  |
||||||||
|
||||||||
User login
Recent comments
- > Mr. Fiore *is* informing
22 hours 12 min ago - There is a disease raging
1 day 8 hours ago - Quail is to Reagan as Palin
1 day 17 hours ago - The "Patriot Act" is the
1 day 19 hours ago - you're an idiot. marriage is
2 days 11 hours ago - Quiz for Sarah:
What would
2 days 20 hours ago - "Because Mr. Fiore is an
3 days 14 hours ago - On a somewhat related note,
3 days 18 hours ago - Another aspect of Sarah you
3 days 20 hours ago - Good depiction of Mrs Palin
3 days 20 hours ago
Current News
- The Caucus: What to Watch for During the Second Debate
- City Room: Bloomberg at 10 Downing Street
- Europe Seeks Unified Policy on Bank Crisis
- European Stocks Rise Slightly; Asian Shares Mixed
- Fed Announces Plan to Buy Short-Term Debt
- Thai Protesters Trap Legislators
- News Media Feel Limits to Georgia’s Democracy
- Future of Giant Turtle Still Uncertain
- 1 American, 2 Japanese Share Nobel Physics Prize
- Baghdad Bureau: The Airport Road
- Fed Considers Plan to Buy Companies’ Unsecured Debt
- Global Fears of a Recession Grow Stronger
- 2 Japanese, 1 American Share Nobel Physics Prize
RSS
Do Something!
Comments
This was awesome! Great job,
This was awesome! Great job, Mark!
This was awesome! Great job,
This was awesome! Great job, Mark!
This is great ! I sent it
This is great ! I sent it to a widely varied group of people including one who thinks that there is more oil in the US than in most of the world..."If those damn tree huggers would only let us drill etc". Next the oil companies will be whining about how they need more tax breaks to build more rigs (which they don't have now) to make even bigger profits. But we won't dare sPEAK of that...
Best Yet!
Best Yet!
Next they will start
Next they will start drilling off of florida and our tourism will go down and gas will still go up. We need to spend money on alternative sources to gas, not more gas. Tell the Iraqi's free gas or we get out. The next time Kuwait is invaded- tough. Saudis can kiss our infidel behinds. Anne
This video is so full of it!
This video is so full of it!
Yeah, the truth sucks don't
Yeah, the truth sucks don't it?
Where's Ellie May?
Where's Ellie May?
Very cute. Even former
Very cute. Even former oilman T. Boone Pickens admits we can't drill our way out of this problem, although I wonder what made him change his tune.
as T.Boone Pickens said in
as T.Boone Pickens said in his testimony , he's an american first and 2nd he's an oil man! so dont expect him to give up on oil, its easy money for him
right on the mark,
right on the mark, mark
matt-
Come an' listen to a story
Come an' listen to a story bout a fella named Mark,
Had to draw his neat cartoon while e's sittin' in the dark,
'Cause Mark's the kinda feller likes to do his toil
without the benefit of Lord Petro's oil.
(Energy, that is. Kilowatt hours. Tesla's tea.)
Now Mark started talkin' 'bout the price of energy,
Said "engineers'll save us with their new technology."
Just shake yer fist at Petro and if you're still alive,
They might have somethin' fer you by 2025.
(A freakin' long time in the future, that is. At the earliest. Well after Obama or McCain (and their successor) have left office.)
So Mark stormed the office of holy Petro's church,
Said "Your makin' all these profits is hurtin' green research."
Petro shook his head, said "we been fundin' it fer years",
But Mark couldn't hear 'em with his fingers in his ears.
(Blaming anybody but himself (the consumer) that is. Ignoring the fact that Big Oil has pumped more money into energy research than his tax dollars ever have, even though they're probably the last people that should be required to contribute.)
"I don't give a hoot, 'cause Obama he's with me,
We'll gonna fix the problem usin' fuel efficiency.
That'll change yer tune you ol' munny-suckin' drum."
Petro shook his head, said "Gee, that's dumb."
(Pointless, that is. The price of oil will do a thousand times what the corrupt, monolithic US government ever could. Not that it really matters, since gasoline is only a small fraction of American energy consumption, and even the most carefully-engineered fuel efficiency improvements are only in the low double-digit percentages.)
