Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

I completely agree with memorize on this issue. This new gas tax will only hurt the consumer.

Tri-Nitro-Toluene:
I don't know how public transportation is in the UK, but here in Michigan it sucks cock.
We have this bus system called CATA and they have posters all over the place that proudly display, "rated #1 in America". This is complete and udder bullshit.

When I started college in September I had to start using the bus to get to work every day; it was hell.
Half the time I would get to work late because the bus was always running late.
Sometimes the bus was full, so the driver would just skip my stop, occasionally give me the middle finger, and leave me hanging.
Sometimes the bus wouldn't come for over a half hour when it was supposed to arrive every ten minutes.
It got to the point where I had to be at the stop at least one hour before my shift started. It was completely random, I might get to work forty five minutes early or five minutes early just depending on the day. Additionally, I would often have to sit and wait for a good twenty minutes to get home when my shift was over.

I calculated it like this.
Total daily average commute time,
On the bus/waiting for the bus: 1.5 hours
Driving: 15 minutes

Compiled over two months, the bus robbed me of a great deal of time. Time that I could have more productively spent doing homework in all of my difficult classes or meeting people on campus.
It's hard for me to explain just how awful taking the bus is. It's really something you have to experience in order to understand.

Thankfully I got a new job in a plant biology research lab that is about ten minutes walking away form my dorm. If I ever have to rely on another bus to get to work it'll be too soon.

Now back to the reason I will continue to need a car. This research lab job is really great. It pays handsomely, it's in close proximity to my classes, it looks terrific on my resume, I'll have some stellar references from the employees, and I'm getting work experience that related to my area of study.

The reason I need a car is because they want me to continue working at the lab in the summer. I'll be living off campus over the summer so clearly I'm going to need some transportation.

Yeah... by the sound of it Buses in the USA and UK are totally different.

Our Bus system isn't too bad it occasionally runs a bit late, but at the maximum ever I've had to wait was 30 minutes after the time it was meant. Trains in the UK despite still be the butt of most jokes aren't too shabby either. And because of the classic old town like way our place are set out everybody lives fairly close together and everything is sort of crammed. So Buses have a fairly easy job.

At 2/16/08 10:31 PM, The-Hydra-of-Spore wrote: Yeah... by the sound of it Buses in the USA and UK are totally different.

Our Bus system isn't too bad it occasionally runs a bit late, but at the maximum ever I've had to wait was 30 minutes after the time it was meant. Trains in the UK despite still be the butt of most jokes aren't too shabby either. And because of the classic old town like way our place are set out everybody lives fairly close together and everything is sort of crammed. So Buses have a fairly easy job.

This is why public transit doesn't work in the USA. Many of us, including myself, have grown up in a system where everybody is spread out, living far from work. As it may turn out, this was a truly asinine system of inefficiency in exchange for personal space and privacy.

In major cities like chicago, public transportation is more practical. Where I live it's border line useless, full of smelly degenerate low lifes, prick face bus drivers, and inconsistent schedules.

Fun fact: I looked at some inexpensive beater trucks today. I'm looking for a car to get to work/friends/school for this summer. Why should I go out and by a brand new hybrid for $30,000+ that additionally will have high maintenance costs when I can get a mechanically sound truck from the late 80's for $1500?

I think you're heavily overestimating the impact of US oil on world oil prices.

These measures are only meant to help the US price of oil. Currently we are the largest importer of foreign oil. The only way to brake this is to drill for our own. Alternative fuels are a great idea, but they are a long ways off from being effective. So why make more pain at the pump for something that is not comparable to gasoline?

I'm not sure why I'm responding considering the complete lack of response to my former post, but I feel it necessary to restate something.

The easiest way to help the US in regards to oil is to decrease demand. That is to say, encourage the use of smaller cars, redesign US cities on a more concentrated basis, improve public transport and discourage the use of oil more generally. It is a fatal misstep to think that increasing supply can solve the US's oil "addiction".

At 2/17/08 08:34 AM, Slizor wrote:

I feel it necessary to restate something.

The easiest way to help the US in regards to oil is to decrease demand. That is to say, encourage the use of smaller cars, redesign US cities on a more concentrated basis, improve public transport and discourage the use of oil more generally. It is a fatal misstep to think that increasing supply can solve the US's oil "addiction".

