|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
freethought
Joined: 13 Mar 2005
|
 Posted: Thu Jun 21, 2007 9:58 pm Post subject: The power of BIG oil |
 |
|
For those of you that weren't following it, the US Senate passed the new energy bill today.
I checked out a few websites for stories, but what I saw on the CNN mainpage was, in my view, very telling:
| Quote: |
The Senate passed an energy bill Thursday night that will significantly raise gas-mileage standards for cars and trucks for the first time in two decades. The auto industry had lobbied against the change in standards. Republicans blocked an effort to impose $30 billion in new taxes on oil companies. The bill now awaits action by the House. |
TWO DECADES... That's so beyond unacceptable it's hard to describe. The industry has made HUGE advances and they're still using fuel standards that are 20 years old? Crash testing, construction and just about every other standard has been raised to match the present day technology... other than gas mileage.
Then there's the taxes that weren't issued. This is an industry that despite literally world wide setting/historic profits, receives SUBSIDIES from American tax payers. If I was a yank right now i'd be outraged.
The power of big oil... remarkable. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 21, 2007 10:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Americans do have a lot of choice in terms of fuel efficiency. However much I like the idea, I have to say if Americans are passing over cars with good gas mileage for cars with 6000 SUX level gas mileage, it is clear Americans really don't mind the current price of gas. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
spliff
Joined: 19 Jan 2004
Location: Khon Kaen, Thailand
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 21, 2007 10:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I drive a big SUV...it's more satisfying. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 22, 2007 3:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
| The issue raised wasn't gas prices. The issues raised were about the environment and the power of big oil to keep standards so low when even China has higher standards. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 22, 2007 4:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
| The issue raised wasn't gas prices. The issues raised were about the environment and the power of big oil to keep standards so low when even China has higher standards. |
Assuming big oil is behind some effort to keep minimums low and "away" from consumers, they haven't done a very good job in keeping them away from consumers, given the large number of fuel efficient cars on the market.
And I tend to agree with Freethought that it seems odd there's never a big political outcry about improving car safety standards but politicians fight it tooth and nail over fuel standards. However, I assumed the car companies were at the forefront. What do they care about the price of oil? Cheaper oil means bigger car sales. They would clearly resist higher minimum fuel standards because it adds costs. However, from a PR standpoint, fighting safety standards would be a disaster. Not many senators are going to stump for dangerous cars.
Although I do partially retract my claim Americans have largely eschewed fuel efficient cars in favor of gas guzzlers. GM, Ford, and Chrysler (whatever it is called these days) are bleeding cash because their SUV cash cow has gone poof. Then again, if you look at the top selling cars of 2006, pickup trucks are in the top 10 in a big way.
http://autos.msn.com/advice/article.aspx?contentid=4023925
Alternatively, Americans might have switched from SUV because they're not cool and switched to pickups. It's hard to hate on pickup drivers as they seem more "good ol' boy". A pickup is patriotic, straight up. May as well slap a greenpeace sticker on a cowboy and a horse. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 22, 2007 5:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
| The issue raised wasn't gas prices. The issues raised were about the environment and the power of big oil to keep standards so low when even China has higher standards. |
Assuming big oil is behind some effort to keep minimums low and "away" from consumers, they haven't done a very good job in keeping them away from consumers, given the large number of fuel efficient cars on the market. |
How are you defining fuel efficient?
| Quote: |
And I tend to agree with Freethought that it seems odd there's never a big political outcry about improving car safety standards but politicians fight it tooth and nail over fuel standards. However, I assumed the car companies were at the forefront. What do they care about the price of oil? Cheaper oil means bigger car sales. They would clearly resist higher minimum fuel standards because it adds costs. However, from a PR standpoint, fighting safety standards would be a disaster. Not many senators are going to stump for dangerous cars.
Although I do partially retract my claim Americans have largely eschewed fuel efficient cars in favor of gas guzzlers. GM, Ford, and Chrysler (whatever it is called these days) are bleeding cash because their SUV cash cow has gone poof. Then again, if you look at the top selling cars of 2006, pickup trucks are in the top 10 in a big way.
http://autos.msn.com/advice/article.aspx?contentid=4023925
Alternatively, Americans might have switched from SUV because they're not cool and switched to pickups. It's hard to hate on pickup drivers as they seem more "good ol' boy". A pickup is patriotic, straight up. May as well slap a greenpeace sticker on a cowboy and a horse. |
Pickups are always a top seller. Despite the 300,000,000 population, there's still a lot of open space and a lot of people who are "do-it-yourselfers." Not so many cowboys about, though. I've owned two trucks. Never been a cowboy.