But Mark wouldn' listen 'cause he hated Petro so,
Said, "I don't care there's nothin' else, that drum has gotta go.
So let's stop alla drillin', take the profits Petro gits,
and waste 'em legislatin' consumers buyin' habits."
(Taxes, that is. Preferably the kind that attract engineers out of renewable energy think tanks and into pointless, ridiculously costly, government-subsidized fuel efficiency initiatives.)
So the power ran out an' Mark was in a snit,
'cause he weren't usin' solar, kinda like a hypocrite,
"I just couldn't stop m’self from burnin' alla gas.
An' I thought it was Obama's job to save my ass."
(Obama's plan, that is. Oh wait, he doesn't have one. Well, don't touch that ballot box now, y'all hear?)
I am in no way opposed to funding for renewable energy research, but energy corporations are not an obstacle to change in any sense other than they provide the means to sustain our energy-hungry lifestyles.
The consumers (you and me) are the problem.
If you're one of the people that has stopped making excuses and has his home largely (or fully) powered by renewable energy, then I apologize for calling you a hypocrite.
Thanks for the cartoon. I felt you were directing the blame at the wrong people.
Regards,
COTO
It is actually possible to
It is actually possible to live fuel efficiently nowadays. Oil drilling ravages the environment and won't have an effect for many years. So basically this cartoon is completely accurate in every way accept McCain doesn't look that young.
nice parody though. You clearly put some time into that! :)
Thanks for the compliment.
Thanks for the compliment. (And belated thanks to Phil_hobby, who also offered a very kind compliment.)
Fuel is only a small part of what oil is needed for.
As I've pointed out, the 10%-14% octane is really the only component targeted by auto efficiency standards.
My 2-5% total reduction estimation assumes that all octane goes into gasoline and diesel, which it doesn't.
And it assumes that the only use for gasoline is fuel for vehicles affected by the CAFE standards, which is also highly optimistic. Your mower and leaf blower and Ol' Farma Ben's diesel-suckin' John Deere burn plenty of gas, too, and none of these are affected by fuel efficiency standards.
Nor will they be. The government is having a hard enough time convincing Farma Ben to keep pumping out the ethanol, even though the latest (and most accurate) estimates are that one gallon of ethanol takes 1.46 gallons of diesel to produce. Which, combined with the fact that ethanol has about 60% of the energy density of diesel, means that Ol' Ben'll have to squeeze an extra 143% out of his John Deere just to keep fuel consumption neutral as biofuels become the latest craze.
Be warned: if the oil supply dwindles too greatly, it is a very real possibility that its price will shoot so high that government initiatives (or even private investment) cannot afford the materials needed to construct a large-scale renewable energy infrastructure.
Few people seem to realize what the polymers on the photovoltaics, the machinery in the solar panel assembly lines, and the fuel in the cranes that erect the wind turbines are made from.
The point where oil costs have shot this high is (fingers crossed) still more than a decade away yet, but if it happens, 'oil drilling ravag[ing] the environment' will be the least of your worries.
Maybe things will shape up. Not twenty minutes ago, my power company showed up at my door to explain how my electricity rates are going through the roof to subsidize green research and make my building carbon neutral. So apparently next month when I get my sky-high energy bill, I'll officially be carbon-neutral (and wishing I was one of you lucky Americans who could still afford luxuries... like lights).
I'n noe tylinh in the sark ro sace enerhy.
REHARSS,
cOTP
I like the creative post,
I like the creative post, COTO. Having a reply in the style of the cartoon is brilliant. But yet, it's so simple to blame ourselves and just forget about it. Never mind that the power companies aren't adding renewable energy to the grid. Never mind that personal energy systems are outside of the average person's financial reach. Never mind that the transportation companies aren't providing a reasonable alternative to automobiles and President Bush has repeatedly slashed Amtrak's budget. We, as the nation's consumers, should naturally have found a way to avoid all these things.
Granted, I agree consumers are part of the problem, but many people now are finally doing there part to conserve energy. People are using mass transportation when they can, and are using fuel efficient cars when they can. A lot of people use energy efficient bulbs. Some people are turning down the thermostat in the winter and turning off the A/C in the summer. Naturally there will always people who drive SUVs and don't give a second thought to energy or environmental cost, but that is no longer the majority of Americans. A lot of those people are the politicians and corporate executives that already work for oil companies. In general, though, there aren't nearly as many Hummers, Avalanches, and huge trucks on the roads as there were a little while ago. Consumers are starting to do their part; now companies need to start supporting the new technologies and make mass transportation and renewable energy available to the masses.
