Senate Green Lights new Alaskan Oil Spigot

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Robert Taylor\";p=\"73440)</div>

Robert:

Like how Central America, South America. Africa, India, China, Russia etc are completely off the hook, but if they "join" they receive Carbon Credits that they are free to sell on the open market??

The Kyoto Protocol is a joke. At the very least the net Carbon emissions will remain the same if not increase. Like how Canada will "fulfill" the KP by purchasing Carbon Credits on the open market.

This extra cost will be passed onto consumers as higher taxes to help pay for it all. If this was a direct price increase on gasoline, that might work. If it gets sucked out of every wallet with general income tax increases, it's a crock.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Robert Taylor\";p=\"73443)</div>

Robert:

It's a common layperson misconception that the "law" is somehow blind to the issue of morality or immorality. The very Act of Law passes judgement, good or bad, moral or immoral.

To think the Law does not do so is simplistic and dangerously misinformed. Unfortunately, a lot of people have the impression - thanks to decades of television - the law is somehow above messy human emotion.

 

Jayman- you have a good point regarding the "bigger is better" theme. You can apply that to vehicles as well: the H2 SUV has more clearance than another SUV...brand X car is a whopping 0.5 second faster than brand Y. Not big selling points in my book.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jayman\";p=\"73452)</div>

Jeff:

I heartily congratulate you on your conservation efforts. That's the whole point to being Thrifty, you practice austerity in everything you do and save for the future.

It doesn't matter what administration has been in office, we have always been sold on this "dream" of "bigger is better." Whether that thing is a house or a car, we have mostly bought into it and are now paying for it.

Since about 1980, the average size of a new home has doubled. Yet HVAC is marginally more efficient at best. It doesn't matter if you replace a 60% efficient natural gas furnace with a 96% efficient condensing variable fire gas furnace with PID control loop: not if you go from a 1,000 sq ft home to a 2,200 sq ft home. That new home with that super efficient gas furnace will *still* use way more natural gas than the 1,000 sq ft bungalow.

I do firmly believe the Mainstream Media is lying their a** off to us on almost every issue you care to mention: crime, health, safety, security, etc etc. If you don't believe me, I suppose I'll have to bring up Phillip Morris and other tobacco giants that *killed* millions.

And I suppose I'll have to bring up how Phillip Morris et al made the very clear threat to Mainstream Media if anything negative was mentioned about tobacco products, the advertising dried up and so did the revenues.
[/b][/quote]

You hit on something there, the imbalance of investment in personal housing caused by tax breaks. The overbuilding of housing for smaller families is directly related to the tax deduction for mortgage interest. A flat rate tax removes the incentive to buy a house, a larger house. It makes it neutral in buying, and buying often means not being able to relocate to better employment opportunities.

Ever consider what effect setbacks in suburbs have done over 50 years of neighborhood development in America? Suppose there were no 5 and 30 and 35 and 10 foot setbacks for buildings. Multiply by the housing built post WWII, figure out the cost in energy fossil fuels consumed to drive that extra distance....

sheer idiocy.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Robert Taylor\";p=\"73477)</div>

Robert:

Even in Canada this happened, though much more slowly as mortgage interest cannot be deducted. However, there are enough Federal programs and now the unrealistically low interest rates to make this all possible.

Here's a good one for you: new subdivision here, average home 1,900 sq ft, "standard" 80% gas furnace, upper-middle-aged couple kids left for college/careers.

Most of the rooms are empty. Completely empty.

I do NOT get it ...

 

Robert Taylor wrote:

These crimes are vastly different than the point I was alluding to.
Murder, drunk driving, etc. have direct victims. The law is there to protect everyone else's rights to life, liberty et al. Laws that are based on moral judgements on issues with no direct victim are entireley different. IE: Sodomy laws. Regardless of your views on it, you can't make it illegal, as it's not enforceable or constitutional. The idea that it is immoral (regardless of whether it is) is a religious conviction. Last time I checked, we have freedom of religion. Same goes for prohibition, abortion, and others. Granted, abortion may have a victim, but the question of whether a fetus is aperson and therefore entitled to constitutional rights is a religious one and therefore cannot be used as a reason to prohibit it.
AS I said, I think abortion is a terrible thing, but to crusade against it is folly and counterproductive.


BTW, global warming is not really the key issue. Peak oil is.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Darwood\";p=\"73569)</div>

I could not agree with you more.

And to all that suggest that the founding fathers meant that the constitution should apply to a fetus the size of a decimal point would have to reconcile how those same founding fathers did not believe the constitution applied to woman or black people.

And to all those that cite the Bible to condemn abortion would have to reconcile that through much of the Old Testament, woman were little more than chattel. So to those that use the Bible to justify that a woman does not own her uterus, even when the fetus is not even visible, would you be more willing to accept abortion if the husband or father made that choice? That would at least be more consistent with the Bible.