Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Poor Kay...

Expand Messages
  • Ariel Thomann
    Our senior senator wrote an Op-Ed piece about energy in today s Chronicle; it s at http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/outlook/5325354.html It was
    Message 1 of 8 , Nov 25, 2007
      Our senior senator wrote an Op-Ed piece about energy in today's Chronicle; it's
      at http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/outlook/5325354.html
      It was something like 765 words, and not a single one of them was "conserve" or
      "conservation". Like the song said, when will they ever learn?

      Ariel
      - We are all Human beings here together. We have to help one another, since
      otherwise there is NO ONE who will help.
      - All countries need a NO REGRETS strategic energy policy. Think ahead 7
      generations.
      ------------------------------------
    • Ariel Thomann
      What the heck, I e-mailed her: =================== Dear Senator Hutchison: You wrote an Op-Ed piece about energy in today s Chronicle; it s at
      Message 2 of 8 , Nov 25, 2007
        What the heck, I e-mailed her:

        ===================

        Dear Senator Hutchison:

        You wrote an Op-Ed piece about energy in today's Chronicle; it's
        at http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/outlook/5325354.html
        It was something like 765 words, and not a single one of them was "conserve" or
        "conservation".

        Please, Senator, we must reduce our consumption FIRST, NOW -- it will do more
        for us, quicker, than all the drilling in the world.

        It's time to place significant taxes on vehicle fuels, gas, coal AND on vehicle
        engines above a certain size. It will pinch me, too, but we must face reality
        and tighten our belts.

        ===================

        Now y'all join in, folks!

        Ariel
        - We are all Human beings here together. We have to help one another, since
        otherwise there is NO ONE who will help.
        - All countries need a NO REGRETS strategic energy policy. Think ahead 7
        generations.
        ------------------------------------

        > Our senior senator wrote an Op-Ed piece about energy in today's Chronicle;
        > it's at http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/outlook/5325354.html It
        > was something like 765 words, and not a single one of them was "conserve" or
        > "conservation". Like the song said, when will they ever learn?
        >
        > Ariel

        > ------------------------------------
      • phil6142@aol.com
        The Senator is probably right removal of tax breaks for the oil companies will most assuredly be passed on to the consumers causing a further economic crunch.
        Message 3 of 8 , Nov 27, 2007
          The Senator is probably right removal of tax breaks for the oil companies will most assuredly be passed on to the consumers causing a further economic crunch. Is that really a bad thing? Haven't we acknowledged that we have an addiciton to oil and we want to break that addiction? Breaking any addiction is hard and it is always easier to continue with the addicition rather than take difficult steps toward recovery. The only way to get people really motivated to move to a sustainable energy future is if we have to pay the real cost for a barrel of oil or a gallon of gasoline. If oil were to go to 200 or 300 dollars per barrel there would be a crunch and there would be alot of people struggling but that would move us in the right energy direction of breaking our oil addiction.

          I think we should draw an important distinction between increased efficiency and conservation.  Conservation means that you are giving up something in your quality of life to save something else energy or CO2 emissions or what ever.  Efficiency means that you are maintaining your same quality of life but requiring less of something to do it.  Conservation is an admirable personal trait (one which I like to think that I posess or atleast strive to) but it is not a sound economic policy for a country.  The United States experienced a period of "conservation" just after President Bush's second election in which for about 6 or 8 months our CO2 emissions dropped below Kyoto protocal standards but no one not even environmentalist cheered this period of conservation because it was a recession and it hurt people's qualtiy of life.  I am not saying this is a bad thing as I said earlier I think hard times will be helpful in breaking the addiction but I do think the goverment should do all they can to minimize the impact.  That is by requiring and funding technologies research and development that increase efficiency.  Just my two cents on conservation vs. efficiency I think they often get lumped together incorrectly.  Increasing efficiency is putting in a CFL to reduce consumption and conservation is sitting in the dark. 

          Phillip
          www.alternateenergycentral.com


          -----Original Message-----
          From: Ariel Thomann <ajthomann@...>
          To: hreg@yahoogroups.com; houstonpeakoil@...
          Sent: Sun, 25 Nov 2007 10:19 pm
          Subject: [hreg] Poor Kay...

          Our senior senator wrote an Op-Ed piece about energy in today's Chronicle; it's
          at http://www.chron. com/disp/ story.mpl/ editorial/ outlook/5325354. html
          It was something like 765 words, and not a single one of them was "conserve" or
          "conservation" . Like the song said, when will they ever learn?