Last edited by EFLtrainer on Fri Jun 22, 2007 11:05 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 22, 2007 5:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
| How are you defining fuel efficient? |
Everyone would have a different definition. To me, that would be something that gets 35+ mpg on the highway. Although my little 3 cyl, 1.0 L, Manual transmission Sprint back in North America got more.
| Quote: |
| Pickups are always a top seller. Despite the 300,000,000 population, there's still a lot of open space and a lot of people who are "do-it-yourselfers." Not so many cowboys about, though. I've owned two trucks. Never been a cowboy. |
I'm not sure what % of pickups are bought as basic transportation, vs what they're really classified as: utility vehicles. Clearly many are bought by trades people, businesses, etc.
Ultimately, I found it curious there's a back lash against SUV ownership and not pickup ownership. SUV owners meet a certain mental profile: evil yuppie. Pickup owners meet another mental profile: hardworking patriots.
The American lifestyle doesn't fit well with small cars. It is hard to cram a family of 4 in a hybrid for a ball game. If there simply is no fuel efficient option (switching to a Hyundai), then I can see the utility of government regulation. Americans are buying the cars they need but not at the fuel efficiency they truly want. Since they have no option, the government might truly need to step in.
Last edited by mindmetoo on Fri Jun 22, 2007 5:36 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SeoulFinn
Joined: 27 Feb 2006
Location: 1h from Seoul
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 22, 2007 5:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Slightly Off Topic:
I was watching TV the other night and saw "Futurecar" program on Discovery channel. I think that cities like Seoul should have a inner city taxi fleet of MDI Air Car to cut down the pollution. Well, many of the smaller privately owned cars (Tico, Matiz etc.) could be replaced by air cars as well.
I was really impressed by this little car. It runs on, get this, compressed air, and can go as far as 200 Km with one tank. Naturally the car isn't a rocket but should do just fine in inner city traffic where most of the time is spend on sitting at red lights.
EDIT: Here's another link in case someone is interested to read more. POPULAR MECHANICS
Last edited by SeoulFinn on Fri Jun 22, 2007 5:42 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 22, 2007 5:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| SeoulFinn wrote: |
Slightly Off Topic:
I was watching TV the other night and saw "Futurecar" program on Discovery channel. I think that cities like Seoul should have a inner city taxi fleet of MDI Air Car to cut down the pollution. Well, many of the smaller privately owned cars (Tico, Matiz etc.) could be replaced by air cars as well.
I was really impressed by this little car. It runs on, get this, compressed air, and can go as far as 200 Km with one tank. Naturally the car isn't a rocket but should do just fine in inner city traffic where most of the time is spend on sitting at red lights. |
I'm normally opposed to these kinds of things as they need electricity. In North America, that means increased demand on the grid and increased demand is met by coal. There's no environmental savings there. An air car is just a coal fueled car.
However, Korea seems to generate all its electricity via nuclear and hydro. So it might make sense here, as long as Korea could meet demand with new nuclear plants. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 22, 2007 6:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| Since they have no option, the government might truly need to step in. |
There are options. But for vanity and certain practicalities, I suppose, we do not prosecute them aggressively enough. I for one have always wanted a more all-encompassing public transportation system: trains, monorails, subways, trolleys, subways, buses, shuttles, collective taxis (like the Chileans' colectivos), and more.
It would take a tremendous fed and state govt-directed and -coordinated effort and investment. Increased taxation and govt intervention in the economy. And I am all for it.
