May 19 - Mark your calendars

JackBingham CPF

MGF, Master Grumble Framer
Joined
Jan 2, 2001
Posts
528
From
Lititz PA
Subject: May 19th-Mark your calendars

It has been calculated that if everyone in the US did not purchase a drop of gasoline for one day, and all at the same time, the oil companies would choke on their stockpiles.
At the same time it would hit the entire industry with a net loss of over 4.6 billion dollars which affects the bottom line of the oil companies.

Therefore May 19th has been formally declared "Stick it up their a***' day and the people of this nation should not purchase a single drop of gasoline that day.

The only way this can be done is if you forward this email to as many people as you can and as quickly as you can get the word out.

Waiting on this administration to step in and control the prices is not going to happen.
What happened to the reduction and control in prices that the Arab Nations promised 2 weeks ago?

Remember one thing, not only is the price of gasoline going up but at the same time airlines are forced to raise their prices, trucking companies are forced to raise their prices which effects prices on everything that is shipped. Things like food, clothing, building materials, medical supplies, etc. Who pays in the end? We do!

We can make a difference. If they don't get the message after one day, we will do it again and again.

So do your part and spread the word. Forward this email to everyone you know. Mark your calendars and make May 19th a day that the citizens of the USA say "enough is enough."
 

FramerDave

PFG, Picture Framing God
Joined
Jan 1, 2001
Posts
5,403
From
Houston, Texas
This one again. From snopes.com:

A boycott of a couple of brands wouldn't result in lower overall prices: Prices at all the non-boycotted outlets would rise due to the temporarily limited supply and increased demand, making the original prices look cheap by comparison. The shunned outlets could then make a killing by offering gasoline at its "normal" (i.e., pre-boycott) price or by selling off their output to the non-boycotted companies, who will need the extra supply to meet demand. The only person who really gets hurt in this proposed scheme is the service station operator, who has almost no control over the price of gasoline.
The only practical way of reducing gasoline prices is through the straightforward means of buying less gasoline, not through a simple and painless scheme of just shifting where we buy it. The inconvenience of driving less is a hardship too many people apparently aren't willing to endure, however.
For the full story, go HERE

And where in the constitution is it written that any branch of government is responsible for controlling the price of gas?
 

Bob Carter

SPFG, Supreme Picture Framing God
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 16, 2000
Posts
16,189
Hi Dave-I couldn't agree more, except for the part about where is it written that any branch of government is responsible for controlling the price.

It's the part that allows pinheads in Congress to dictate where the we may get energy from: that, in turn, being driven by wacko environmentalists.

A perfect example is the fight to the death stupidity of the blockage of drilling in the Alaska Wildlife Reserve over a couple of Caribou not being able to mate in absolute private.

It is such a hot button issue to these environmentalists when I doubt any of them have a clue where his god-forsaken, barren patch of Tundra is located.

Get out a map and look at it; it is the absolute most northern part of Alaska. Thousands of miles from anybody or anywhere (except for those two horny Caribou)-way above the Artic Circle. Pull up Expedia and check out the flights and hotel selections to this sacred part of the world. There aren't any? It's because no one in their right mind wants to go there. But, we will protect to the death the sancitity of this garden of Eden.

It's nuts. We could take all the oil out of this region and tell OPEC to insert a few barrels where the sun don't shine; spend the revenue to fund devolpment of alternative fuels and in 25 or 30 years when those reserves are running down (and we have retired the 100 million or so vehicles that burn petroleum based fuel) then the Caribou can go back to Club Med (northern division) for all the frolicking they desire. Man, all of that in one sentence!

But, it ain't gonna happen because we allow environmentalist wackos dictate the direction and too many feel we aren't doing our part to protect Mother Earth. BS. It's because we are so focused on making sure that some oil company doesn't make any money. If it was only about money, we would be paying $5-6 a gallon like those enviro-friendly French are paying. $2 drives us nuts-how about $5? Ask Dermot if he thinks these oil companies are screwing us as badly as BP?

Environmentalists? Where was the outrage when Saddam torched all those wells in Kuwait on his way out of town and where was the outrage when opened all the spickets on those platforms filling and fouling the waters in the Gulf. Where is the outrage to Mexico (and so many other third world countries) that don't have an ounce of environmental controls? How many cars in Mexico have catalytic converters? How about France? How about Germany?

Yeah, we'll boycott on the 19th just as soon as we fill up on the 18th.

There are great alternatives out there and they will come to fruition just as soon as they become profitable. No profit-no program

Remember, these guys aren't picture framers
 

GUMBY GCF

SGF, Supreme Grumble Framer

In Memorium

Rest In Peace



Joined
Dec 7, 2001
Posts
4,585
From
oHIo
Bob is on a roll!
The real key would to not use gas on may 19th. Don't drive, take is the usage. Don't go to work or if you have to just walk or ride a bike. Mini 4 people to a car if you must.
I wrote a complaint to The Ohio Attorney General about how Gas prices were being manipulated. Well guess what they wrote me back.

Dear Mr Cook
You obviously do not undertand the supply and demand system of the oil industry. But thank you for taking the time to write us of your concerns.
Attorney General
Betty Montgomery

Of course they did not clarify it either. I guess I just didn't understand that supply thing, but I think it is much clearer now. Doesn't it have to do with Hard/soft money from the oil industry into or politicans coffers doesn't it?
 

Bill Henry-

SPFG, Supreme Picture Framing God
Joined
Aug 17, 2002
Posts
20,885
From
Boondock Bowerbank, ME
Business
Retired from the grind
Hey, Bob, don't hold back!