Large businesses and politicians, on the other hand, are still looking in the wrong direction towards oil, cars, and non-renewable energy, and trying to convince the consumers they are "green". All through Pennsylvania, you'll see billboards for "Green Coal" and how it's "Power for the future." Most of their money towards renewable energy is spent advertising how they are "already green."
Some oil companies, such as Exxon Mobil, have even stated they have no interest in renewable energy. Of course there are some who are, but that is not the majority, and the amount they are investing in renewable energy sources is extremely trivial compared to their total profits. If it is greater than the contribution from tax dollars (hard numbers are pretty much impossible to get, since the oil companies don't like to give away their budget. Reminds me of the white house)
ExxonMobil has given millions of dollars away in campaign donations recently to Republican candidates and have had much lobbyist influence in Washington.
Then, the car companies, especially American ones, aren't getting nearly as good mileage as they should be. If the Prius gets 45 mpg, there is no reason why a standard sedan should be getting 20. There are almost no alternatives for a lot of people either. Many cities have little bus or light rail service, if they have it at all. Pittsburgh, for example, now has only a small trolley system and limited bus service. In the 1950s and earlier you could take a trolley from Pittsburgh to Chicago. Big business has destroyed all the infrastructure we already had, and now some cities are just starting to pick up the pieces. With no mass transportation, people are forced to drive everywhere. That's not a matter of choice on their part; it's the only way. They can chose what kind of car they get, but many people bought SUVs when gas was cheap and now they're stuck. They can't afford a new car, SUVs resell for extremely cheap, and they have no mass transportation. Politicians and oil companies have trapped many Americans in a position where they end up using a lot more energy than they could.
Many Republican politicians are still looking backwards towards oil and gas. As the cartoon said, McCain is going to keep drilling. Obama, on the other hand, does have a plan to reduce emmisions. It's outlined right here. It may not be perfect, but it leads America in the right direction towards less dependency on oil. It's better than drilling everywhere possible. The oil companies aren't even using the land they've got to capacity and their refineries are outdated. The blame shouldn't be focused on the consumers, although they need to do whatever they can. The politicians and oil company bigwigs are the ones who need to give consumers the ability to increase their environmental efficiency.
> ...power companies aren't
> ...power companies aren't adding renewable energy to the grid...
So criticize the power companies.
> ...personal energy systems are outside of the average person's financial reach...
I strongly disagree (I have my small place ~30% to ~50% powered by solar, depending on the time of year. Granted, I'm an electrical engineer and had to jury rig the thing.)
How oil companies not making money from legitimate market demand puts energy systems more into people's reach is a bit beyond me. (If your complaint is with price-fixing, then you're on the money so to speak, but Mr. Fiore makes no mention of it in his toon.)
> ...transportation companies aren't providing a reasonable alternative...
So write your city alderman (councilman, or whatever you guys call it down there). Transportation is a municipal act, through and through.
> Large businesses and politicians... are trying to convince the consumers they are "green".
Indeed. Mostly, you'll note, to get you to spend more money. Let's not forget such wonderful innovations as the Prius (takes so much energy to build and has such a short lifetime that it takes more out of the environment than a Hummer, as proven by multiple journal articles, one of which is cited here). Ooh, and the new, smaller water bottles that have a lower product-to-packaging ratio (which any idiot who knows basic geometry could figure out). And Canada's (muh home) crowning achievement: banning incandescent light bulbs... whoops... right before GE came out with an incandescent bulb that was more efficient than the current compact fluorescents.
My point being that the 'greenest' candidate isn't necessarily the one who wants to save the environment.
> Some oil companies, such as Exxon Mobil, have even stated they have no interest in renewable energy.
Which is somehow surprising to you?
What's surprising to me is that many of the major oil corps here in Canada do, even though renewable energy is technically their competition.
> If the Prius gets 45 mpg, ...
Sorry for... you know... killing the magic. Incidentally, the average U.S. car is getting better than 20 mpg, and the fuel savings are a drop in the bucket. See my reply post below for specific details.