          Ariel
          - We are all Human beings here together. We have to help one another, since
          otherwise there is NO ONE who will help.
          - All countries need a NO REGRETS strategic energy policy. Think ahead 7
          generations.
          ------------ --------- --------- ------


          More new features than ever. Check out the new AOL Mail!
        • Ariel Thomann
          Phillip: (1) So, recession lowered waste.... Does it work in the opposite direction? (2) Our way of life will suffer from all this sooner or letter.
          Message 4 of 8 , Nov 27, 2007
            Phillip:

            (1) So, recession lowered waste.... Does it work in the opposite direction?
            (2) Our way of life will suffer from all this sooner or letter. Conservation
            now is sort of a way to manage those changes prospectively, rather than face
            them when they are too sudden and too massive. Efficient maintenance of the
            current US lifestyle is (I think) a bit too dreamy beyond a few decades.
            (3) Why wait for $ 200 oil to face reality? I'm no economist, but I propose:
            -a. Immediate gasoline (etc) tax of at least $ 1.00 / gallon, to go up 10
            percent per year until we stop importing oil.
            -b. Immediate engine displacement tax at time new vehicle is purchased: $ 10
            per cc. of engine displacement over 1500 cc., then up to $ 20 per cc over
            3000 cc, and $ 30 per cc.over 4500 cc., with some type of break for poorer
            folks, used cars, etc, for a few years.
            -c. Some road tax on homes more than a set distance from place of work.
            -d. Shift government subsidies from petroleum to railroads.
            -e. Tax square footage on homes above 700 sq.ft. for one person, 500 sq.ft. per
            additional person.
            -f. Remove restrictions on home/community solar panels, wind turbines, etc.
            -g. Mandate rainwater harvesting in all new construction, retrofit others.
            -h. Ration water a bit less drastically than Atlanta faces now, but...
            -i. Clearly legitimize proper use of gray water, etc.
            -j. Tax the hell out of imported foods.
            -k. Change tax structures to favor small farms near urban centers.
            -l. Mandate recycling of everything possible.
            -m. Set a federal limit for CEO, etc. income relative to entry-level janitor.
            -n. Remove US obstructionism (government and other) to family planning
            world-wide.

            I'm the first to realize these are horribly broad-brush ideas, and totally
            beyond the capacity of post WW-2 Americans to stomach today. I just hope more
            people in positions to do so will at least kick the ideas around before it's too
            late. Yes, you may call me an idealistic agitator. I’m used to it.

            I’ve been saying this since late 2005, before my 70th birthday: If I believed in
            supernatural nonsense I would gladly make a Faustian deal with whoever. My
            “soul” in exchange for the assurance that I would lead a minimally comfortable
            life, physically and mentally functional for 30 more years, with the same
            extended to environmental “doubters” I know – and on my 100th birthday I would
            publicly proclaim either “I was wrong” or “I told you so”. Then I would
            promptly croak.

            Ariel
            - We are all Human beings here together. We have to help one another, since
            otherwise there is NO ONE who will help.
            - All countries need a NO REGRETS strategic energy policy. Think ahead 7
            generations.
            ------------------------------------

            > The Senator is probably right removal of tax breaks for the oil companies will
            > most assuredly be passed on to the consumers causing a further economic
            > crunch. Is that really a bad thing? Haven't we acknowledged that we have an
            > addiciton to oil and we want to break that addiction? Breaking any addiction
            > is hard and it is always easier to continue with the addicition rather than
            > take difficult steps toward recovery. The only way to get people really
            > motivated to move to a sustainable energy future is if we have to pay the real
            > cost for a barrel of oil or a gallon of gasoline. If oil were to go to 200 or
            > 300 dollars per barrel there would be a crunch and there would be alot of
            > people struggling but that would move us in the right energy direction of
            > breaking our oil addiction.
            >
            > I think we should draw an important distinction between increased efficiency
            > and conservation.? Conservation means that you are giving up something in your
            > quality of life to save something else energy or CO2 emissions or what ever.?
            > Efficiency means that you are maintaining your same quality of life but
            > requiring less of something to do it.? Conservation is an admirable personal
            > trait (one which I like to think that I posess or atleast strive to) but it is
            > not a sound economic policy for a country.? The United States experienced a
            > period of "conservation" just after President Bush's second election in which
            > for about 6 or 8 months our CO2 emissions dropped below Kyoto protocal
            > standards but no one not even environmentalist cheered this period of
            > conservation because it was a recession and it hurt people's qualtiy of life.?
            > I am not saying this is a bad thing as I said earlier I think hard times will
            > be helpful in breaking the addiction but I do think the goverment should do
            > all they can to minimize the impact.? That is by requiring and funding
            > technologies research and development that increase efficiency.? Just my two
            > cents on conservation vs. efficiency I think they often get lumped together
            > incorrectly.? Increasing efficiency is putting in a CFL to reduce consumption
            > and conservation is sitting in the dark.?
            >
            > Phillip
            > www.alternateenergycentral.com
            >
            >
            > -----Original Message-----
            > From: Ariel Thomann <ajthomann@...>
            > To: hreg@yahoogroups.com; houstonpeakoil@...
            > Sent: Sun, 25 Nov 2007 10:19 pm
            > Subject: [hreg] Poor Kay...
            > >
            > Our senior senator wrote an Op-Ed piece about energy in today's Chronicle;
            > it's at http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/outlook/5325354.html It
            > was something like 765 words, and not a single one of them was "conserve" or
            > "conservation". Like the song said, when will they ever learn?
            >
            > Ariel
          • alammey@HoustonEnergyAnalyst.com
            We will NEVER see $200.00/bbl oil in our lifetime. Economics won t allow it here in the US or elsewhere. Alan M. Lammey Energy Analyst & Consultant Website:
            Message 5 of 8 , Nov 27, 2007
              We will NEVER see $200.00/bbl oil in our lifetime. Economics won't allow it here in the US or elsewhere.