Tell us what you <u>really</u> think about environmental issues. :D
 

Bob Carter

SPFG, Supreme Picture Framing God
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 16, 2000
Posts
16,189
Hey guys-Wait til I get passionate about something...
If we want to eliminate dependence on foreign oil(and I do)then we have to use sane, rational methods of exploration and extraction. Developing oil fields almost as far as away as Saudi Arabia (well, maybe New York to Port Barrow anyway) just makes so much more sense.

We seem to have little problem shoving barrel's full of money some sultan's way, but we begrudge any profit's made by some oil guy in Houston.

The oil guy in Houston has a pretty fair chance that he might drop a dime in one of Dave's franchisee's stores. While that sultan is probably underwriting some suicide bomber's mission to blow up a pizza shop in Gaza.

Now, THAT's how I really feel
 
D

Dermot

Guest
I’m with Bob on this one….the need for transport comes because there are growing populations in the world in other words people what do we do stop having kids……..an example of the “tree hugging crowd” gone mad (over a few trees) is that a new stretch of motorway near where I live went 280%+ over budget was 7 years behind schedule which did untold damage to the local economy where I live……..now if that money had been saved it would have been money that could have gone into a more efficient public transport system……which is a proven way of reducing our dependency on “imported” fuels…….

I cannot recall who he was but I once heard a lecturer from one of the universities in New York say that “conservation for conservation sack was wrong and counter productive”…..I totally agree with him……and…..do I think the oil companies are screwing us……I hope they are…for two reasons…one quite a bit of my pension is tied to how well the oil companies perform and I expect that ALL business oil or other wise should maximise there profits…..….and two the more the oil companies screw us the quicker we will get an alternative to fossil fuel.
 

FramerDave

PFG, Picture Framing God
Joined
Jan 1, 2001
Posts
5,403
From
Houston, Texas
Wow. I don't disgaree with you a bit, Bob. While it is true that Congress does at least indirectly control the price of gas, I don't think it should be. The prices we are paying now are in large part due out-of control environmentalism and their lobbyists. That's a big reason we haven't had any new refineries built in about 20 years. Even if OPEC doubled their production, we still wouldn't be able to refine quickly enough.

But nowhere is the consitution is it written that government is supposed to control prices, any more than it's supposed to provide us with a job or health care.

And another thing...When adjusted for inflation, we paid more for gas in the early 80's than we do today. If you want to see high gas prices go to Europe and buy gas from the cheese-eating surrender monkeys.
 

Jim Miller

SPFG, Supreme Picture Framing God
Forum Donor
Joined
May 19, 2000
Posts
19,068
From
Suburban Central Ohio
Originally posted by JackBingham,CPF:
...Therefore May 19th has been formally declared "Stick it up their a***' day ...
Aren't there are only two ** in a***?

Seriously, a gas-out day would certainly make a statement. That alone has some merit, but that's probably the only merit. Couldn't hurt, anyway.

If it works, it would get their attention, but there would be little or no real impact on the oil companies. Like Bob said, the gas we don't buy that day, we would buy the day before or the day after. Or, if we REALLY get serious and inconvenience ourselves, the driving we don't do on a particular day would be done soon after.

Short term boycotting is mostly a 'feel good' gesture. Not that there's anything wrong with feeling good...
 

Rebecca

SGF, Supreme Grumble Framer
Joined
Feb 28, 2002
Posts
3,339
From
Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Bob,

I couldn't quite follow your rant, I'm sure it made sense ?
shrug.gif


Surely it is incumbent on all of us as citizens of a common world to be moderate in our consumption of limited resources, most especially when that consumption is harmful to the common environment and health of us all?

Re the Alaskan wild life reserve, gee whiz, don't people take up enough room? Surely you don't grudge caribou and other species a few paltry kilometers of untainted space? If such a thing as "untainted" exists anymore, which I doubt?

The permafrost is perma no longer.

Thank heavens viable alternate energy sources seem to be on the near horizon. Solar energy, hydrogen cells etc. Can't come soon enough for me.

Rebecca
One with the Universe :(
 

Bob Carter

SPFG, Supreme Picture Framing God
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 16, 2000
Posts
16,189
Hey, I'm with Rebecca, too. And to prove it, just like I'm sure she has done, I will never use another mode of transportation that uses a petroleum based fuel. I won't turn on another electrical switch unless the source is nuclear powered.

Of course, she has done that, hasn't she?

Begrudge a few kilometers of Alaska to caribous-sure, there is plenty of room for both us. How about those caribous yieldinga few kilometers to the rest of us?

The same bogus enviro-arguments were made right before the Alaska Pipeline was laid. I'm sure Rebecca can tell us what the plight of the caribou has been since the blight on the environment was constructed. The answer? The caribou herd has never been bigger.

I wish I could wave Rebecca's magic wand and everything would be just like Alec Baldwin would like-Who wouldnt. But, since we don't live in Streisandia, but the real world, we have to examine real solutions for the real world.

And just as sure as we all know that Rebecca is as much a part of the problem as the rest of us, we have to look at solutions that are workable and not fantasy. And it isn't going to be as simple as suggesting that this problem rests at any governemntal doortep anymore than the fault lies at the Mobil/Exxon door, either.

Gas in the US is around $2 a gallon. Our wacko governor blames this on Washington (another magic wand proponent). She states that oil comanies are raping us to the tune of profit to the oil companies of around 75 cents a gallon. the other $1.25 goes to refining, distribution, taxes (in Az it's arounf 40 cents of the $1.25).

