Gasoline.

[bobabode]

Originally Posted by whell

So, when I question folks on the left about an apparent inconsistency in their view, I'm being disingenuous? Brilliant!

Actually, Mike I get you. Everything in your absolutist universe is starkly framed in black and white. You can't envision any shades of gray or nuanced behavior, I guess that just keeps everything simple and tidy for you. Too bad that isn't how the world works.

[d-ray657]

OK, let me take a shot at the question. If we take advantage of the lower gas prices to add a fuel tax and create funding for better alternatives, we are helping the people we lefties are supposed to care about - those who are not at the top of the economic food chain A consistent and reliable mass transit system serves those on the lower economic rungs and here's one for the rugged individualists - might create more opportunities for greater earnings by making some folks more mobile. Mass transit is a much more democratic use of resources that building more and more super-highways - and it preserves fuel and lessens emissions. All of that could create more downward pressure on fuel prices and make the effect of the increased fuel taxes less painful.

Regards,

D-Ray

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by whell

So, when I question folks on the left about an apparent inconsistency in their view, I'm being disingenuous? Brilliant!

Unless you can identify the person you accuse of expressing these contradictory views and cite the post(s) wherein they did so, your question, like your very existence, is meaningless. For myself, I'm not about to try to explain to you why I hold views that I don't actually hold just to serve your warped agenda.

John

[whell]

Originally Posted by Boreas

Unless you can identify the person you accuse of expressing these contradictory views and cite the post(s) wherein they did so, your question, like your very existence, is meaningless. For myself, I'm not about to try to explain to you why I hold views that I don't actually hold just to serve your warped agenda.

John

I'm starting to understand you a bit better John. It's not sufficient to just disagree with someone. You've also got to insult them personally just to feel better about yourself. I'm glad to be able to help you work out your angst and self loathing.

[whell]

Originally Posted by d-ray657

OK, let me take a shot at the question. If we take advantage of the lower gas prices to add a fuel tax and create funding for better alternatives, we are helping the people we lefties are supposed to care about - those who are not at the top of the economic food chain A consistent and reliable mass transit system serves those on the lower economic rungs and here's one for the rugged individualists - might create more opportunities for greater earnings by making some folks more mobile. Mass transit is a much more democratic use of resources that building more and more super-highways - and it preserves fuel and lessens emissions. All of that could create more downward pressure on fuel prices and make the effect of the increased fuel taxes less painful.

Regards,

D-Ray

So the jobs that might come from an expanding economy fueled by cheaper more abundant energy isn't helpful for those "not at the top of the domestic food chain? Making energy more expensive domestically while energy prices are falling internationally discourages domestic growth and helps buoy OPEC's artificial oil price targets, no?

[merrylander]

Originally Posted by whell

And isn't is the least bit interesting to you that the US's surge in oil production has caused such a major movement in world oil market prices?

At the price of how many more towns will be destroyed? Take your North Dakota fraked oil and shove it.

[whell]

Originally Posted by merrylander

At the price of how many more towns will be destroyed? Take your North Dakota fraked oil and shove it.

I'm not sure what you're suggesting with this post. Are you suggesting that you'd prefer that the OPEC nations destroy themselves so you can still drive your car and have access to other petrochemical products at their expense? Or are you saying that you're going to park your car for good and ride a bike?

[merrylander]

Originally Posted by whell

I'm not sure what you're suggesting with this post. Are you suggesting that you'd prefer that the OPEC nations destroy themselves so you can still drive your car and have access to other petrochemical products at their expense? Or are you saying that you're going to park your car for good and ride a bike?

My car is lucky if it gets out of the garage once a month, if that.

What I am trying to get through some thick heads around here is that the only way ND oil can get to refineries is by rail, in American trains that part way have to pass through Canada. Now I can appreciate that Lac Megantic is only a Quebec town so its destruction does not count down here, but who knows maybe with luck the next one will be a village down here.

This does not even begin to discuss the pollution created by fraking. You do realize that thanks to the Haliburton loophole they don't have to tell us what it is that they mix with the water used to crack the shale. So where do you propose they dispose of all that polluted water?

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by merrylander

What I am trying to get through some thick heads around here is that the only way ND oil can get to refineries is by rail, in American trains that part way have to pass through Canada.

Also from Alberta, Manitoba and Saskatchewan in Canadian trains, Rob. Don't let Canada off the hook.

The problem with rail is the cars. The same unsafe cars are used in the US (DOT-111) and Canada (CTC-111A). In fact, on a percentage basis, the Canadian fleet has more of these in service than the US does, around 80% to 70%. Both countries' governments know that these are unsafe - they have for decades - and have suggested improved standards but pressure from the rail companies, who simply don't want to spend the money, has blocked action.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WpXfQMFR_Qs

Of course, trains aren't the only way to move this stuff. There are pipelines too. Safe, right? Not so much. Over the past 10 years, an average of 4.1 million gallons have been spilled each year. That's 41 million gallons every decade. Increases in the number of miles of pipeline, as proposed for the Keystone XL and other North American pipelines, will only increase the number of accidents and the number of gallons spilled.

http://www.factcheck.org/2014/03/pipeline-primer/

When will we decide that we've "hit bottom" with our oil addiction?

John

[whell]

Originally Posted by merrylander

What I am trying to get through some thick heads around here is that the only way ND oil can get to refineries is by rail, in American trains that part way have to pass through Canada.

A refinery was recently completed in ND. it just came on line this fall. So, no more exploding Canadian towns.

Originally Posted by merrylander

This does not even begin to discuss the pollution created by fraking. You do realize that thanks to the Haliburton loophole they don't have to tell us what it is that they mix with the water used to crack the shale. So where do you propose they dispose of all that polluted water?

Already been addressed. See link below - disposal of fracking wastewater is actually creating its own mini boom.

http://www.midwestenergynews.com/201...iness-in-ohio/