              Alan M. Lammey
              Energy Analyst & Consultant
              Website: www.TexasEnergyAnalyst.com
              Ph: 281-658-0395


              -------- Original Message --------
              Subject: Re: [hreg] Poor Kay...
              From: "Ariel Thomann" <ajthomann@...>
              Date: Tue, November 27, 2007 12:20 pm
              To: <hreg@yahoogroups.com>
              Cc: <houstonpeakoil@...>

              Phillip:

              (1) So, recession lowered waste.... Does it work in the opposite direction?
              (2) Our way of life will suffer from all this sooner or letter. Conservation
              now is sort of a way to manage those changes prospectively, rather than face
              them when they are too sudden and too massive. Efficient maintenance of the
              current US lifestyle is (I think) a bit too dreamy beyond a few decades.
              (3) Why wait for $ 200 oil to face reality? I'm no economist, but I propose:
              -a. Immediate gasoline (etc) tax of at least $ 1.00 / gallon, to go up 10
              percent per year until we stop importing oil.
              -b. Immediate engine displacement tax at time new vehicle is purchased: $ 10
              per cc. of engine displacement over 1500 cc., then up to $ 20 per cc over
              3000 cc, and $ 30 per cc.over 4500 cc., with some type of break for poorer
              folks, used cars, etc, for a few years.
              -c. Some road tax on homes more than a set distance from place of work.
              -d. Shift government subsidies from petroleum to railroads.
              -e. Tax square footage on homes above 700 sq.ft. for one person, 500 sq.ft. per
              additional person.
              -f. Remove restrictions on home/community solar panels, wind turbines, etc.
              -g. Mandate rainwater harvesting in all new construction, retrofit others.
              -h. Ration water a bit less drastically than Atlanta faces now, but...
              -i. Clearly legitimize proper use of gray water, etc.
              -j. Tax the hell out of imported foods.
              -k. Change tax structures to favor small farms near urban centers.
              -l. Mandate recycling of everything possible.
              -m. Set a federal limit for CEO, etc. income relative to entry-level janitor.
              -n. Remove US obstructionism (government and other) to family planning
              world-wide.

              I'm the first to realize these are horribly broad-brush ideas, and totally
              beyond the capacity of post WW-2 Americans to stomach today. I just hope more
              people in positions to do so will at least kick the ideas around before it's too
              late. Yes, you may call me an idealistic agitator. I’m used to it.

              I’ve been saying this since late 2005, before my 70th birthday: If I believed in
              supernatural nonsense I would gladly make a Faustian deal with whoever. My
              “soul” in exchange for the assurance that I would lead a minimally comfortable
              life, physically and mentally functional for 30 more years, with the same
              extended to environmental “doubters” I know – and on my 100th birthday I would
              publicly proclaim either “I was wrong” or “I told you so”. Then I would
              promptly croak.