So, if $1.25 is typical, what are those cheese-eating, wine sipping, can't cave in fast enough Euros doing to the average driver in Euroland when those guys are paying $5-6 a gallon?

All of the sudden our oil companies don't look so bad. Or maybe, these oil companies are subsidizing US prices by sticking it to poor Dermot. I like Dermot just fine, but if it's me paying $5-6 so he doesn't have to, I think even Rebecca can follow that logic.

Man, just be glad we don't put Starbuck's or bottled water into our tanks. At $4.00 for a 10 oz Mocha, what does that breakdown to per gallon.
 
D

Dermot

Guest
Bob

The Oil companies are not to blame….I really don’t think blame can be allocated on this one it’s just the way things are at present…… Europe and most of the rest of the world signed up to the Kyoto Convention….the USA did not……which became one of the main reasons for the price differences of fuel in the US and most of the rest of the world……I think a big opportunity was lost by the US not signing up to the Kyoto Convention….I have never fully understood why the US did an about turn…

But in the not to near further necessity will drive ALL who are involved in the fuel business to alter there thinking………and I have the sense that you your thinking on this issue is very healthy…..if more people were thinking like you a solution would be on the horizon……like alternative fuel….not cheaper fuel…
 

Framing Goddess

SGF, Supreme Grumble Framer
Joined
Jul 18, 2000
Posts
4,309
From
Cleveland, Ohio
I haven't bought gas in three weeks and probably won't again for at least that time again.
Ride your bikes, folks. It's just plain good all the way around.
IMHO, gas should be a whole lot more expensive so that it is in line with how much of a toll it takes on our overall quality of life.

Edie the don'tgetmegoingonbicyclesagain goddess
 

HannaFate

SPFG, Supreme Picture Framing God
Joined
Apr 29, 2002
Posts
10,688
From
Corrales, New Mexico
I can think of one reason that a gas boycott won't affect the gas companies at all.

All the people driving SUV's, Hummers, and land yachts (if they participated) would be filling up just before it started, and again just as soon as it was over.

The best way to deal with rising gas prices is to find more fuel efficient ways to get around. This will, coincidentally, improve our air quality, and our health.

Personally, I would love to see one day when no one went out with an engine. All us bicycle people could run amok! I wouldn't wake up to the tidal sound of traffic. The teenagers could skateboard down the highway for once. That would be so cool.

THAT would be worth doing. Not as a political statement, but just do see if we really could go one day without internal combustion.

(I know, I know, we need the freight transport, trucks and trains, but even with those still running, I think it would be awesome to see the streets)
 

Kittyfaces

CGF II, Certified Grumble Framer Level 2
Joined
Feb 23, 2004
Posts
346
From
Kennebunk, Maine
Dermont,

It was our Republican-with-lots-of-wealthy-campagain-contributing-oil-tycoons president who backed out of Kyoto. He's also done a fine job a lifting clean-air restrictions here at home. I live in one of the most enviromentally pro-active states in the union and thanks to Bush (whose parents have a summer home right here in town), we have the dirtiest air in the country. We work hard to protect our local environment but we happen to be in a part of the country where air streams carry other industrial area's filth from New York, Connecicut and the Great Lake region right to our doorstep. Thanks for the help Bush.

I am completely and utterly convinced that we could've been off of the whole fossil fuel thing 10 years ago if it weren't for everyone's "it's impossible" or "that's so idealistic!" attitudes and oil company lobbyists (yup, they have 'em just like wacko enviros!) not to mention campaign contributions. Someone needs the nads to create a demand for alternative fuels to tip the scale away from fossil fuels (hmmmm... high gas prices can do that!) and then a new era can begin. The fact there are more and more transporation vehicles in the world is exactly why we need to get off fossil fuels... and fast... never mind all the politcal friction it causes between nations. This is why "tree huggers" get outraged when there's proposed oil drilling in pristine parts of the world... because not it doesn't have to happen! The technology is here and no one is willing to use it!

I'm with Rebecca... however I think all the tools are already here. I'll never be upset at high gas prices because it makes me hope that the "non tree huggers' will get fed up and demand an alternative fuel.
 

Bob Carter

SPFG, Supreme Picture Framing God
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 16, 2000
Posts
16,189
Raise your hand if you are suprised it took this long before Bush got blamed for this.

Why is Intellectual Honesty always the first casualty when things like this are discussed.

Things like Kyoto was a Clinton-era accord. Had nothing to do with Pres. Bush. But then, there are those that think 100% of the planning for Sept 11th started on his Inaguaration Day, also.

For historical accuracy, all treaties are approved by the U.S. Senate. None of the Bushes have ever served in the Senate.

I thought, according to Al Gore anyway, that Houston had the dirtiest air in the country and that was because Bush was Governor of Texas. Another side note, governors have little impact on things like air quality as all rules are superceded by the EPA. If it were governors, as Al suggests, then I would suggest you hold the governors of New York, Connecicut (sic) and the great lakes region responsible. It is amazing that an ex-president that has been gone for 11 years is responsible, but we gotta blame someone.

When do start acting like Americans and look for American answers? Just like hating Wal-Mart, Thomas Kinkade, Martha Stewart, Larson, Bill Gates, the Bushes, it needs to stop.

The Arabs hated us before any Bush was president; that started the minute we decided that Israel had a right to survive.

We had a fuel fossil problem before any Bush was president (remember the oil embargo of the 70's); that started the minute that they knew we would have the environemntalists fight every issue in this country. When was the last refinery built, wehn was the last power plant built?

