Oil Prices--why not conservation?

[TPJCatholic]

vern,

No, it’s called unethical.

==> Nope, merely sarcasm to make a point. Nothing unethical about it.

Which is why we shouldn’t suddenly go hareing off in one direction, as if a single possible solution were the only solution.

==> That has been my point all along…thanks for the assist.

And 18 mpg – which one hybrid car gets, is “pretty darn good,” too?

==> Me thinks you see an awful lot of dark in life, rather then light. When did I claim there was a perfect solution? If Toyota can build a car that gets 48+ mpg with good safety features, then it can and should be done. Why is that such a vile thought or idea to you? Why can’t you see the good in that, rather then try to bash it by giving a very questionable counter example?

==> Do you think Christ would have us use all of the natural resources on this earth, or do you think He would have us look for “many” better alternatives? Are we to be humble or are we to be brutes?

Hybrids are simply not the silver bullet some people claim they are.

==> I never claimed they were. Yet, raising mileage to double or more of what it is today can make quite a dent in our oil consumption. Couple that with many other possibilities (like coal, nuclear plants, alternative fuels especially renewables) and we would be taking quite a strong step towards giving our kids and grandkids a sound energy future.

==> Do you think we should be teaching our kids the faith today, while they are young, or should we wait until they are in their twenties? Does it help to teach kids when they are young or older, does it payoff to start as soon as possible, or is it smart to wait until the last minute?

==> Stop being pessimistic…with the Lord’s help we can create a better culture and world. It can never be perfect until Christ returns, but we are called to make it better. We must think postively.

 

[vern_humphrey]

TPJCatholic:

Nope, merely sarcasm to make a point. Nothing unethical about it.

Falsely attributing positions to other people is unethical debate, and is intended to offend, not to advance the discussion. Gentlemen do not do it, and if they do it inadvertantly, they apologize.

TPJCatholic:

That has been my point all along…thanks for the assist.

Then why the demand for this particular solution?

TPJCatholic:

Me thinks you see an awful lot of dark in life, rather then light. When did I claim there was a perfect solution? If Toyota can build a car that gets 48+ mpg with good safety features, then it can and should be done. Why is that such a vile thought or idea to you? Why can’t you see the good in that, rather then try to bash it by giving a very questionable counter example?

My point is that hybrid cars are merely nice to have – they aren’t “the solution.” Looking in other directions is not a sin.

TPJCatholic:

Do you think Christ would have us use all of the natural resources on this earth, or do you think He would have us look for “many” better alternatives? Are we to be humble or are we to be brutes?

If we were humble, we would not falsely attribute positions to other people in debate.

TPJCatholic:

I never claimed they were. Yet, raising mileage to double or more of what it is today can make quite a dent in our oil consumption. Couple that with many other possibilities (like coal, nuclear plants, alternative fuels especially renewables) and we would be taking quite a strong step towards giving our kids and grandkids a sound energy future.

Not as much as if we were to go to bio-diesel. Nor would it be as good for the environment.

TPJCatholic:

Do you think we should be teaching our kids the faith today, while they are young, or should we wait until they are in their twenties? Does it help to teach kids when they are young or older, does it payoff to start as soon as possible, or is it smart to wait until the last minute?

“The faith” in my book is Catholicism. It isn’t hybrid cars.

 

[TPJCatholic]

vern,

Falsely attributing positions to other people is unethical debate, and is intended to offend, not to advance the discussion. Gentlemen do not do it, and if they do it inadvertantly, they apologize.

==> I was not falsely attributing anything…you are making way too much of this. It was sarcasm, plain and simple. I am quite certain you have used sarcasm before–have you apologized after every instance of using sarcasm? Many people on this thread appear to think that doing basically nothing is okay–I disagree and used sarcasm to make my point.

Then why the demand for this particular solution?

==> I am not demanding one solution (who is attributing things to me now?). I think you owe me an apology… hee hee (hint, that was humor and sarcasm linked to goether).