Again, it's not worth it.
Smaller cars are more dangerous, that is a fact. Besides, I have a fully functional normal sized car in the drive way, I'm not getting a tiny car to replace it.
By redesigning cities you mean squish us all together like sardines? No thank you, I like half an acre between me and my annoying neighbors.
Public transport won't work in America, why? Because have you ever noticed kids at the age of 16 buy cars or are given cars mainly because they don't want to use public transport?
Why discourage use of oil? You realize how many things we use oil for right? A big one is heating homes. I'll assume to ween america off of oil you jack up the price, well that leaves a good portion of homes without heating in the winter. Not very humanitarian. And the famers who won't be able to fuel their tractors, that puts them out of business. Not very humanitarian. And the fishermen who won't be able to fill their boats anymore, that puts them out of business. You know what I'm going to say. There are many industries that use gasoline/petrol that would be put out of business with these measures. They use the same fuel that we use. Raise the price hurt the economy. Cause and effect. All these wonderful ideas always seem to screw the average person/family.
Find an idea that is a) practical and not a pipe dream. b) Find alternatives that are just as effective and not a pipe dream. c) Find an idea that does not bet it all on scientific developements that are 20 years off.

I feel it necessary to restate something.

The easiest way to help the US in regards to oil is to decrease demand. That is to say, encourage the use of smaller cars, redesign US cities on a more concentrated basis, improve public transport and discourage the use of oil more generally. It is a fatal misstep to think that increasing supply can solve the US's oil "addiction".

Again, it's not worth it.
Smaller cars are more dangerous, that is a fact.

Smaller cars are more dangerous for the driver when they are hit by a large car - it is only in that limited way that they are more dangerous. Large cars, on the other hand, are more dangerous for pretty much everyone else - pedestrians, motorbikes and the like.

Besides, I have a fully functional normal sized car in the drive way, I'm not getting a tiny car to replace it. By redesigning cities you mean squish us all together like sardines? No thank you, I like half an acre between me and my annoying neighbors.

Put simply, the American way of life that is dependent upon the consumption of a huge amounts of oil has to be changed for the simple reason that the world is running out of oil and will never again see an age of cheap oil that the American system is predicated on.

Public transport won't work in America, why? Because have you ever noticed kids at the age of 16 buy cars or are given cars mainly because they don't want to use public transport?

And they don't want to use public transport because it is not working. The solution - make good public transport (which is helped by redesigning cities so it is more workable.)

Why discourage use of oil?

Because, as even your President realises, you are addicted to it and use far more, per person, than most other states in the world.

You realize how many things we use oil for right? A big one is heating homes. I'll assume to ween america off of oil you jack up the price, well that leaves a good portion of homes without heating in the winter. Not very humanitarian.

Yawn, criticism of a big idea with small details is not very effective. You can easily offer incentives to convert to other non-oil heating systems or offer rebates on heating oil or any other number of solutions.

And the famers who won't be able to fuel their tractors, that puts them out of business. Not very humanitarian. And the fishermen who won't be able to fill their boats anymore, that puts them out of business. You know what I'm going to say. There are many industries that use gasoline/petrol that would be put out of business with these measures. They use the same fuel that we use.

They will be hurt worse in the future if America's oil dependence is encouraged to continue as oil prices will continue to rise as the supply dwindles and demand grows.

Raise the price hurt the economy. Cause and effect. All these wonderful ideas always seem to screw the average person/family.

No, all these wonderful ideas actually address the problem, rather than feeding it. Your idea that the US should magically increase supplies through domestic sources only delays the inevitable, if it even comes close to working. The ANWR, and the US as the whole, will never be able to reach a level of production equal to their level of consumption, or be able to specifically lower the price of oil solely for the US economy.

Find an idea that is a) practical and not a pipe dream. b) Find alternatives that are just as effective and not a pipe dream. c) Find an idea that does not bet it all on scientific developements that are 20 years off.

Listen you condescending little prick, I know far more about this subject than you could ever dream of knowing so, in the classic internet way, STFU and stop acting like you have all the fucking answers.

At 2/16/08 06:31 PM, Tri-Nitro-Toluene wrote:

At 2/16/08 06:16 PM, Korriken wrote: I love how many people are saying "zomgz use public transportation!!" without even considering that not everyone live in the major cities across america. some people live 20 mins to an hour or more away from towns, out in the countryside. most of americas villages, towns, and small cities lack public transportation.

That is easily fixed. Just create the public transportation where it is needed.