              Ariel
              - We are all Human beings here together. We have to help one another, since
              otherwise there is NO ONE who will help.
              - All countries need a NO REGRETS strategic energy policy. Think ahead 7
              generations.
              ------------ --------- --------- ------

              > The Senator is probably right removal of tax breaks for the oil companies will
              > most assuredly be passed on to the consumers causing a further economic
              > crunch. Is that really a bad thing? Haven't we acknowledged that we have an
              > addiciton to oil and we want to break that addiction? Breaking any addiction
              > is hard and it is always easier to continue with the addicition rather than
              > take difficult steps toward recovery. The only way to get people really
              > motivated to move to a sustainable energy future is if we have to pay the real
              > cost for a barrel of oil or a gallon of gasoline. If oil were to go to 200 or
              > 300 dollars per barrel there would be a crunch and there would be alot of
              > people struggling but that would move us in the right energy direction of
              > breaking our oil addiction.
              >
              > I think we should draw an important distinction between increased efficiency
              > and conservation. ? Conservation means that you are giving up something in your
              > quality of life to save something else energy or CO2 emissions or what ever.?
              > Efficiency means that you are maintaining your same quality of life but
              > requiring less of something to do it.? Conservation is an admirable personal
              > trait (one which I like to think that I posess or atleast strive to) but it is
              > not a sound economic policy for a country.? The United States experienced a
              > period of "conservation" just after President Bush's second election in which
              > for about 6 or 8 months our CO2 emissions dropped below Kyoto protocal
              > standards but no one not even environmentalist cheered this period of
              > conservation because it was a recession and it hurt people's qualtiy of life.?
              > I am not saying this is a bad thing as I said earlier I think hard times will
              > be helpful in breaking the addiction but I do think the goverment should do
              > all they can to minimize the impact.? That is by requiring and funding
              > technologies research and development that increase efficiency.? Just my two
              > cents on conservation vs. efficiency I think they often get lumped together
              > incorrectly. ? Increasing efficiency is putting in a CFL to reduce consumption
              > and conservation is sitting in the dark.?
              >
              > Phillip
              > www.alternateenergy central.com
              >
              >
              > -----Original Message-----
              > From: Ariel Thomann <ajthomann@pol. net>
              > To: hreg@yahoogroups. com; houstonpeakoil@ lists.riseup. net
              > Sent: Sun, 25 Nov 2007 10:19 pm
              > Subject: [hreg] Poor Kay...
              > >
              > Our senior senator wrote an Op-Ed piece about energy in today's Chronicle;
              > it's at http://www.chron. com/disp/ story.mpl/ editorial/ outlook/5325354. html It
              > was something like 765 words, and not a single one of them was "conserve" or
              > "conservation" . Like the song said, when will they ever learn?
              >
              > Ariel

            • evelyn sardina
              The thing about taxing is that the taxes need to be put to use towards that, which will contribute towards the goal it is intended for. I believe people would
              Message 6 of 8 , Nov 27, 2007
                The thing about taxing is that the taxes need to be put to use towards that, which will contribute towards the goal it is intended for. I believe people would pay more if it meant getting ahead in a productive way. The problem people have is that they get taxed and they end up funding a war or the one that gets ahead is the special interest. We were watching a show about Iceland and how much people pay in taxes and the attitude of the people. After the show my daughter said "We should move there". She was in awe of how content people lived and the quality of life there. I believe we would feel the same way if we knew we would benefit in such a way. The thing about this is people think this is socialism and it goes against our grain. People think socialism equals communism. It is enough to scare the incandescent lights out of anyone!

                Ariel Thomann <ajthomann@...> wrote:
                Phillip:

                (1) So, recession lowered waste.... Does it work in the opposite direction?
                (2) Our way of life will suffer from all this sooner or letter. Conservation
                now is sort of a way to manage those changes prospectively, rather than face
                them when they are too sudden and too massive. Efficient maintenance of the
                current US lifestyle is (I think) a bit too dreamy beyond a few decades.
                (3) Why wait for $ 200 oil to face reality? I'm no economist, but I propose:
                -a. Immediate gasoline (etc) tax of at least $ 1.00 / gallon, to go up 10
                percent per year until we stop importing oil.
                -b. Immediate engine displacement tax at time new vehicle is purchased: $ 10
                per cc. of engine displacement over 1500 cc., then up to $ 20 per cc over
                3000 cc, and $ 30 per cc.over 4500 cc., with some type of break for poorer
                folks, used cars, etc, for a few years.
                -c. Some road tax on homes more than a set distance from place of work.
                -d. Shift government subsidies from petroleum to railroads.
                -e. Tax square footage on homes above 700 sq.ft. for one person, 500 sq.ft. per
                additional person.
                -f. Remove restrictions on home/community solar panels, wind turbines, etc.
                -g. Mandate rainwater harvesting in all new construction, retrofit others.
                -h. Ration water a bit less drastically than Atlanta faces now, but...
                -i. Clearly legitimize proper use of gray water, etc.
                -j. Tax the hell out of imported foods.
                -k. Change tax structures to favor small farms near urban centers.
                -l. Mandate recycling of everything possible.
                -m. Set a federal limit for CEO, etc. income relative to entry-level janitor.
                -n. Remove US obstructionism (government and other) to family planning
                world-wide.