My point is that hybrid cars are merely nice to have – they aren’t “the solution.” Looking in other directions is not a sin.

==> Again, I never once said anything like you are attributing to me. I am saying that conservation and forced increases of mileage can go a long way and couple that with true explorations of other ideas. Hybrids can be far more than nice.

If we were humble, we would not falsely attribute positions to other people in debate.

==> Nice dodge of my question, especially since you have falsely accused me of things several times in this message alone. Now, can you answer the question please?

Not as much as if we were to go to bio-diesel. Nor would it be as good for the environment.

==> Fine, so we do both, plus 100 other things. No problem with me…we just need to get going and stop acting as if oil reserves are infinite.

“The faith” in my book is Catholicism. It isn’t hybrid cars.

==> I agree…obviously my point is to say that we are always better served to begin early. My analogy is to teaching the faith. If we start with our kids when they are young, we have a better chance of seeing them be Catholics as they grow. Likewise, if we start now with developing alternatives to oil, and with means to reduce our pil consumption, then we are ahead of the game. If you are going to save for retirement, you don’t wait until yourt 65 years-old to start saving…you start as early as possible so you can leverage the time and make your money grow. Similarily, the more time we have to create real solutions, the better chance we have of finding those solutions.

 

[vern_humphrey]

TPJCatholic:

I was not falsely attributing anything…you are making way too much of this. It was sarcasm, plain and simple. I am quite certain you have used sarcasm before–have you apologized after every instance of using sarcasm? Many people on this thread appear to think that doing basically nothing is okay–I disagree and used sarcasm to make my point.

Okay, so we will do nothing, that always works. If we pretend that oil is infinite, then everything will be fine, right?

That was both offensive and unethical. Your continued claim that somehow you didn’t offend me when I’ve told you several times that you did is puzzling.

TPJCatholic:

I am not demanding one solution (who is attributing things to me now?). I think you owe me an apology… hee hee (hint, that was humor and sarcasm linked to goether)

If I have misconstrued you position, I apologize…

TPJCatholic:

Again, I never once said anything like you are attributing to me. I am saying that conservation and forced increases of mileage can go a long way and couple that with true explorations of other ideas. Hybrids can be far more than nice.

Or they can be technological dead ends. We should have a broad energy policy, not a narrow focus on a few limited options.

TPJCatholic:

Nice dodge of my question, especially since you have falsely accused me of things several times in this message alone. Now, can you answer the question please?

The answer is, neither you nor I are qualified to say what Jesus would do. He did not address technology in His time on earth.

He left us the intelligence to work our own problems out, without mandating any particular solution.

Therefore, I suspect He would favor a broad-based energy policy, and not a narrow focus on a few solutions.

TPJCatholic:

Fine, so we do both, plus 100 other things. No problem with me…we just need to get going and stop acting as if oil reserves are infinite.

There, we agree.

TPJCatholic:

I agree…obviously my point is to say that we are always better served to begin early. My analogy is to teaching the faith. If we start with our kids when they are young, we have a better chance of seeing them be Catholics as they grow. Likewise, if we start now with developing alternatives to oil, and with means to reduce our pil consumption, then we are ahead of the game. If you are going to save for retirement, you don’t wait until yourt 65 years-old to start saving…you start as early as possible so you can leverage the time and make your money grow. Similarily, the more time we have to create real solutions, the better chance we have of finding those solutions.

If you are saying, sooner started, sooner finished, I agree. We should have started on the programs I outlined in the 70s, at the latest.

 

[thestickman]

…we just need to get going and stop acting as if oil reserves are infinite.

When did the earth stop making oil? Do we have a date or a time when this occured?

 

[TPJCatholic]

vern,

That was both offensive and unethical. Your continued claim that somehow you didn’t offend me when I’ve told you several times that you did is puzzling.

==> I do apologize that you felt offended with statements that were merely intended to be light hearted.

Or they can be technological dead ends. We should have a broad energy policy, not a narrow focus on a few limited options.