Yes that's a blatant simplification of the problem, but you get what I mean.

yeah, real simple. just snap my fingers and a bus will take me to work for $1.50. it would be insanely hard to get a company to run a bus line down back roads and places out in the middle of nowhere. its not a simple fix, nor would it be profitable for a bus to run 30 mins down a road and only pick up 3 passengers.

You actually put up with no public transport? Holy shit. I'd be up in arms over it.

I live out in the country....

And you live 45 miles away from work? That's obscene. CAn you not get a job closer to home or move closer to your job at least?

mmm. no. i work in several different places and I found the closest place to all my locations, which, is about 45 mins away from all fo them. this job pays almost twice as much as the jobs close to where I live.

when gas hits $10 a gallon, then what? how will the common working man get to work to make his meager paycheck that barely covers bills and now will have to pay absurd amounts to buy the gas he needs to get to work?

His job should account for the fact that its workforce can no longer afford to get to work, and increase pay checks/ reimburse payments for petrol and the like. Otherwise, they go out of business.

price of production goes up and the cost is passed along to the working man. trickle down economics.

sure the simple answer would be to just make him buy a hybrid or electric car, but if he can barely pay bills, then he CANT afford to get a new car!

you can always raise the minimum wage, but the cost of everything will go up to compensate.

amen to that.

OR you could cut down on the spending in various government projects that are totally wasteful and use that money to provide better public transport to areas that currently aren't covered. Thus allowing people like you to get to work without forking out shit loads of their own money.

amen to that too.

Is the public transport situation really that bad in the US? I thought it would have been a lot better than that.

in the major cities there is plenty of public transportation, its in the rural areas that there is none. you also gotta remember how large the US is and how many wide open country areas we have.

At 2/17/08 12:08 PM, Slizor wrote:

Put simply, the American way of life that is dependent upon the consumption of a huge amounts of oil has to be changed for the simple reason that the world is running out of oil and will never again see an age of cheap oil that the American system is predicated on.

This is a fallacy. If oil was the product of former living things, why does it contain toxic properties? And if we knew it was a commodity that we (and I mean the whole world) knew would run out, why not charge so little for it? The truth is that oil like coal, and natural gases, replenishes itself. The prediction made in the seventies was that we'd run out by 2003, we've past that date and are still finding more, and larger oil wells. On top of that the Russians have blown fossil fuel theory out of the water (a theory postulated 150 years ago). By drilling so deep into the earth (beyond any fossil layer) they are pulling the oil out has it is being made. Google "oil not a fossil fuel" and educate yourself. I even posted links on the previous page if you are interested.

Put simply, the American way of life that is dependent upon the consumption of a huge amounts of oil has to be changed for the simple reason that the world is running out of oil and will never again see an age of cheap oil that the American system is predicated on.

This is a fallacy. If oil was the product of former living things, why does it contain toxic properties?

HAHAHAHA. Glorious argument that. Jesus Christ man, I really can't think of which option to choose when responding to this sheer stupidity. How about I point to the large number of animal and plant species that are toxic to humans when they are alive, or to rotting food, or to the component chemicals of human bodies? There's just so many ways that, on a very basic level, this argument is completely fucking stupid.

And if we knew it was a commodity that we (and I mean the whole world) knew would run out, why not charge so little for it?

Because the market is short-sighted - it is based on current supply and demand, not future supply and demand.

The truth is that oil like coal, and natural gases, replenishes itself. The prediction made in the seventies was that we'd run out by 2003, we've past that date and are still finding more, and larger oil wells.

We are not finding larger oil wells. We are beginning to drill in far harder conditions than previously.

On top of that the Russians have blown fossil fuel theory out of the water (a theory postulated 150 years ago). By drilling so deep into the earth (beyond any fossil layer) they are pulling the oil out has it is being made.

I'd like to see some evidence of that.

Google "oil not a fossil fuel" and educate yourself. I even posted links on the previous page if you are interested.

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww 3/100404_abiotic_oil.shtml
Read. Then stop trying to misuse scientific arguments for the purpose of politics. Are you honestly arguing that oil is currently being produced at the rate we're consuming it and thus we need to take no action over it? You think that the world (this is a world that is 4,540,000,000 years old) has been producing 30,000,000,000 barrels of oil a year?

We would have fucking well drowned in the stuff by now.

At 2/18/08 08:50 AM, Slizor wrote:

We are not finding larger oil wells. We are beginning to drill in far harder conditions than previously.

All I got to say is do you remember that discovery made in the Gulf a few years ago? Click "link"

On top of that the Russians have blown fossil fuel theory out of the water (a theory postulated 150 years ago). By drilling so deep into the earth (beyond any fossil layer) they are pulling the oil out has it is being made.