                I'm the first to realize these are horribly broad-brush ideas, and totally
                beyond the capacity of post WW-2 Americans to stomach today. I just hope more
                people in positions to do so will at least kick the ideas around before it's too
                late. Yes, you may call me an idealistic agitator. I’m used to it.

                I’ve been saying this since late 2005, before my 70th birthday: If I believed in
                supernatural nonsense I would gladly make a Faustian deal with whoever. My
                “soul” in exchange for the assurance that I would lead a minimally comfortable
                life, physically and mentally functional for 30 more years, with the same
                extended to environmental “doubters” I know – and on my 100th birthday I would
                publicly proclaim either “I was wrong” or “I told you so”. Then I would
                promptly croak.

                Ariel
                - We are all Human beings here together. We have to help one another, since
                otherwise there is NO ONE who will help.
                - All countries need a NO REGRETS strategic energy policy. Think ahead 7
                generations.
                ------------ --------- --------- ------

                > The Senator is probably right removal of tax breaks for the oil companies will
                > most assuredly be passed on to the consumers causing a further economic
                > crunch. Is that really a bad thing? Haven't we acknowledged that we have an
                > addiciton to oil and we want to break that addiction? Breaking any addiction
                > is hard and it is always easier to continue with the addicition rather than
                > take difficult steps toward recovery. The only way to get people really
                > motivated to move to a sustainable energy future is if we have to pay the real
                > cost for a barrel of oil or a gallon of gasoline. If oil were to go to 200 or
                > 300 dollars per barrel there would be a crunch and there would be alot of
                > people struggling but that would move us in the right energy direction of
                > breaking our oil addiction.
                >
                > I think we should draw an important distinction between increased efficiency
                > and conservation. ? Conservation means that you are giving up something in your
                > quality of life to save something else energy or CO2 emissions or what ever.?
                > Efficiency means that you are maintaining your same quality of life but
                > requiring less of something to do it.? Conservation is an admirable personal
                > trait (one which I like to think that I posess or atleast strive to) but it is
                > not a sound economic policy for a country.? The United States experienced a
                > period of "conservation" just after President Bush's second election in which
                > for about 6 or 8 months our CO2 emissions dropped below Kyoto protocal
                > standards but no one not even environmentalist cheered this period of
                > conservation because it was a recession and it hurt people's qualtiy of life.?
                > I am not saying this is a bad thing as I said earlier I think hard times will
                > be helpful in breaking the addiction but I do think the goverment should do
                > all they can to minimize the impact.? That is by requiring and funding
                > technologies research and development that increase efficiency.? Just my two
                > cents on conservation vs. efficiency I think they often get lumped together
                > incorrectly. ? Increasing efficiency is putting in a CFL to reduce consumption
                > and conservation is sitting in the dark.?
                >
                > Phillip
                > www.alternateenergy central.com
                >
                >
                > -----Original Message-----
                > From: Ariel Thomann <ajthomann@pol. net>
                > To: hreg@yahoogroups. com; houstonpeakoil@ lists.riseup. net
                > Sent: Sun, 25 Nov 2007 10:19 pm
                > Subject: [hreg] Poor Kay...
                > >
                > Our senior senator wrote an Op-Ed piece about energy in today's Chronicle;
                > it's at http://www.chron. com/disp/ story.mpl/ editorial/ outlook/5325354. html It
                > was something like 765 words, and not a single one of them was "conserve" or
                > "conservation" . Like the song said, when will they ever learn?
                >
                > Ariel



                Be a better pen pal. Text or chat with friends inside Yahoo! Mail. See how.

              • phil6142@aol.com
                Ariel, I think you have some very interesting ideas, some as you mention a bit extreme for me to stomach but I think they have a good basis.  I have one that
                Message 7 of 8 , Nov 27, 2007
                  Ariel,
                   
                  I think you have some very interesting ideas, some as you mention a bit extreme for me to stomach but I think they have a good basis.  I have one that is a bit simplier and I think could have a positive impact in a short time. 