==> LOL, exactly how many times must I say that I agree we need to explore all alternatives? I have never limited this issue to one or two options. I focused on conservation because that is one thing we can start right away…but I never said it was the only thing we should do (besides, conservation will make only a slight impact).

The answer is, neither you nor I are qualified to say what Jesus would do. He did not address technology in His time on earth. He left us the intelligence to work our own problems out, without mandating any particular solution. Therefore, I suspect He would favor a broad-based energy policy, and not a narrow focus on a few solutions.

==> Okay, using your logic, Jesus never spoke about abortion either, so we can come to the conclusion that the unborn is not really human and can be destroyed…correct?

==> You have continually implied that I am focused on one or two solutions, when I have repeatly stated that we should explore all alternatives.

This is becoming a silly conversation.

 

[vern_humphrey]

TPJCatholic:

I do apologize that you felt offended with statements that were merely intended to be light hearted.

Spoken like a gentleman. Thank you.

TPJCatholic:

LOL, exactly how many times must I say that I agree we need to explore all alternatives? I have never limited this issue to one or two options. I focused on conservation because that is one thing we can start right away…but I never said it was the only thing we should do (besides, conservation will make only a slight impact).

There is a qualitative difference here. On the one hand we talk about conservation (and only conservation as it applies to motorists.) On the other, we talk about a broad energy policy.

TPJCatholic:

Okay, using your logic, Jesus never spoke about abortion either, so we can come to the conclusion that the unborn is not really human and can be destroyed…correct?

No. Jesus didn’t talk about a lot of things. That’s why you have to STUDY religion.

We learn thematically as well as directly – we look at how He approached problems. We look at what He did and find anologies. That’s why I say

He left us the intelligence to work our own problems out, without mandating any particular solution. Therefore, I suspect He would favor a broad-based energy policy, and not a narrow focus on a few solutions.

 

[walstan]

thestickman:

When did the earth stop making oil? Do we have a date or a time when this occured?

The earth is still making hydrocarbons, the only problem is it take about 100,000 to 150,000 years to make sufficient oil to run a medium sized power station for a day. Bit of an imbalance really, isn’t it.

 

[TPJCatholic]

vern,

And…I would say that Jesus would have us be good and conservative stewards over the natural resoruces that He provides us. I do not ascertain from our Lord’s teachings that He would have us be gluttons and greedy.

 

[vern_humphrey]

TPJCatholic:

vern,

And…I would say that Jesus would have us be good and conservative stewards over the natural resoruces that He provides us. I do not ascertain from our Lord’s teachings that He would have us be gluttons and greedy.

Is it gluttonous or greedy to have air conditioning? Most of the world doesn’t have it, you know.

“Glutton” and “greedy” are loaded words. I personally don’t like to look down on my neighbor just because he has a V8 and I have a 4-cylinder, or because he turns his airconditioning up a little higher than I do.

 

[TPJCatholic]

vern,

Please do not impute things upon my words that are not there. Americans tend to think they are the only citizens of the world and that all of the earth’s resoruces belong to us. We are amazingly greedy at times and that especially applies to our use of oil and the protection of the same.
No, there is nothing wrong with AC.

 

[vern_humphrey]

TPJCatholic:

Please do not impute things upon my words that are not there.

I apologize if I have overstated or falsely stated your position.

TPJCatholic:

Americans tend to think they are the only citizens of the world and that all of the earth’s resoruces belong to us. We are amazingly greedy at times and that especially applies to our use of oil and the protection of the same.
No, there is nothing wrong with AC.

That’s exactly my point – I lived in Singapore, which is almost on the equator, and no one there has air conditioning. When we consider air conditioning a “necessity,” are we not assuming we are the only citizens of the world, and that our norm is the norm?

We sit in an air conditioned room and see a guy driving an SUV and feel superior to him!!

 

[TPJCatholic]

vern,

I agree, we often think we are superior.

I see nothing wrong with AC, but I do think it is wrong for us to be greedy about the earth’s natural resoruces in order to have that AC. All people in the world should have access to food, clothing, shelter, and even such nice things like heat and AC.