> Big business has destroyed all the infrastructure we already had, ...
How? How? How?
> ...with no mass transportation... ...trapped many Americans...
I agree. People are consuming far more energy than we should. I personally don't own a car. I bought a place near a major subway route. I vote for the municipal politicians that I believe have the most beneficial, responsible transportation plans.
Big oil making profits has not crushed transport out of business; cheap gas and cheap cars have. You can complain that drilling for more oil will lower the price of gas and further addict consumers to old technology, or you can complain about high gas prices. You can't do both. Mr. Fiore has chosen to do the latter.
> Obama, on the other hand, does have a plan to reduce emissions. It's outlined right here.
Thanks for the link.
But (hate to do this) here's McCain's site on energy and climate. You might notice something. Like the fact that it's the same freakin' policy as Obama's, with the exception that he's expanding drilling.
The policies are otherwise identical, including green technology initiatives and research funding. (If you see otherwise, by all means point it out.)
If you think that McCain is a liar and will back down on his funding initiatives, then say so. If not, the only real difference I see is that McCain's version is only the slightest bit more realistic: it keeps drilling open as an option to bolster supply so Americans don't have to... maybe... I don't know... float until 2025, or 2080.
> The blame shouldn't be focused on the consumers...
It should. Absolutely, it should. Every bit as much as it's on the big, nasty corporations. As much as we want them to, politicians are not going to solve this mess. They can help, but your, my, and Mr. Fiore's sorry fuel-sucking behinds are ultimately going to be 90% of the change. And hating the oil men for their profits isn't going to change that.
Regards,
COTO
P.S. I should note that if I was American, I'd still (barely) be in the Obama camp, but for other reasons. Although I have to say, if the poor guy isn't reading from a pre-written speech, he's almost as bad... as... uh... well... in my opinion, of course... with due respect to my opponent, and respect to his... uh... policy initiatives... leads me to the belief that... Bush.
>So criticize the power
>So criticize the power companies.
I am, and so are a lot of people.
> Granted, I'm an electrical engineer
That's excellent, but most people don't have the ability or the know-how to install a solar system in their house. People who live in urban areas often have no where to put the solar cells or wind turbines, except for the owner of the building in an apartment.
>If your complaint is with price-fixing, then you're on the money so to speak, but Mr. Fiore makes no mention of it in his toon.
That is where a lot of my complaints lie. In the 1970s they lowered the prices just as people were thinking about efficiency. They might be doing it to a certain extent now, but they might not be; it's very hard to tell exactly what they're doing. So yes, that is one of my major complaints. Of course, one of the problems is that demand goes down, prices naturally go down, so some of it might just be the nature of the market. Mr. Fiore didn't mention it, but the cartoon was focused specifically on the drilling aspect, not the pricing in general. I think we agree on that though, at least.
>So write your city alderman
A lot of people are.
>the Prius...takes more out of the environment than a Hummer
That was an interesting article. It may even influence my opinion of hybrids. However, hybrids have the potential to be far more eco-friendly, if the companies decided to keep it more local and develop better manufacturing methods. That's the companies' problem, not the consumers.
As a side note, I would like to know the driving conditions they used in that survey. If it had been mostly city driving, there is an excellent chance the Prius would still have been more friendly than the Hummer. I also wonder if they included the pollution from the steel industry, and the coal and the iron it takes to make the steel in the emissions. There are so many factors, I seriously doubt the article is applicable for all situations, and the article seemed to make a lot of assumptions, like only a 100,000 mile lifespan for the Prius and a 300,000 mile Hummer lifespan. Of course, between the Honda Civic and the Honda Civic Hybrid, the article is probably right on, but between a large SUV and a Prius, I'd bet the Prius is still better for the environment.
>Ooh, and the new, smaller water bottles that have a lower product-to-packaging ratio (which any idiot who knows basic geometry could figure out)
Exactly. I don't understand the principle behind bottled water at all for home usage other than to waste resources. I know people who only drink bottled water, because they think the bottled water is "better" somehow. (Even though bottled water has been proven to be no safer than tap water.) And then the companies make the bottles completely inefficient. You're right, they could make them much more volume-efficient. That would really work with cereal boxes and other rectangular boxes; I calculated "cubing" a box that was 11.25*7.75*2 inches would save 63 square inches of cardboard. Once again, the companies could choose to be more efficient but don't, although the bottled water is of course mostly the consumer's fault for buying unnecessary bottles.