As long as we continue to make everything into a political issue, we will never come together to create consensus. Everybody needs to give a little for the common good, even the caribous.

A great example is the prescription drug plan. No matter how much of an improvement it is over the old plan, because it doesn't meet the entire needs of a political agenda, it is used as another wedge issue. Forget that AARP took a positive stance and said that it was in fact better than the old plan and that it was a good first step to meeting their requirements. The other side makes it out to be injurious to elderly and is trying to make it a wedge issue. Forget that we may not be able to afford it.

And so it is with energy policies. We tend to make them so highly politicized that we simply can not reach a common good. And rest assured there are wackos on both sides (extremes)

The technology is here but no one will use it? Even the French? The Bushes are so powerful that they can force the French to not use this technology? The Russians? The Chinese and Indians (Oh, that's right they didn't sign on to Kyoto either)?

Like I said, the first casualty is Intellectual Honesty
 

McPhoto

MGF, Master Grumble Framer
Joined
Mar 24, 2002
Posts
817
From
Clearfield, PA
The other side of this coin is better technology ie: Hydrogen fuel - clean, plentiful, non-polluting.
Our leaders? have been talking about this for over fifty years - There are even some cities that have successfully experimented w/ hydrogen powered buses - Detroit (or Japan/Korea) needs to get off their collective a** on this project!
 

Kittyfaces

CGF II, Certified Grumble Framer Level 2
Joined
Feb 23, 2004
Posts
346
From
Kennebunk, Maine
"Raise your hand if you are suprised it took this long before Bush got blamed for this."
I never blamed Bush for being responsible for something that has been festering since the industrial revolution. I pointed out that he hasn't done much to help.

"I thought, according to Al Gore anyway, that Houston had the dirtiest air in the country and that was because Bush was Governor of Texas."
Pardon me... AMONG the dirtiest air in the nation... somewhere in the Top 5.


"For historical accuracy, all treaties are approved by the U.S. Senate. None of the Bushes have ever served in the Senate."
True, however, Bush backed out of the treaty before it was submitted to the Sentate for ratification.


"Things like Kyoto was a Clinton-era accord."
Correct... the current administration snuffed it out.

I'm not blaming any president, individual or political party for the state of our environment or fuel dependancy and certainly not for the fact that Arabs hate us. We're a Democracy... it's all of our faults.
 

Bob Carter

SPFG, Supreme Picture Framing God
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 16, 2000
Posts
16,189
Wow-this thing is flat out ugly and the truth is not a casualty, it is dead on arrival.

I am doing this from memory and I hate to do it, but I am sure not going to waste time to research it. But, Kittyface simply couldn't be more wrong.

Remember, this is from memory. Kyoto protocol was agreed upon in late 1977 in Tokyo. The Senate shot it down almost instantly like in mid 1998. The vote was overwhelming against it; in fact, I think not a single Senator voted for it (like 98-0 or something like that). It never was ratified by this country in any shape or form. President Bush never scuttled anything because he never had a chance to do so. Besides, President's don't establish treaties-the Senate does
The reasons for the Senate voting it down was because a group of the "We Hate America" club wrote up a protocol that was severely punitive to this country. It would have cost billions to come into compliance and would have cost hundreds of thousands of jobs. From memory again, every single union came out against it. The protocol through the United Nations was reminiscent of adding the Sudan(the only country on the face of the earth with legalized slavery)to the Human Rights Conference while removing the United States because of our poor human rights record.

The protocol, from memory also excluded China, India and Brazil (maybe others,too). And you think outsourcing is a problem now? Can you imagine what it would be like if the stringent standards were put in place making US products even more less competitive.

Let's see what we all agree upon instead of dumping on our republican fat cat friends:

We all agree we would like to tell the OPEC countries to go to ****

We all agree that alt fuels are desirable and are better for the environment

We all agree that we all want a better environment for not only our grandchildren, but our grandchildren's grandchildren.

So, why hasn't the rest of the world done it without us? Why isn't there a Milan to Naples hydrogen highway or a Paris to Nice, or Dusseldorff to Berlin? Why aren't we dumping on these guys? Are they really all in Bush's pocket? C'mon, we all know it simply isn't true.

It's not done because it is not economically feasible. Not here, not in Winnipeg, not in Rome, not in Paris.

And you want to know why? Because none of us have the vehicles to use that fuel.

Hydrogen is available tomorrow. How many will scrap your gas guzzler (it's worth nothing) and buy a $25,000 car? How many stations will you have to drive past to find one that sells hydrogen? Are you really telling us that is not a problem?

We all need to do what is necessary to ensure that we have a meaningful energy policy tat acknowledges and accepts that it won't be all things to all people; that tehre will have to be some compromise.

And we have to accept that there isn't a giant right wing conspiracy blocking any meaningful progress.

And, I know someone will nitpick the absolute accuracy of my recollection of Kyoto as proof of why the US is wrong on this issue. But, I would suggest don't tell me, tell your Senator. I am just certain that it was overwhelmingly defeated and fact I'm pretty sure it was a shut out
 

Rebecca

SGF, Supreme Grumble Framer
Joined
Feb 28, 2002
Posts
3,339
From
Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Hydrogen cell technology was developed here in Vancouver, and I guess the California govenor did some networking with the powers that be (or more likely visa versa)to put the infra structure in for this first highway.

There are a few hydrogen fueled cars now, and a fueling station at UBC, but the vehicles are still a tad expensive ($1,000,000!). Still, that's $1,000,000 Canadian, so probably about $15,000 US ;)

Toyota's electric hybrid is pretty popular now.