                  Why not tax imported oil at 1.0% per barrel (about $1 currently)?  Then as Evelyn mentions we want to know exactly where our tax dollars are going so this money would be required to be distributed for renewable energy purposes on a Competitive basis as follows:

                  30%    for Research and Development concerning renewable energy production and energy storage (as this is a significant obstacle for fluctuating energy sources) (Evaluated by scientists on quality of proposed research)

                  30%  Funded to start small business in the renewable energy field (based on quality of business plan)

                  30%  For home installation of Residential scale renewable energy projects (Based on Economic need)

                  10% Overhead

                  This would flow literally Billions of dollars per year into development of renewable and sustainable energy with only minimal impact on consumers. 

                  On a lifestyle note I believe if we are unable to sustain "current US lifestyle" for more than a few decades into the future it will not be because there is not enough clean energy here for us to do it, It will be because we were failed by our technologists and Researchers (or funding there of).  As I am one of these I am doing my best to do my part not to let the planet down and that is all I can do.

                  Phillip
                  www.alternateenergycentral.com




                  -----Original Message-----
                  From: Ariel Thomann <ajthomann@...>
                  To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
                  Cc: houstonpeakoil@...
                  Sent: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 12:20 pm
                  Subject: Re: [hreg] Poor Kay...

                  Phillip:

                  (1) So, recession lowered waste.... Does it work in the opposite direction?
                  (2) Our way of life will suffer from all this sooner or letter. Conservation
                  now is sort of a way to manage those changes prospectively, rather than face
                  them when they are too sudden and too massive. Efficient maintenance of the
                  current US lifestyle is (I think) a bit too dreamy beyond a few decades.
                  (3) Why wait for $ 200 oil to face reality? I'm no economist, but I propose:
                  -a. Immediate gasoline (etc) tax of at least $ 1.00 / gallon, to go up 10
                  percent per year until we stop importing oil.
                  -b. Immediate engine displacement tax at time new vehicle is purchased: $ 10
                  per cc. of engine displacement over 1500 cc., then up to $ 20 per cc over
                  3000 cc, and $ 30 per cc.over 4500 cc., with some type of break for poorer
                  folks, used cars, etc, for a few years.
                  -c. Some road tax on homes more than a set distance from place of work.
                  -d. Shift government subsidies from petroleum to railroads.
                  -e. Tax square footage on homes above 700 sq.ft. for one person, 500 sq.ft. per
                  additional person.
                  -f. Remove restrictions on home/community solar panels, wind turbines, etc.
                  -g. Mandate rainwater harvesting in all new construction, retrofit others.
                  -h. Ration water a bit less drastically than Atlanta faces now, but...
                  -i. Clearly legitimize proper use of gray water, etc.
                  -j. Tax the hell out of imported foods.
                  -k. Change tax structures to favor small farms near urban centers.
                  -l. Mandate recycling of everything possible.
                  -m. Set a federal limit for CEO, etc. income relative to entry-level janitor.
                  -n. Remove US obstructionism (government and other) to family planning
                  world-wide.

                  I'm the first to realize these are horribly broad-brush ideas, and totally
                  beyond the capacity of post WW-2 Americans to stomach today. I just hope more
                  people in positions to do so will at least kick the ideas around before it's too
                  late. Yes, you may call me an idealistic agitator. I’m used to it.

                  I’ve been saying this since late 2005, before my 70th birthday: If I believed in
                  supernatural nonsense I would gladly make a Faustian deal with whoever. My
                  “soul” in exchange for the assurance that I would lead a minimally comfortable
                  life, physically and mentally functional for 30 more years, with the same
                  extended to environmental “doubters” I know – and on my 100th birthday I would
                  publicly proclaim either “I was wrong” or “I told you so”. Then I would
                  promptly croak.

                  Ariel
                  - We are all Human beings here together. We have to help one another, since
                  otherwise there is NO ONE who will help.
                  - All countries need a NO REGRETS strategic energy policy. Think ahead 7
                  generations.
                  ------------ --------- --------- ------