>GE came out with an incandescent bulb that was more efficient than the current compact fluorescents.
Could you send me a link to this superefficient incandescent? I couldn't find it even on GE's website; they were advertising their CFLs. I'd like to know where to get them if they exist, but I haven't been able to find them.
>the average U.S. car is getting better than 20 mpg
I probably should have defined "average" first. If you count medium-sized sedans with V6s as average, the average is about 20 mpg; according to Consumer Reports (2008): Chevrolet Malibu-20mpg, Chrysler Sebring-21mpg, Ford Fusion-20mpg, Honda Accord-21mpg, Hyundai Azera-19mpg, Nissan Altima-23mpg, Toyota Avalon-22mpg
Of course, 4 cylinder cars get in the upper 20s for mpg, except for a few in the 30s, if that's what you count as average.
>Big business has destroyed all the infrastructure we already had, ...
How? How? How?
Well, like I said before, in the 1920s there were hundreds of streetcar and trolley lines in Western Pennsylvania alone, and this was normal for the time. You could almost travel coast to coast on a trolley. But, in the 1950s, everyone felt the need to "modernize," and scrapped all the tracks and burned most of the streetcars, and replaced them with buses. Admittedly, the rise of the personal automobile was one of the main causes, but one of the reasons it caught on was the trolley companies' owners hadn't upgraded their lines, meaning it once again comes back to big business. The owners destroyed the existing systems instead of investing in them to keep a good transportation system, and left the cities in the position they are now; with only a few small bus and light rail (trolley) lines, if they have any mass transit at all. As for highways, the highway companies haven't done much maintenance for years, and now our infrastructure is falling apart due to their inactivity during the past 20 or 30 years.
>People are consuming far more energy than we should.
Yes, definitely. The consumer definitely has his fair share of blame.
>You can complain that drilling for more oil will lower the price of gas and further addict consumers to old technology, or you can complain about high gas prices. You can't do both.
I will do the former. I kind of hope gas prices stay up, so people don't return to their SUVs and trucks and act like nothing happened.
Europe has dealt with $8/gallon gas for years, so I don't see why America can't deal with $4 or $4.50 gas.
>The policies are otherwise identical
They are certainly very close, but not identical. True, their carbon reduction goals are for all practical reasons identical. However, the drilling difference is a major one. It shows that McCain isn't planning to have phased out gasoline by 2030 or so. And there is another difference that is fairly big. All of McCain's transportation goals focus on reducing auto emissions and increasing mileage, but on Obama's transportation plan, he specifically mentions increasing funding for Amtrak and other mass transportation systems, something that isn't mentioned on McCain's website. If you can find his views on Amtrak, please tell me, but his website says nothing about it.
I seriously doubt McCain will meet his carbon reduction goals, but to be fair, I don't think Obama will be able to meet his goals either. It seems extremely unlikely the president will singlehandedly be able to turn around the carbon emissions, and if they do, it is probably mostly because of other factors.
As for drilling, the oil companies aren't using a lot of the land they already have, so they don't need to keep getting more from the president.
>The blame shouldn't be focused on the consumers...
>It should. Absolutely, it should. Every bit as much as it's on the big, nasty corporations.
I agree that the consumers should be blamed as much as the corporations, but not more. The corporations/politicians mislead them, then they follow without thinking, and just go and buy their huge SUVs. You are right to blame them, but as I mentioned before, many of them are now choosing to be far more environmentally friendly than before.
>he's almost as bad as Bush
Um, can you explain how...?
Obama is far better than Bush. Even McCain is a lot better than Bush. (although, of course, that's just my personal opinion)
Regarding the Hummer/Prius
Regarding the Hummer/Prius debate: the issue isn't fuel efficiency; the Prius is far more fuel efficient. The problem is that total cost of the Prius: the start-to-finish impact, including extracting the raw materials, shipping them for servicing, manufacturing, distribution, use, and disposal, is 50% greater than the start-to-finish impact of a Hummer.
