wind, coal, nuke, gas, solar, biofuel, whatever, and innovations in the consumer end like compact flourescents or solid-state (LED ) lighting. And our lifestyles will change–maybe for the better, who knows? But we should stop thinking as if one solution will allow us to live exactly as we do now–that appears to be impossible

#35
Kevin Morris said:
Ralph Berg said:
Ken Brunt said:
I ridiculed the messenger because he thinks we're too stupid to have already thought of it. People driving less and foregoing long vacation trips because they couldn't afford it is the reason we reduced our oil consumption the last three months, not because everyone ran out and got a tune-up and a tire pressure gauge. As for the messenger, how much as he done in congress to alleviate our dependence on foreign energy?
I am not enamored with the messenger either. It is still a valid message. You and I may have been doing this for years. But I see many vehicles on the road that could use air in the tires and a tune-up as well. Ralph
I'm not sure who Ken is referring to here. But if he was was suggesting that I think a lot of people are too stupid to see another side of the energy equation, then he is absolutlely correct.
Kevin, I would never have guessed you were a member of congress. Congratulations! When did this happen and how?
#36
Ken Brunt said:
Kevin Morris said:
Ralph Berg said:
I am not enamored with the messenger either. It is still a valid message. You and I may have been doing this for years. But I see many vehicles on the road that could use air in the tires and a tune-up as well. Ralph
I'm not sure who Ken is referring to here. But if he was was suggesting that I think a lot of people are too stupid to see another side of the energy equation, then he is absolutlely correct.
Kevin, I would never have guessed you were a member of congress. Congratulations! When did this happen and how?
It's the first step in my plan to become emperor of the world. Once that happens the world will enter a new golden age of peace and enlightenment, where all my subjects will be happy and contented. And all I ask in return is unrestricted parking and a badge that reads "Authorized Person".
#37
Hans-Joerg Mueller said:
Ralph Berg said:
................

For someone whose motto is “attention to details”…your answer is sorely lacking in details.

“It mainly is inability to accept other “models”, but that extends far beyond the trade issue. Any nation who takes it upon itself to “export our democracy” could be mistaken for practicing any one of the three “A”; “Arrogance”; “Attitude”; “Aggression”!”

I guess this is a feeble attempt to change the focus of the discussion. This may or may not be a valid point. But this is not what we were discussing.
Ralph


My attention to details doesn’t absolve you from doing your own reading on the background information. There have been volumes!

As far as changing the focus, not at all, the three “A” are part and parcel of the same phenomenon that permeates the trade issues.


I could do all the reading. I would still not know what you think is inequitable in the trade between our two countries. Why “free” is not “fair”.
Ralph

#38

Not speaking for HJ, but I’ve learned that the term “fair trade” means the pricing, terms and other parameters of a transaction are dictated and controlled by some third parties who do not necessarily have either ownership nor other direct interest in the exchange.

“Fair trade” typically describes government mandated price fixing using a system of taxes in the form of tariffs, duties and other levies that have little to do with the values being transacted, and everything to do with governments trying to control prices, protect what they would term “national interests,” and reinforce their own power base. Note that all “Free trade” is by definition “fair trade,” except to the ‘non-participating’ party who wants a cut of the trade under whatever authority and for whatever purpose.

Fair trade is anti-free trade and at best slows commerce by increasing costs. At its worst, it can seriously stifle both global trade and the resulting economies.

Just passing along what I have learned and observed in various business courses and dealings over the years.

Happy RRing,

Jerry

#39
Ralph Berg said:
I could do all the reading. I would still not know what you think is inequitable in the trade between our two countries. Why "free" is not "fair". Ralph
Perhaps not, but it would be a good start. As I pointed out, a glaring example is the Softwood Lumber Agreement, start there and let me know where the "free" and the "fair" come into play. As a further indicator read up on the dispute resolution mechanisms regarding NAFTA and then look at the records that indicate the loop holes which your reps have exploited and/or tried to exploit citing US legislation that would/could/should supposedly overrule NAFTA. Looks to me like it's "perfectly free" just as long as we don't have something else on the books or in mind. :) ;) :) But that is nothing new, either, has been like that for years, across the board including the GATT and WTO.
#40
Hans-Joerg Mueller said:
Ralph Berg said:
I could do all the reading. I would still not know what you think is inequitable in the trade between our two countries. Why "free" is not "fair". Ralph
Perhaps not, but it would be a good start. As I pointed out, a glaring example is the Softwood Lumber Agreement, start there and let me know where the "free" and the "fair" come into play. As a further indicator read up on the dispute resolution mechanisms regarding NAFTA and then look at the records that indicate the loop holes which your reps have exploited and/or tried to exploit citing US legislation that would/could/should supposedly overrule NAFTA. Looks to me like it's "perfectly free" just as long as we don't have something else on the books or in mind. :) ;) :) But that is nothing new, either, has been like that for years, across the board including the GATT and WTO.
HJ, From what I've gathered you have a legitimate beef that the current US administration has ignored the courts in the matter of softwood lumber. The current administration has a history of doing as it pleases, both at home and abroad. Fortunately the reign of the current administration is about to end. Here's hoping the next administration (who ever heads it) will correct some of the current policies. Ralph

What’s the problem with the beef? Stopping Canadian beef imports because of cases of Mad Cow disease ?
Something else?