I'd like to see some evidence of that

Click "link2"

Linklink2

Sorry for double posting I forgot to space the links, a thousand apologizes

At 2/17/08 06:30 PM, ABsoldier17 wrote:

At 2/17/08 12:08 PM, Slizor wrote:

Put simply, the American way of life that is dependent upon the consumption of a huge amounts of oil has to be changed for the simple reason that the world is running out of oil and will never again see an age of cheap oil that the American system is predicated on.

This is a fallacy. If oil was the product of former living things, why does it contain toxic properties? And if we knew it was a commodity that we (and I mean the whole world) knew would run out, why not charge so little for it? The truth is that oil like coal, and natural gases, replenishes itself. The prediction made in the seventies was that we'd run out by 2003, we've past that date and are still finding more, and larger oil wells. On top of that the Russians have blown fossil fuel theory out of the water (a theory postulated 150 years ago). By drilling so deep into the earth (beyond any fossil layer) they are pulling the oil out has it is being made. Google "oil not a fossil fuel" and educate yourself. I even posted links on the previous page if you are interested.

As a chemical engineering student, this is the most asinine and insulting thing I've heard. The earth does not secrete hydrocarbons out of its core. This doesn't even make sense if one looks at very elementary biology concepts such as the photosynthesis to cellular respiration cycle.

The good news is that we as spoiled American's are not fucked just yet.
What I believe will save the day is coal gasification. This is the process of turning coal into a mixture of hydrogen and carbon monoxide gas called SYNgas. While oil may be running out, coal is in large supply. It would be a rather inexpensive and smooth transition to use this fuel to replace gasoline in automobiles. The internal combustion engine can be retrofitted to run on SYNgas quite easily too. It's basically the same idea as using natural gas as the fuel for an engine, but in this process the gas is reformed from solid coal.

The reason I believe this option will substitute for gasoline is because it is the most economically viable strategy that will provide inexpensive energy for 100+ years.

i agree with raising taxes on oil we need an alternate energy source

At 2/18/08 09:58 PM, AdamRice wrote:

At 2/17/08 06:30 PM, ABsoldier17 wrote:

At 2/17/08 12:08 PM, Slizor wrote:

As a chemical engineering student, this is the most asinine and insulting thing I've heard. The earth does not secrete hydrocarbons out of its core. This doesn't even make sense if one looks at very elementary biology concepts such as the photosynthesis to cellular respiration cycle.

Please explain that to the Russians sir, because they seem to be making money off what you find "asinine and insulting".

At 2/18/08 11:12 PM, ABsoldier17 wrote: Please explain that to the Russians sir, because they seem to be making money off what you find "asinine and insulting".

How are they making money off of it? Selling books on their bullshit findings?

At 2/16/08 03:32 PM, Memorize wrote: Congrats, let's raise the price of oil for the consumer even more simpley because of an overblown, greatly exaggerated sci-fi story about people causing global warming.

Fascinating idea.

What do all of these scientists with degrees know about the environment? I graduated from Armchair Scientist U and this one scientist (read: pundit) said that global warming is fake so it's obviously just a scam by lieberals to get our money.

At 2/16/08 04:00 AM, Korriken wrote: energy independence is a fantastic idea, and I would love to see it happen, but can it be done without killing those of us who don't have a sizable pile of cash to spend on better vehicles? reckon we'll find out.

It doesn't seem that it will be done in the near future. The number of drivers/pollutors are growing exponentially, as is fuel usage. As of now, hybrid cars aren't that popular. Actually SUV's and big trucks are popular (at least where I live). The number of fuel effecient cars has dropped from 5 (2005) to 2 (2007). There may be more variety on the way. In Europe, there are about 113 cars that get 40 mpg. This trend in American vehicles isn't going to change until fuel reserves will begin to run low and it becomes necessity.

At 2/17/08 06:30 PM, ABsoldier17 wrote:

At 2/17/08 12:08 PM, Slizor wrote:

Put simply, the American way of life that is dependent upon the consumption of a huge amounts of oil has to be changed for the simple reason that the world is running out of oil and will never again see an age of cheap oil that the American system is predicated on.

This is a fallacy. If oil was the product of former living things, why does it contain toxic properties?

Because it's gone through numerous chemical changes and absorbed various chemicals from the surrounding rocks.