The very first gasoline cars were pretty expensive by the standards of the day - rich men's toys. And getting the gasoline filling station infra structure in place was a challange. Most people made fun of the horseless carriges. Were they ever wrong!

I think (hope)our whole transportation system will look very different in the not too distant future. It takes vision and political will.

Rebecca
 

CharlesL

PFG, Picture Framing God

In Memorium

Rest In Peace



Joined
Apr 9, 2001
Posts
7,255
From
Clayton, NC
Interestingly enough I saw a show on one of the networks a coupla nights ago that caught my attention.

In the late 90's, if memory serves, Ford Motor Company developed an all-electric Ranger-sized pick-up. The deal, as I recall, was that they made several, and gave them, free of charge to mainly farmers in the Midwest with the understanding that there were no strings attached to the 'give-it-too-them-free' deal. It was for real-life experimental purposes, and the people could keep them forever.

Now, Ford is demanding that the recipients of the free all-electric trucks give the trucks back to FMC. I can't help but draw parallels between that and the rising price of gas.

The show was '60 Minutes', '48 Hours' or one of those types. So I felt there was some truth to it.
 

Bob Carter

SPFG, Supreme Picture Framing God
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 16, 2000
Posts
16,189
Well, it's been about a week and Kittyface hasn't responded with any proof to back up her claim about the President scuttling Kyoto. Since she said it with such conviction, I was sure she must have reams of data.

This can't possibly be another one of those outrageous, preposterous claims designed to make a damaging point with absolutely no facts (or science) to back it up?

Or maybe it is.

I would have contacted Erin personally, but she elects to have her email address a secret.

BTW, Kittyface, how did the Maine Senators vote on Kyoto?
 
D

Dermot

Guest
May 24th 2004
Russia is joining Kyoto……..

"We are for the Kyoto process and we support it," Putin said”
http://www.busrep.co.za/index.php?fSectionId=566&fArticleId=2086552

Bob

Kyoto is a “Carbon Tax” system in its striped down form ……there someone said it (Tax)…….and a tax that works……it is hard to credit what this Tax has done for Ireland it’s incredible….our public transport is unbelievable and getting better….it did NOT cost jobs….in fact we have just about full employment in Ireland as has the UK….Germany is about the only EU country that is currently having employment problems….go check out how well businesses that have adapted a good citizen approach to the environment are doing….dig a little you will be surprised.

I’m not a George W Bush basher….though I have said before on the G that if I lived in the US I would most likely be a Democrat…….nor am I any sort of tree hugger…..

The scare mongering around Kyoto about lost jobs and cost is just that…. and has no bases in reality…

I do take exception to you comparing countries who signed up for Kyoto as being in the slavery game!!!!!….that’s a bit rich…….Oh and George may not be the most popular president that will have paid a visit to Ireland….but come on….. "We Hate America" club……….come on no way……there are still a few people who will shake his hand when he gets here………..neither has Europe gone for a “Hydrogen Highway”…………….but we are spending as much if not more money on improving our public transport systems….it slow work but it is starting to work in Ireland this year car sales will drop principally driven by peoples confidence in our public transport systems……

Anyway I’m still with you on this one……this whole environment thing has to be based on real action not wishful aspirations.

Oh a last thing if we all stopped or reduced our usage self adhesive tape we will have done a bit for the environment and quite a bit for the Framing business…..small steps that’s what been environmentally a good citizen is all about……

Take care
 

Bob Carter

SPFG, Supreme Picture Framing God
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 16, 2000
Posts
16,189
Hey Dermot-Again, we agree on a lot. It's our diagreements that we need to talk about.

My comparison to slavery was about the U.N. Remember the decision by the "We Hate America" contingent to exclude the USA from the Human Rights committee and replaced us with The Sudan? It was all about the stupidity of some of the countries making a political statement rather than a practical solution.

I really haven't done the research on this and really don't want to.As I said, this really is from memory. But, I am quite certain that each country had specific requirements and since the US was the target of this entire agenda, the requirements were more onerous. I'm sure your research will straighten me out on this. I am also certain that the vote was overwhelmngly against it (Ithink not a single Senator voted for it for the reasons that I remember). I also remember that China, India and I think Brazil were all exempted from any requirements.

There was a reason the Senate overwhelmngly rejected this during the Clinton administration.

My entire reason for posting was not to debate the wisdom of the protocol.

It was to refute the simple-mindedness of Kittyface's attack without any shred of evidence to back up her claim.

Imagine if someone stated emphatically that masking tape is a proper vehicle for hinging fine art. Would we be debating anything but the incorrectness of the statement?

Well, that's exactly the point I'm trying to make
 

Jay H

PFG, Picture Framing God
Joined
Dec 8, 2003
Posts
9,908
From
KY
Duct tape makes a much stronger hing. Everybody knows that!
 

Art On Canvas

CGF II, Certified Grumble Framer Level 2
Joined
Jun 24, 2002
Posts
214
From
St. Louis, MO
President Bush has resurrected the idea that drilling in Alaska's pristine Arctic National Wildlife Refuge would make us less dependent on foreign oil — even though such drilling would, at best, produce enough oil to meet only six months of America's energy needs. And it would take 10 years to do even that.

Somehow I cannot see trusting these guys with our National Wildlife Refuges...what if they do to Alaska's oil ecology what they are doing to Iraq's? Condoleeza Rice even has an Exxon oil tanker named after her.

Our government could increase their MPG automobile manufacturers' guidelines instead. Raising standards from the current 27.5 miles per gallon to 36 mpg would save us roughly 2 million barrels a day — about the same amount we currently import from the Persian Gulf.
 

