Drill, baby, drill,,oops!

The guy is an idiot, but unfortunately he's not alone.

1. He wants to spend ~$20k for a used vehicle.
2. He can't afford to pay for it up front - it will take 2-3 years to pay off.
3. He "only" drives 8k miles/year, but neglects to note that will cost him at least another $2k/year in gas.
4. He thinks it has "status".
5. He needs someone to talk him out of it.

Frankly, I'd tell him to buy the damn thing - maybe the money pit will teach him something after a couple years.

 

Good catch. I didn't look at the rest of most of his posts so I didn't realize he was planning to take 2-3 years to pay it off. As for the "status" part, hahaha.

But yep, he's not alone. It's really too bad people so many don't care about our the consequences of our dependence on oil and on others around them.

A lot of sports car drivers don't like monstrosity SUVs either since, unlike sports cars, they are poor in handling, steering feel, braking and acceleration.

 

Since it's a used car, it's out there anyway. So the difference is that he might use it more than the current owner. But if he uses it less, then it's a net gain for the environment.

 

Democracy has nothing to do with it, it is the greedy bastards that are allowed to vote. It works just fine in other democratic nations like all of Western Europe and even our fine neighbour to the North. Yes it would raise the price of everything from mail/courrier service to produce to even cars themselves. Why is that a bad thing?

Even if they took all the money raised from this magic tax, put it in a big cauldron, and lit it on fire, I would still be for it. If the government invested this raised money in renewable energy sources it would be best, but the main point is that it hurts regular people like you and I and Joe the plumber and Jane-some-other-profession. When they realize maybe they dont need an 8 passenger SUV to drive little Timmy to soccer practice around the corner they might drive it less, or upgrade to a better vehicle. If they need to drive, they will, but it will cost them. Hybrids in general, will look pretty nice. Even going from a 8mpg truck to a 18mpg SUV if you really need the space or utility would be a very real concern for people. Money makes chages around here.

To make up for imports, you just raise import taxes all everything. Raise more money to help with the gigantic deficit, and make those extremely cheap commodities from China, less cheap.

This sort of system works just fine W. Europe and to a much lesser extent in Canada (meaning the tax is lower and so are gas prices but it still works fine). Yes people will whine and complain like they always do, but they will get over it and go about their lives.

 

My uncle has a Big-Bird yellow H2, and he bought it when they first came out. It is ugly on the outside but actually rather comfortable on the inside. I am glad it had tinted windows because it was quite embarassing IMHO to drive around in it. If you can afford it and dont care about anything else, then might as well buy it. But this guy who obviously cannot afford it, will probably sell it within a year of owning it if it doesnt get reposessed.

They are expensive to fix, and they need fixing often. Two transmissions in 8 years are the big things I know of for that car. Both cost more than you could sell your first born child for.

They are very very wide. Driving on the east coast on roads built for horse-drawn-carriages in a car is scary. Driving it in a Hummer is rediculous. Your tire is in the cement part of the shoulder and you are still driving over the line.

And really I think the "status" symbol part of them has faded as did the entire brand thanks to GM.

 

very well stated. the problem here is that we are not suited for our environment. because of overpopulation, we have been forced to move "outside our comfort" zone. instead of adapting to our surroundings (which we are more than capable of doing) we have chosen to change our environment. but every change, conversion, etc. has a loss. we do not get out as much as we took. period. its either less product or detrimental by products and every day the law of diminishing returns multiplies.

the Earth was bountiful and in some areas it still is, but the first thing we notice about those areas, is that NO ONE LIVES THERE.

soon, they will and that area will also start to lose.

we can no longer simply stop polluting or stop being wasteful. we need to start putting back some of what we took

 

Certainly he could do that. But the Hummer would still be driven by the previous owner, therefore there would be no net change for that vehicle (the Hummer).

Think of the Hummer as a Cash For Clunkers purchase. If the new owner drives it less, it pollutes less, and may be replaced by a more fuel-efficient vehicle (by the previous Hummer owner). Not to mention that the environmental costs of manufacturing a new vehicle have been avoided.

 

Parked in the shade, a used Hummer would make a perfect chicken coop. A few bullet holes for effect, some wire netting in the windows....

 

Anyone hear that BP is burning the oil its extracting from the leak so they can capture more oil?

Sigh, trading one form of pollution for another isn't going to solve the problem. Now instead of pollution in the water, we also have to deal with massive air pollution.

 

Would you rather they just let the oil spill into the ocean instead? Right now burning the oil is the lesser of two evils - it's only a stop-gap solution.

 

Eh, not so much. The water pollution is much, much worse.

If it's at a high enough temperature (typically >1500 degF), just about anything will burn relatively cleanly. Thermal oxidiation or flares are an well-accepted form of air pollution control. Typically 90-95% effective at removing VOC (changing it to NOx and CO2 (and H2 and CO and water etc etc), which have their own issues, but the NOx should be fine in that uninhabited area, and the CO2 is minuscule compared to total emissions).

Surface burning is a different beast, since it will not reach the temperatures required.

 

Why not put it in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve?
[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Petroleum_Reserve"]Strategic Petroleum Reserve - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

 

The SPR is full.

ETA: For some reason, the SPR page showing the amount in the reserve is no longer available.

ETA2: Found it. http://www.spr.doe.gov/dir/dir.html

ETA3: Capacity is 727 MMbbl.

 

Now that's depressing.

So any oil they're collecting now is uselessly contaminated? Well, at least it burns cleanly. But still... that's a waste of energy... If your going to burn it, at least burn it where it can be used to create something other then heat.

 

The feds are requiring them to install a very high collection capacity, and having backups. Having burners on site -- and exercising them part of the time -- sounds like contingency planning.