tigers
[Top] [All Lists]

[Tigers] "A Modest Proposal"

To: Tod Brown <todbrown@roadrunner.com>
Subject: [Tigers] "A Modest Proposal"
From: Steve Laifman <SLaifman@SoCal.rr.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 11:49:33 -0700
Tod, Bill, and Tigers,

A scenario for the future. 

   1. Alternate energy sources will become mandatory on new cars to
      "conserve" petroleum.
   2. As fewer vehicle use gasoline, the costs will increase from lack
      of demand and still high costs for manufacture of gasoline.  Just
      the opposite of the "law of supply and demand" as profit margins
      must still be maintained.
   3. State & Federal laws will subsequently add many more taxes on
      petroleum manufacture and use.
   4. Soon local and federal laws will un-license older cars to enhance
      the proportion of "environmentally friendly" alternatives. (which
      take more energy than they save)
   5. YOUR cars will be un-licensed for the road, and will either be in
      museums or scrap heaps.

To top it all off, the mandatory reductions in CO2 will kill off the 
forests trees , corn and wheat yields which breathe the CO2 and emit the 
noxious gas Oxygen.  Those living creatures that breathe oxygen will be 
severely reduced, and impoverished from lack of food.

Well, that's my $0.02 worth (current value $2.57). :-(

Steve

A "modest proposal" per Jonathan Swift:
"Save the World, Eliminate Greenies"

___
Steve Laifman
Editor - TigersUnited.com



Tod Brown wrote:
> "This is like saying something is stupid but let's do it anyway 'cause it
> makes us feel like we are doing something good.  It takes oil to cram the
> hydrogen in the bottle and it takes oil to process it to begin with and that
> goes for just about all of the "new ideas". It even takes more oil to
> process and deliver than it replaces.  More than zero gain, it is backwards.
> It is just that no one wants to admit or face it. Ostrichisms -- Bill --"
>
> Bill:
>
> I would agree that it does not make sense from the standpoint of energy, and
> that was sort of my point, too.  However, we are now in the situation of 
>having
> all of our eggs in one basket and there are good reasons not to remain in that
> situation.  Do we ignore the problem and continue to use gasoline, thus making
> us more and more dependent on the sources of the same and probably continuing
> to drive up the price, or can we diversify our energy sources in such a way 
>as to preserve the supply of gasoline for a longer period of time and, 
>perhaps, 
> even have a positive effect on the environment?  All I am saying is that all 
>the possibilities should be investigated, thus allowing us some flexibility in 
>our choices rather than just continuing on the path we are on while ignoring 
>reality.  I don't think that BMW and GM and the rest are entirely stupid, so 
>they must envision a scenario in which H2 can play a role.  Let's give a 
>little credit for their willingness to try the experiment.
>
> Tod
> B382002384LRXFE
_______________________________________________
Support Team.Net  http://www.team.net/donate.html


Tigers@autox.team.net
http://autox.team.net/mailman/listinfo/tigers

http://www.team.net/archive

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
  • [Tigers] "A Modest Proposal", Steve Laifman <=