Bob Carter

SPFG, Supreme Picture Framing God
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 16, 2000
Posts
16,189
Don-Look at a map and find out where the Reserve is. It is the most northrn part of Alaska. There is not one ounce of redeeming value up there. Not a soul would want to go there if you could. It is so barren that the Iraqi desert, which environmentalist's have no problem raping, would look like the middle of Glacier Park.

I hear this 6 month's figure, but never from anyone that seems to know what they talking about. Why in the world would the robber barons that run our oil companies ever spend 10 years of development and countless billions to yield only 6 months oil? Would it be easier to just invade Suadi Arabia and take over the oil fields? Maybe we should have done that in Iraq? A lot of people said thatwas the only reason we went there, wasn't it?

This problem will never be solved until we recognize that some consensus needs to be achieved and quit making it a political football.

Neither side is quite correct-the truth lies somewhere in the middle. But Exxon cracks about Ms Rice don't make me want to try and find any common ground
We want all these mandates about MPG requirements, but how many of us really do anything about it except expect everyone else to do something about it. Don, I'm not picking on you, but does your vehicle, all your vehicles, get over 40 mpg?

Do you ever waste any energy at any level, ever?

This might be the perfect time to bring up that statement about glass houses.

Edie has a wonderful picture of her breezing across the lake in a speedboat. Looks like a wonderful day at the lake. I remember it from Warped.

How environmentally sound is that powerboat? And it probably was towed to the lake in an SUV, and it probably spews forth a lot of carbon dioxide into the lake causing some damage to the natural life there. And it isn't probably the only boat on the lake. If the Sierra Club had it's way, would there be any powered boat traffic on that lake? And do we have an Environmental Impact Study on the affect on all those water skiers on the carp and catfish?

I don't begrudge anyone from enjoying our outdoors, but where do we draw the line? Is it really in the most desolate part of the entire world or should it be central Ohio?

Folks, without any compromise, we need to consider regulation that allows only rowboats that are towed behind bicycles. Who wants to make that motion? I'll second it
 

Art On Canvas

CGF II, Certified Grumble Framer Level 2
Joined
Jun 24, 2002
Posts
214
From
St. Louis, MO
Bob--I did get 40 MPG from one tankful in my Honda EX (made in Ohio) when I drove to the last Decor Expo in Atlanta, but usually it gets a little less.

I once rode my motorcycle to the northern most point in Alaska that it was possible to attain on a connected road.

You can pick on me if you wish.
 

Framing Goddess

SGF, Supreme Grumble Framer
Joined
Jul 18, 2000
Posts
4,309
From
Cleveland, Ohio
Okay Bob, you put a smile on my face using my name in a debate about oil! I love it! And I am the one to spew as often as possible about riding my bike everywhere.

It is a good question to ask: where DO we draw the line to accomodate thousands of degrees of opinions on the matter? I don't know. But I do know that the more I ride my bicycle, the happier and healthier I am and the less interest I have in driving my truck or riding in my brother's powerboat or on his snowmobiles or riding on the back of my friends' motorcycles. The more quiet I hear around me, the more I crave it. The slower I travel, the more beauty I see and experience around me. The times I have had no choice but to ride in a car, are when I notice what a stale and sterile way it is to take a journey. How many of you cannot even find a safe route to take a walk to the corner store for all the traffic on the streets? That makes me sad. I would challenge all of you in this debate (and it is no debate as far as I am concerned...) to spend a week getting around without your cars and let me know if you can see what I mean. Then tell me you think it is okay to do what we need to do to encourage our dependence on motor vehicles.

Bob, I am not picking at a sore spot here: I am far to the other end of the spectrum from you on this matter and this is what I love about the grumble! I am at this end of the debate not for political reasons, but for practical reasons. Our society's dependence on cars just does not make sense to me. There are many websites dedicated to the philosophy that I mention here, I am in a vast minority but am not alone. It does not matter to me, I will keep doing what I am doing until I can no longer.

Increasing MPG requirements is only a bandaid on the gaping wound, in my opinion. It wouldn't hurt, but it won't stop the hemorrhaging. I certainly don't expect many of you to agree with my extreme view on the topic, but if you could see why I feel this way, then it would be a good day for me.

I don't know much about the Alaskan oil reserves, but it does not sound like a good idea to me to draw the line beyond it. Of course, I would prefer that we just simply don't need it! But you knew I would say that, yes? Because I would be the One To Tow My Rowboat Behind My Bicycle (...and I DO know folks who do that!)

And you thought you were just kidding around, eh, Bob? ;)

Edie, the whowantstogoforaridewithmethisweekend? Goddess
 

Bob Carter

SPFG, Supreme Picture Framing God
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 16, 2000
Posts
16,189
Edie-You know I always love it when you get into the debate. You mean what you say and say what you mean.

We all should be more like you. Who can deny that you are doing more good than almost any of us? You should be proud of what you do. I am.

We just need to find common ground and realize that for every "acceptable" contradiction, we ought to try and find an offset. But, we can't continue to draw lines in the sand by pointing out each other's transgressions. And, that's exactlywhat extremists try to do.

It's especially true in politics and I find it hurtful to us as a nation.

No one will believe this but I do not think Bush is the best candidate for the highest office in the land. Nor do I think Kerrey is either. I am blown away that in country as great as ours, that this is the best we can come up with.

But, who in their right mind would want the job? Who would want to put their family through the nonsense? And, who creates this atmosphere? We all do. For every Al Franken, there is a Sean Hannity spewing invective and hate. For every Rush Limbaugh, there is a Michael Moore destroying any level of civility and decency.