                  > The Senator is probably right removal of tax breaks for the oil companies will
                  > most assuredly be passed on to the consumers causing a further economic
                  > crunch. Is that really a bad thing? Haven't we acknowledged that we have an
                  > addiciton to oil and we want to break that addiction? Breaking any addiction
                  > is hard and it is always easier to continue with the addicition rather than
                  > take difficult steps toward recovery. The only way to get people really
                  > motivated to move to a sustainable energy future is if we have to pay the real
                  > cost for a barrel of oil or a gallon of gasoline. If oil were to go to 200 or
                  > 300 dollars per barrel there would be a crunch and there would be alot of
                  > people struggling but that would move us in the right energy direction of
                  > breaking our oil addiction.
                  >
                  > I think we should draw an important distinction between increased efficiency
                  > and conservation. ? Conservation means that you are giving up something in your
                  > quality of life to save something else energy or CO2 emissions or what ever.?
                  > Efficiency means that you are maintaining your same quality of life but
                  > requiring less of something to do it.? Conservation is an admirable personal
                  > trait (one which I like to think that I posess or atleast strive to) but it is
                  > not a sound economic policy for a country.? The United States experienced a
                  > period of "conservation" just after President Bush's second election in which
                  > for about 6 or 8 months our CO2 emissions dropped below Kyoto protocal
                  > standards but no one not even environmentalist cheered this period of
                  > conservation because it was a recession and it hurt people's qualtiy of life.?
                  > I am not saying this is a bad thing as I said earlier I think hard times will
                  > be helpful in breaking the addiction but I do think the goverment should do
                  > all they can to minimize the impact.? That is by requiring and funding
                  > technologies research and development that increase efficiency.? Just my two
                  > cents on conservation vs. efficiency I think they often get lumped together
                  > incorrectly. ? Increasing efficiency is putting in a CFL to reduce consumption
                  > and conservation is sitting in the dark.?
                  >
                  > Phillip
                  > www.alternateenergy central.com
                  >
                  >
                  > -----Original Message-----
                  > From: Ariel Thomann <ajthomann@pol. net>
                  > To: hreg@yahoogroups. com; houstonpeakoil@ lists.riseup. net
                  > Sent: Sun, 25 Nov 2007 10:19 pm
                  > Subject: [hreg] Poor Kay...
                  > >
                  > Our senior senator wrote an Op-Ed piece about energy in today's Chronicle;
                  > it's at http://www.chron. com/disp/ story.mpl/ editorial/ outlook/5325354. html It
                  > was something like 765 words, and not a single one of them was "conserve" or
                  > "conservation" . Like the song said, when will they ever learn?
                  >
                  > Ariel


                  More new features than ever. Check out the new AOL Mail!
                • J P Malone
                  Although I believe Ariel was intentionally exaggerating $200 barrel oil, the prestigious Wall Street investment banking house of Goldman-Sachs predicts that
                  Message 8 of 8 , Nov 27, 2007

                    Although I believe Ariel was intentionally exaggerating $200 barrel oil, the prestigious Wall Street investment banking house of Goldman-Sachs predicts that $150 per barrel is not out of the question over the next 5 years.  Boone Pickens has recently stated that we may never see $60 oil again and he has been one of the most accurate prognosticator of oil prices in recent years.

                     

                    The true price probably lies somewhere within that broad range of which we are currently approximately in the middle.

                     

                     

                     

                    From: hreg@yahoogroups.com [mailto:hreg@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of alammey@...
                    Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2007 12:34 PM
                    To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
                    Subject: RE: [hreg] Poor Kay...

                     

                    We will NEVER see $200.00/bbl oil in our lifetime. Economics won't allow it here in the US or elsewhere.

                    Alan M. Lammey
                    Energy Analyst & Consultant
                    Website: www.TexasEnergyAnalyst.com
                    Ph: 281-658-0395




                    -------- Original Message --------
                    Subject: Re: [hreg] Poor Kay...
                    From: "Ariel Thomann" <ajthomann@...>
                    Date: Tue, November 27, 2007 12:20 pm
                    To: <hreg@yahoogroups.com>
                    Cc: <houstonpeakoil@...>

                    Phillip:

                    (1) So, recession lowered waste.... Does it work in the opposite direction?
                    (2) Our way of life will suffer from all this sooner or letter. Conservation
                    now is sort of a way to manage those changes prospectively, rather than face
                    them when they are too sudden and too massive. Efficient maintenance of the
                    current US lifestyle is (I think) a bit too dreamy beyond a few decades.
                    (3) Why wait for $ 200 oil to face reality? I'm no economist, but I propose:
                    -a. Immediate gasoline (etc) tax of at least $ 1.00 / gallon, to go up 10
                    percent per year until we stop importing oil.
                    -b. Immediate engine displacement tax at time new vehicle is purchased: $ 10
                    per cc. of engine displacement over 1500 cc., then up to $ 20 per cc over
                    3000 cc, and $ 30 per cc.over 4500 cc., with some type of break for poorer
                    folks, used cars, etc, for a few years.
                    -c. Some road tax on homes more than a set distance from place of work.
                    -d. Shift government subsidies from petroleum to railroads.
                    -e. Tax square footage on homes above 700 sq.ft. for one person, 500 sq.ft. per
                    additional person.
                    -f. Remove restrictions on home/community solar panels, wind turbines, etc.
                    -g. Mandate rainwater harvesting in all new construction, retrofit others.
                    -h. Ration water a bit less drastically than Atlanta faces now, but...
                    -i. Clearly legitimize proper use of gray water, etc.
                    -j. Tax the hell out of imported foods.
                    -k. Change tax structures to favor small farms near urban centers.
                    -l. Mandate recycling of everything possible.
                    -m. Set a federal limit for CEO, etc. income relative to entry-level janitor.
                    -n. Remove US obstructionism (government and other) to family planning
                    world-wide.