 

[vern_humphrey]

TPJCatholic:

vern,

I agree, we often think we are superior.

I see nothing wrong with AC, but I do think it is wrong for us to be greedy about the earth’s natural resoruces in order to have that AC. All people in the world should have access to food, clothing, shelter, and even such nice things like heat and AC.

Then why is it a sin to drive an SUV? Or to extend it, why is it wrong for us to consume energy when we admit that EVERYONE should be able to consume as much energy as we presently consume?

How is it that we are being “greedy,” and people in another nation would not be “greedy” if they consumed as much energy as we?

 

[TPJCatholic]

vern,

Who said driving and suv is a sin? There is nothing wrong with us comsuming energy. Everything in moderation. For example: some people think it is flat wrong to gamble, yet the Church basically teaches that legal gambling is not a sin so long as people do not gamble away the mortgage or become addicted to gambling. Moderation in all things.

There are many things we use and do that can become sinful if we cross the line into gluttony and/or greed. Using energy is not a sin; however, we are supposed to be good stewards of God’s creation, including energy.

 

[Isidore_AK]

AlanFromWichita:

Yes, we should look into alternative sources aggressively.

We should also drill in places we know there’s oil but liberals take a winter scene and PhotoShop a carabou on it and say the alaskan reserves would disrupt nature.

A good part of the problem today is also production capacity, so unless we get going and build more refineries, the supply curve is going to get very steep after a certain amount of usage. We might be seeing that now.

This is partly because the petroleum market (at least in US) is very “inelastic” in that price changes do not result in the same proportion of lost sales. By the time the “real” increases kick in from the corners we’ve painted outselves into by a) not developing alternatives, b) not drilling where we know there’s oil because of political idealism, and c) constant refinery outputs at any price approaching 100% now, and it will take decades to fix that even if we acted decisively now.

Alan

Alan,

I’ve disagreed with you on many things in the past, but this time you’ve hit the nail on the head. Open ANWR, expand drilling. Its a good thing all around…

As to alternative energy sources…we need more nuke plants. Way more nuke plants. They’re safe & very efficient at generating energy. Yes, there is the waste problem, but I’d much rather have a solid waste to dispose of than smoke dumped into the atmosphere. We’ll think of something to do besides store it given enough time…we can always dump it on another planet when the technology is right.

 

[vern_humphrey]

TPJCatholic:

vern,

Who said driving and suv is a sin? There is nothing wrong with us comsuming energy. Everything in moderation. For example: some people think it is flat wrong to gamble, yet the Church basically teaches that legal gambling is not a sin so long as people do not gamble away the mortgage or become addicted to gambling. Moderation in all things.

There are many things we use and do that can become sinful if we cross the line into gluttony and/or greed. Using energy is not a sin; however, we are supposed to be good stewards of God’s creation, including energy.

Then I have a problem with defining “greed” and “gluttony.” When does our consumption of energy become “greedy” or “gluttonous?”

 

[TPJCatholic]

vern,

I feel that we cross the line into greed/gluttony when we utilize resources without any thought at all to the impact upon anyone or anything…when it becomes solely a self serving situation where we simply do care a whit about what happens to anyone or anything just because we WANT the given thing or activity. At least that is how I see it.

 

[vern_humphrey]

TPJCatholic:

vern,

I feel that we cross the line into greed/gluttony when we utilize resources without any thought at all to the impact upon anyone or anything…when it becomes solely a self serving situation where we simply do care a whit about what happens to anyone or anything just because we WANT the given thing or activity. At least that is how I see it.

Wouldn’t that apply to air conditioning? It consumes a lot of energy – so much so that there are brownouts in some places on really hot days.

 

[TPJCatholic]

vern,

AC is not what I am talking about. In fact, I feel that food, clothes, water, shelter, medical care, and even some level of comfort like heat and AC should be available to every person on the planet. There are enough resources for everyone to enjoy basci needs and comforts in life.