They make this awful mess acceptable. So, what happens we get so polarized that we never allow an ounce of the other side to be understood.

Really, at the end of the day, do we really care how much Bill Gates makes as long as we have spectacular software at affordable prices. The rub comes from our perception that if he is making Billions, then the software must be overpriced and we must be getting "ripped off" (a term I absolutely hate). And so it i with Oil companies, Martha Stewart, Michael Jackson, Jesse Jackson and every single person in politics.

We seem to love to hate. Will anyone's life really be impacted if we drill 1000 miles above the Artic circle? Or are we more concerned that Exxon might make a buck off it

We ought to be glad Edie rides her bike. And ne doubly glad that she has the ability to make that choice. And be thankful that the same choice is available to all of us if we wish to do so; and the choice not to
 

Framing Goddess

SGF, Supreme Grumble Framer
Joined
Jul 18, 2000
Posts
4,309
From
Cleveland, Ohio
Oh yeah, after all that, I just plain forgot and had to buy gas for my truck on the 19th!

So, did I hurt 'the cause' or not?

And, since when is gas almost $2.00 per gallon? WOW, knock me over with a feather.

Edie the admittedlysometimesoblivious goddess
 

JudyN

MGF, Master Grumble Framer
Joined
Oct 6, 2001
Posts
961
From
Montana ( A Tourist runs through it )
I live 35 miles away from my shop so it is not practical to ride my bike. I do wish I could. My car is a Subaru. The next one will be a Hybrid for sure.
I am very happy that the Hybrid is becoming popular. There will be more choices for us all and help save a LOT of oil.

I read recently that Seattle has purchased new buses:

According to the manufacturer, General Motors, this new hybrid technology will deliver 60% better fuel economy than today's buses, saving the County 750,000 gallons of fuel a year, while producing 90% fewer emissions.
 

Framing Goddess

SGF, Supreme Grumble Framer
Joined
Jul 18, 2000
Posts
4,309
From
Cleveland, Ohio
Okay, Bob, I like that you mentioned choices.

I have indeed made a conscious choice to travel the way I do. But not everyone is as self-aware as you: many, many, many people on the roads today begrudge my choice. There is an attitude of entitlement among drivers on our nation's roads today. I am yelled at many times a day to "get out of my way!" or "Get on the sidewalk!" and it tires me to constantly have to assert my right to be there. And indeed many cyclists have been killed or injured by ignorant and careless drivers as a result. In Cleveland as well as in other cities, radio dj's advocated violence against cyclists riding in the street. The outcry against this seems to have temporarily quelled the insanity, but damage was done and cyclists were hurt.

So, I am increasingly worried about this choice being eroded. Many communities have adopted a mandatory sidewalk-riding ordinance despite overwhelming evidence of it as a lethal place to cycle and the inevitable fatalities resulting in lawsuits against these municipalities.

So, you are absolutely right that the polarization on this subject (and many others)allows for near-dehumanizing misunderstandings.

I think we just agreed!

Edie the youstayoutofmywayandillstayoutofyours goddess
 

Jim Miller

SPFG, Supreme Picture Framing God
Forum Donor
Joined
May 19, 2000
Posts
19,068
From
Suburban Central Ohio
We have free marketeers and we have environmental advocates in conversation here. Most of us are not extremists, but somewhere in the middle on these issues.

Anyway, the opposite mindsets are everywhere, and their conversations have been pretty much the same as this one since the 60's.

Let's clear the air. It isn't really about Alaskan oil, or gas mileage, or air quality, or species extinction, etc. If we could drill all the oil we want, leaving the environment pristine in the process, would debates like this one stop? Nope.

The debate is really about consumption versus sacrifice, and who's in control. Consumption brings us comfort and convenience, but at some cost to our environment. How much consumption should we sacrifice for ecology? Further, who should determine how much sacrifice should be suffered, and by whom?

So long as humans consume, we will stress our environment in one way or another. No matter what is the topic du jour, the debate will go on; there will be no resolution. For example, our lakes, rivers, and air are cleaner now than they used to be, thanks to environmental contols, and in spite of more voracious consumers. But environmentalists -- who would have been happy about today's ecology 30 years ago -- are campaigning more loudly than ever.

And on the other side, consumption continues to increase as we develop new ways to comfort and convenience ourselves. There's been environmental improvement, relative to the rate of consumption. But will our increases in consumption ever subside?

Free marketeers have always said we should each be free to choose. Environmentalists have always said that since we are unable/unwilling to discipline ourselves, we should be forced by government to sacrifice.

So, how much of which is it? Freedom to choose or government control? Consumption or sacrifice?

Environmental awareness and moderating consumption are good ideas, until we get to the government control part. Most environmentalists think that's the best way to achieve their goals. We disagree.

Those who believe the answer is government control should note that the former Soviet Union had one of the most controlling governments in history. Soviet consumers sacrificed in ways Americans would find unthinkable. And they also had air and water among the dirtiest in the world.

Government regulation is not the long term answer. For one thing, it's too darned political.

Edie, I admire your environmental fortitude. Bob, I think your views are reasonable.
I don't pedal anymore, but I don't drive an SUV, either.

Let's be friends.
 

Rebecca

SGF, Supreme Grumble Framer
Joined
Feb 28, 2002
Posts
3,339
From
Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Thanks everyone for the moderate and tolerant turn this thread has taken.