                    I'm the first to realize these are horribly broad-brush ideas, and totally
                    beyond the capacity of post WW-2 Americans to stomach today. I just hope more
                    people in positions to do so will at least kick the ideas around before it's too
                    late. Yes, you may call me an idealistic agitator. I’m used to it.

                    I’ve been saying this since late 2005, before my 70th birthday: If I believed in
                    supernatural nonsense I would gladly make a Faustian deal with whoever. My
                    “soul” in exchange for the assurance that I would lead a minimally comfortable
                    life, physically and mentally functional for 30 more years, with the same
                    extended to environmental “doubters” I know – and on my 100th birthday I would
                    publicly proclaim either “I was wrong” or “I told you so”. Then I would
                    promptly croak.

                    Ariel
                    - We are all Human beings here together. We have to help one another, since
                    otherwise there is NO ONE who will help.
                    - All countries need a NO REGRETS strategic energy policy. Think ahead 7
                    generations.
                    ------------------------------------

                    > The Senator is probably right removal of tax breaks for the oil companies
                    will
                    > most assuredly be passed on to the consumers causing a further economic
                    > crunch. Is that really a bad thing? Haven't we acknowledged that we have
                    an
                    > addiciton to oil and we want to break that addiction? Breaking any
                    addiction
                    > is hard and it is always easier to continue with the addicition rather
                    than
                    > take difficult steps toward recovery. The only way to get people really
                    > motivated to move to a sustainable energy future is if we have to pay the
                    real
                    > cost for a barrel of oil or a gallon of gasoline. If oil were to go to 200
                    or
                    > 300 dollars per barrel there would be a crunch and there would be alot of
                    > people struggling but that would move us in the right energy direction of
                    > breaking our oil addiction.
                    >
                    > I think we should draw an important distinction between increased
                    efficiency
                    > and conservation.? Conservation means that you are giving up something in
                    your
                    > quality of life to save something else energy or CO2 emissions or what
                    ever.?
                    > Efficiency means that you are maintaining your same quality of life but
                    > requiring less of something to do it.? Conservation is an admirable
                    personal
                    > trait (one which I like to think that I posess or atleast strive to) but
                    it is
                    > not a sound economic policy for a country.? The United States experienced
                    a
                    > period of "conservation" just after President Bush's second
                    election in which
                    > for about 6 or 8 months our CO2 emissions dropped below Kyoto protocal
                    > standards but no one not even environmentalist cheered this period of
                    > conservation because it was a recession and it hurt people's qualtiy of life.?
                    > I am not saying this is a bad thing as I said earlier I think hard times
                    will
                    > be helpful in breaking the addiction but I do think the goverment should
                    do
                    > all they can to minimize the impact.? That is by requiring and funding
                    > technologies research and development that increase efficiency.? Just my
                    two
                    > cents on conservation vs. efficiency I think they often get lumped
                    together
                    > incorrectly.? Increasing efficiency is putting in a CFL to reduce
                    consumption
                    > and conservation is sitting in the dark.?
                    >
                    > Phillip
                    > www.alternateenergycentral.com
                    >
                    >
                    > -----Original Message-----
                    > From: Ariel Thomann <
                    target="_blank">ajthomann@...>
                    > To: hreg@yahoogroups.com;
                    houstonpeakoil@...
                    > Sent: Sun, 25 Nov 2007 10:19 pm
                    > Subject: [hreg] Poor Kay...
                    > >
                    > Our senior senator wrote an Op-Ed piece about energy in today's Chronicle;
                    > it's at
                    href="http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/outlook/5325354.html" target="_blank">http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/outlook/5325354.html It
                    > was something like 765 words, and not a single one of them was
                    "conserve" or
                    > "conservation". Like the song said, when will they ever learn?
                    >
                    > Ariel

                     

                    No virus found in this incoming message.
                    Checked by AVG Free Edition.
                    Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.8/1153 - Release Date: 11/26/2007 9:08 PM


                    No virus found in this outgoing message.
                    Checked by AVG Free Edition.
                    Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.8/1153 - Release Date: 11/26/2007 9:08 PM

                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.