The consumer tendency is to ignore the extraction, shipping, manufacturing and disposal aspects, and to concentrate only on use, even though the 'use' phase constitutes less than 15% of the total 'cost' of the vehicle. The significance of the report(s) is that if the extraction, etc. costs are taken into consideration (the pollution from the factories, and from the mines, etc.), the Hummer beats out the Prius by a fairly significant margin.
If the comparison was just for the 'use' phase, I suspect that the Prius would still beat out the Hummer, despite its short lifespan.
One of the widespread misconceptions that oil execs (like my old man) have to dispel is how little car 'use' matters in the big economic picture. Cars output only about 9-15% of the total CO2 * produced by Americans, and the percentage is even lower for India and China. The gasoline that cars burn is a fraction of the energy consumed in their manufacturing, and the energy required to manufacture them is a small fraction of the total industrial consumption of oil. Cars are so often put under the spotlight because they're one of the few things where consumers get (at least the illusion of) a chance to do something.
* I should note that, despite the hype, 'carbon' emissions are the least of our environmental problems.
> You are right to blame them, but as I mentioned before, many of them are now choosing to be far more environmentally friendly than before.
The problem now, as we've discussed, is that the same 'follow without thinking' attitude is pervasive in many 'green' products and policies that go nowhere or exacerbate the situation.
We agree on most of the rest.
The GE bulb is still in development for 2010. There's a concise article about it here.
As for Obama, I'm referring to his speechcraft. The man is touted as a phenomenal orator, but his interviews and on-the-spot campaign speeches are so fraught with hesitancy and indirection, so utterly sanitized, that even his former law colleagues in Chicago claim he's painful to listen to. I was cringing all throughout his interview with Brian Wilson a week ago. Between the filler, the 'ums' and 'ers' every three seconds, the pregnant pauses, and the total lack of anything even scantly committal, you could hardly consider it an interview.
*Sigh* Not that I can really blame him. The InstaScandal dish is just whirring away, hungry for that one 'bitter' sound bite to pop out so the InstaPundits can feel useful.
I realize that it is
I realize that it is including the product manufacturing impact, but I have a hard time believing it is that much of a difference when the curb weight of a Hummer is more than double that of a Prius. Surely it takes far more energy to create the batteries than an equivalent amount of steel, but most of the Prius's weight is not the batteries. As for the disposal emissions, most car parts can be recycled, including most of the Prius, so I'm not sure where they are getting those facts from. I'm sure those studies have considerable relevancy, but I'd like to see their exact calculations before I choose a car based on that. I would agree that most Americans (and the rest of the world) focus on the "use" phase; however, indirectly "use" encompasses a larger part than just the emissions from burning. For every gallon of gas to get to your car, it has to be drilled for, then shipped, often from another country, then it has to be refined, and then it has to be trucked to the gas station. That's a lot of oil and electricity used that is directly related to the use phase, but would show up in other categories such as power generation and shipping. (Of course, all that also does a lot of other environmental damage. You're certainly right in saying carbon emissions aren't the whole problem. I think all the other problems like industrial waste, landfills, damaged ecosystems, etc. tends to get overlooked with the threat of 'global warming'. [Or more accurately, climate change.])
>The problem now, as we've discussed, is that the same 'follow without thinking' attitude is pervasive in many 'green' products and policies that go nowhere or exacerbate the situation.
Yes, that's certainly a big problem. Americans are going to have to make some intelligent decisions to find the truly green things they can do. (Intelligent decisions? Scary, I know.)
>The GE bulb is still in development for 2010. There's a concise article about it here.
That's very interesting. That could greatly solve the mercury problems of CFLs, unless they figure out another solution within 3 years, which is possible. I think CFLs are here to stay, but a better incandescent would certainly help. Maybe those states will have to rethink the ban after all.
>Between the filler, the 'ums' and 'ers' every three seconds, the pregnant pauses, and the total lack of anything even scantly committal, you could hardly consider it an interview.
I have noticed a little bit of that, but it's not as bad as you claim. He still answers all the questions accurately, and the pauses are within normal standards. McCain is hardly any better. I see your point, but I don't think it is that bad.
> The InstaScandal dish is just whirring away, hungry for that one 'bitter' sound bite to pop out so the InstaPundits can feel useful.
Exactly; they are just waiting for something that kind of sorta possibly remotely represents a scandal. They seem to especially like Obama for sound bites. On the news they must have played the Wright quotes 10 times per day per news network.