Re my feelings on Alaskan drilling Bob, my objection to it is not just environmental damage, but my world view. I don't believe that everything on earth has to, or should be, subject to humankind's needs. Some things are just valuable in themselves, not for what they can do for us.

We don't agree on this, but that's ok. As long as we disagree politely. ;)

Rebecca
 

Bob Carter

SPFG, Supreme Picture Framing God
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 16, 2000
Posts
16,189
Hi Rebecca-I agree. We need to keep it polite and those that inflame may politely expect it in return. Wereally can discuss those things that we disagree upon.

For example, your view on humankind and world view:

How many oil platforms are there in Canada and what makes their locations acceptable when the most desolate place on earth is not?

Of the millions of platforms and drillheads all over the world, what makes them invaluable?

I mean this to be polite, really. But how do we quantify the locations and what standards make this Alaska site, north of Pt. Barrow, more valuable than any of the millions of other locations across the world.

I grew up in West Texas. There are pumping sites all over the Permian Basin. Why is acceptable to have those site drilled?

I am serious when I say I don't understand why this most remote site that no one will ever visit is the site environmentalists have chosen as worthy of protection?

And, I really do mean this politely and would love to hear your views
 

Rebecca

SGF, Supreme Grumble Framer
Joined
Feb 28, 2002
Posts
3,339
From
Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Bob, this is not my area of expertise.

As with so many subjects, we have to depend on secondary and tertiary etc. etc. sources. And for me it's emotional too.

As I understand the terms of reference, the proposed area of drilling in Alaska is in a restricted area/wildlife reserve pristine area. I think it's important to keep some portions of the earth untrammelled in the same way I think it's important to perserve sections of the medieval London wall.

I may never visit them, but it warms my heart to know they are there. They are irreplacable.

So if there is a chance to keep a previously undeveloped area undeveloped, I think that's a good thing. Also, my understand is that arctic ecosystems are especially fragile. And we know so little about ecosystems.

When I read/hear about the destruction of the Canadian boreal forest, or the Amazon rain forest, I feel desolate. And the reduction of songbird populations because of these, and other, things. It's downright depressing. There are a lot of ecological disasters out there.

This oil discussion is not restricted to Alaska. As we "speak" there is a fight brewing off the coast of BC over oil development.

So, if it's possible to avert new oil developments by energy conservation and developing alternative renewable energy sources why not?

The same with the forest destruction. I'd rather use recycled or hemp or whatever papers, and try to do so. A small and probably inconsequential contribution, but little things can add up.

That's all.

Rebecca
 

Jerry Ervin

PFG, Picture Framing God
Joined
Jul 13, 2001
Posts
8,117
From
North Carolina ... The Picture Frame Capital of th
Not trying to jump into the mix but...


Hydrogen does make a good fuel, however it is very dangerous. More so than gasoline.

In a former life I worked in the chemical industry and I worked with high pressure gases. Hydrogen has the uncanny ability to self ignite from the smallest leak. The friction at the leak site can lower the flash point dramatically.

There you are, riding along in your new environmentally friendly ride and then a 50cent O ring fails and BOOM, your on the moon.

Have you ever had a Freon leak? The only damage that done was destroying some of the ozone layer.
 

ERIC

SGF, Supreme Grumble Framer
Joined
Dec 31, 2001
Posts
1,852
From
New York's Hudson River Valley
Business
Newburgh Mercantile
even though such drilling would, at best, produce enough oil to meet only six months of America's energy needs
I hear this 6 month's figure, but never from anyone that seems to know what they talking about.
It’s called propaganda. Political manipulation.

6 Months of what? The entire oil needs of the entire U.S. market. That’s a lot of oil!!

Why would a drilling project ever be deamed worthy by comparing its potential against that figure - it makes me suspect about this line of reasoning.

Here is the possible impact - we get only 30-35% of our total volume from OPEC (my figure is from memory) If the oil from Alaska provided 2% of our total use, that equals 6-7% of OPEC’s business.

If you take a volume that equals 2% of total use and divide that into the total reserve in Alaska – you now are looking at 50+ years of oil supply. A 6% reduction in sales over the next 50 years would surely get the attention of the supply market and give any sitting president a lot of political clout for his party. Hmm.

6 months? We’ll all be dead before that one source of oil is even close to being gone.
 

Art On Canvas

CGF II, Certified Grumble Framer Level 2
Joined
Jun 24, 2002
Posts
214
From
St. Louis, MO
This is from a simple google search:
"The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is the largest unit in the National Wildlife Refuge System. The Refuge is America's finest example of an intact, naturally functioning community of arctic/subarctic ecosystems. Such a broad spectrum of diverse habitats occurring within a single protected unit is unparalleled in North America, and perhaps in the entire circumpolar north.

When the Eisenhower Administration established the original Arctic Range in 1960, Secretary of Interior Seaton described it as:

"one of the world's great wildlife areas. The great diversity of vegetation and topography in this compact area, together with its relatively undisturbed condition, led to its selection as ... one of our remaining wildlife and wilderness frontiers."

(Using the updated report and recent oil prices, the USGS estimated in 2000 that, assuming a price of $24 per barrel, there is a 95% chance of finding 1.9 billion barrels (BBO) of economically recoverable oil in the Arctic Refuge's 1002 Area.

Now it takes an act of congress to drill there. Let our grandchildren vote on it, leave the oil there for them.

http://arctic.fws.gov/issues1.htm#section2

It's called a Refuge, not a reserve. It's the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Alaska is one of the most beautiful places that I've visited. This is really remote, and not as scenic as Denali, but...Remember the Exxon Valdez.
 
Top