I myself do not usually drive. I walk when I can; I take buses when I cannot; I drive, sometimes alone sometimes with friends, only when I need to. But public transportation usually means dirtbags, homeless people, and the mentally ill. I often see "incidents." It is not absolutely safe -- like sitting in your own car with your doors locked. I know many who would never use these transportation means for these reasons. So we would also have to clean all these things up and make public transportation respectable, too. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 22, 2007 11:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
| How are you defining fuel efficient? |
Everyone would have a different definition. To me, that would be something that gets 35+ mpg on the highway. Although my little 3 cyl, 1.0 L, Manual transmission Sprint back in North America got more.
| Quote: |
| Pickups are always a top seller. Despite the 300,000,000 population, there's still a lot of open space and a lot of people who are "do-it-yourselfers." Not so many cowboys about, though. I've owned two trucks. Never been a cowboy. |
I'm not sure what % of pickups are bought as basic transportation, vs what they're really classified as: utility vehicles. Clearly many are bought by trades people, businesses, etc. |
I don't either, but like SUVs, most people use them for "utility" in their own lives. I owned trucks early on for one simple reason: it seemed likely I'd be moving around more as a new grad than I might as a married, family man. It was a practical choice.
| Quote: |
| Ultimately, I found it curious there's a back lash against SUV ownership and not pickup ownership. SUV owners meet a certain mental profile: evil yuppie. Pickup owners meet another mental profile: hardworking patriots. |
Generally, yes, but the association with patriots is a media/sales pitch thing, if it even exists.
| Quote: |
| The American lifestyle doesn't fit well with small cars. It is hard to cram a family of 4 in a hybrid for a ball game. If there simply is no fuel efficient option (switching to a Hyundai), then I can see the utility of government regulation. Americans are buying the cars they need but not at the fuel efficiency they truly want. Since they have no option, the government might truly need to step in. |
The lifestyle, yes. More so the large distances and urban sprawl and the high cost of moving companies and rentals, I'd wager. People don't go to ball games in trucks unless they just can't afford/don't have a car. It is illegal in many (most?) areas to carry passengers in the back of a PU, particularly children. Even dogs have to be tied down in some areas. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fusionbarnone
Joined: 31 May 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 23, 2007 7:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
Brazil doesn't have to import oil anymore because it produces ethanol.
The USA has large tracts of land to produce corn, sugar, etc but the gas companies own the pumps. Yes, they have a lot of power. In one african country a 20 year war was threatening oil production. The company hired Executive Decision(Mercenary company) and the rebels were at the discussion table within weeks. How's that for influence? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 23, 2007 7:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| fusionbarnone wrote: |
| Brazil doesn't have to import oil anymore because it produces ethanol. |
I'm fairly sure Brazil's population isn't 300,000,000 and highly industrialized and utterly dependent on a massive transportation system. I do applaud them, however. My point really is that regional solutions will more than likely be the final result of any switch off of fossil fuels. Corn prices are up 10 percent due to more bio-fuels production... opportunity cost. There are real problems with land space, costs for grains (food), etc. Part of the solution, but not THE solution. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guri Guy
Joined: 07 Sep 2003
Location: Bamboo Island
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 23, 2007 7:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
Population of Brazil
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Population of Brazil
Estimative of various sources from 1550 to 1850. The first official census took place in 1872. From this year, every 10 years (with some exceptions) the population is counted.
Brazil is the sixth most populated country in the world.
Population of Brazil, 1550�2005
* 1550 - 15,000,000
* 1600 - 100,000
* 1660 - 184,000
* 1700 - 300,000
* 1766 - 1,500,000
* 1800 - 3,250,000
* 1820 - 4,717,000
* 1850 - 7,256,000
* 1872 - 9,930,478 (I Census)
* 1890 - 14,333,915
* 1900 - 17,438,434
* 1920 - 30,635,605
* 1940 - 41,236,315
* 1950 - 51,944,397
* 1960 - 70,119,071
* 1970 - 93,139,037
* 1980 - 119,070,865
* 1991 - 146,917,459
* 1996 - 157,079,573
* 2000 - 169,544,443
* 2005 - 183,886,761
I'd wager that within 30 years with their current rate of population growth, they will have 300 million people. I applaud them on their choice as well.
Big oil sucks though. They know the proverbial and literal well is running dry so they are trying to suck every last dollar out that they can. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
freethought
Joined: 13 Mar 2005
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 23, 2007 4:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| It is not absolutely safe -- like sitting in your own car with your doors locked. I know many who would never use these transportation means for these reasons. So we would also have to clean all these things up and make public transportation respectable, too. |
I'm all for a much greater PT system plan, but I chuckled at this comment, especially if you live in Korea/Seoul. Safer in a car? It's impossible to miss just how f-ing bad and dangerous korean drivers are!!!! It's WAY WAY WAY WAY more dangerous in korea to drive a car than to take the subway or the bus. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