-I'm not John McCain or Barack Obama and I approve this message.
Sorry Coto, you are wrong.
Sorry Coto, you are wrong. Jimmy Carter told us 30+ years ago to make cars more efficient, by raising the CAFE standards and to develop alternative energy sources. Had we listened to him, we would not have to import a single drop of foreign oil today. Even now if the standards were raised to an average of 35mpg, we could cut imports in half. It doesn't occur to you that with 2 ex-oil men in the White House, and their secret energy policy developed by un-named energy executives has quadrupled the price of oil and gas since these bozos have been in office? If you like what has happend, by all means vote for McSame.
> Had we listened to him, we
> Had we listened to him, we would not have to import a single drop of foreign oil today...
I'd love to see where you sourced this one from.
Given that a barrel of crude oil is typically refined into between 10-14% octane (the principal component of gasoline), and the improved CAFE standards would reduce fuel consumption by (at most) 40% [20% is more likely], they would facilitate a reduction of 2.0-5.6% in crude oil imports. Considering that the U.S. gets 2/3 of its foreign oil from foreign nations (66.5% to be exact, as sourced here), and 36.2% of that comes from the 'evil' OPEC nations alone, somehow I don't see them shaking in their boots at Carter's plan for a two-percent drop in Uncle Sam's fix.
> Even now if the standards were raised to an average of 35mpg, we could cut imports in half.
Again, your source. By the same source as above, and according to the nice info given here for current standards, even with your dream 35 mpg, oil imports could, at most, drop by ~5% by my calculations. That's a generous estimate.
> ...and their secret energy policy developed by un-named energy executives has quadrupled the price of oil and gas since these bozos have been in office...
Walk me through this one. How are Bush and his cronies (cretins that they are) responsible for the price of oil?
Better yet: how does drilling for more oil to bolster supply increase the cost of oil?
Yes, Bush and much of his administration are pawns of the oil lobby.
Yes, investment in new energy technology is sorely needed, and was admittedly stifled under Bush's watch.
No, Bush is not the reason oil prices are sky high. Your and my fuel-sucking butts are why it's sky high. China's and India's linear increase in demand are why it's sky high.
Do things need to change? Yes, absolutely.
Are the oil companies making windfall profits an impediment to that change? You and Mr. Fiore obviously think so. I think it's a ridiculous notion. It's the first step in a convenient cop-out where Americans to believe that the government can tinker with fuel efficiency, throw some money at green research, tax the oil men, and the energy problem will magically sort itself out without you and me having to drastically change our lifestyles.
And as I pointed out in my parody, were going to kinda sorta maybe... you know... need energy sometime before 2025 when these initiatives come on line.
If you know of some secret plan where more drilling in the U.S. will somehow reverse the supply-demand effect in the meantime, or how the oil companies making profits magically squelches consumer demand for fuel efficiency and renewable energy, then share your thoughts.
And if your argument is that Big Oil is in collusion with McCain and has agreed to fund him only if he fights renewable energy (I won't deny that it's possible), you might want to think about a shred of proof. I've got a link to McCain's energy plan in my reply to Phil_hobby above with a bit of analysis. Until then, this cartoon is a two-minute rant from Mr. Fiore about 'how durned unfair it is' that oil execs are getting rich off of the money he pays them for his energy fix.
My thoughts: Obama or no, the oil execs are sleeping well tonight knowing that you, me, and Mr. Fiore will be coming back for more tomorrow.
Great animation! Except that
Great animation!
Except that we in Canada are not in the middle of an election campaign, we could replace the names of the US presidential candidates by our political party leaders in Ottawa, and it would fit the picture.
Keep up the good work!
Brilliant, as usual, I
Brilliant, as usual, I see.
PREMISE: Interesting. The pump is a frustrating thing.
MUSIC: The song was in fact the best song I heard since your "Night Before Caucus" II. It seems to fit a Republican candidate. The music style, that is.
FLASH ART/ANIMATION: Good. I've always enjoyed your somewhat "rough" style.
My assessment would be that this was a good cartoon. It fit, like pieces of a puzzle. Indeed, this is "drill-o-riffic"
I just posted the new
I just posted the new animation. Hope you'll find it drill-o-riffic!
-Mark
Post new comment