And if we knew it was a commodity that we (and I mean the whole world) knew would run out, why not charge so little for it?

Que?

The truth is that oil like coal, and natural gases, replenishes itself.

Uh, no serious or respected geologist has suggest an abiogenic source for coal. Given that all know coal seams contain vast amounts of very old plant fossils (Side note there are no flowering plants or grass fossils in any known coal seam) and imprints to suggest an abiogenic origin is unsupportable and pointblank dumb.

Now and abiogenic origin for oil and gas is a little more reasonable, but still unsubstanciated.

The prediction made in the seventies was that we'd run out by 2003, we've past that date and are still finding more, and larger oil wells.

On top of that the Russians have blown fossil fuel theory out of the water (a theory postulated 150 years ago). By drilling so deep into the earth (beyond any fossil layer) they are pulling the oil out has it is being made.

I can't comment on their find as I can't find specific records or geological maps for that region. I can say this, even though the oil is very deep it could have been pushed down there

Side note, the abiogenic theory for oil was fairly well accepted in the early and mid 20'th century, it was only near the end of the 60's that the biogenic theory really gained ground, with the explanation of diamondoid being the most well known in my mind, and perhaps on of the best markers for the specific oil's underlining properties..

Google "oil not a fossil fuel" and educate yourself. I even posted links on the previous page if you are interested.

There are many, many problems with an abiogenic origin for oil. The biggest in mind is lack of carbon deposits near enough to the mantle to make oil. Combined with the extreme temperature well beyond even the gas cracking limit of about 220 *C. Additionally all oil deposits are depleted in He3, but not He4, which can not be accounted for if oil is created at the mantel.

There's just not a lot of evidence for an abiogenic theory of oil.

At 2/18/08 10:31 AM, ABsoldier17 wrote:

At 2/18/08 08:50 AM, Slizor wrote:

We are not finding larger oil wells. We are beginning to drill in far harder conditions than previously.

All I got to say is do you remember that discovery made in the Gulf a few years ago? Click "link"

Which was identified using biogenic theories of oil, not abiogenic ones.

At 2/18/08 11:33 PM, AdamRice wrote:

At 2/18/08 11:12 PM, ABsoldier17 wrote: Please explain that to the Russians sir, because they seem to be making money off what you find "asinine and insulting".

How are they making money off of it? Selling books on their bullshit findings?

No how they are getting oil where you say it shouldn't be.

At 2/19/08 03:59 AM, EndGameOmega wrote:

At 2/17/08 06:30 PM, ABsoldier17 wrote:

Because it's gone through numerous chemical changes and absorbed various chemicals from the surrounding rocks.

Really. From what I remember about decomposing every living thing's tissue turns into fertilizer and remains fertilizer regardless of where it died.

Which was identified using biogenic theories of oil, not abiogenic ones.

If memory serves it was discovered not by theories but an exploration team.

At 2/19/08 09:12 AM, ABsoldier17 wrote:

At 2/19/08 03:59 AM, EndGameOmega wrote:

At 2/17/08 06:30 PM, ABsoldier17 wrote:

Because it's gone through numerous chemical changes and absorbed various chemicals from the surrounding rocks.

Really. From what I remember about decomposing every living thing's tissue turns into fertilizer and remains fertilizer regardless of where it died.

Um, that's not true. In order for something to decay into "fertilizer" it needs accesses to oxygen and the various microorganisms that thrive in it.

In the case of oil plant and animal life sank to the bottom of the ocean floor which is nearly depleted of free oxygen, from there anaerobic bacteria take a different decay path that eventually leads to oil formation.

Which was identified using biogenic theories of oil, not abiogenic ones.

If memory serves it was discovered not by theories but an exploration team.

And how do you think the exploration team came to drill in the right spot? There are many events that have to take place before an exploration team can be sent out, and many more events that take place when they are out. Each of these events is caricaturize by increasing level of equipment, cost and models. The theory part and practice comes from the modeling, which takes place completely inside a theoretical framework, with at most computational experimentation and simulation. The only accepted models make use of biogenic origins to oil. Given that explorations can cost well over 10 billion USD the reasons should be obvious.

At 2/16/08 05:25 PM, Tri-Nitro-Toluene wrote: Getting their business done? You imply that the vast majority of people driving cars is essential, that people could not live without driving their cars to these places.

In America, that is the case. We abandoned our trains far too long ago. Public transportation is not only expensive, but unreliable in some places.

Also, the entire American Econonomy is centered around the car. In LA, for instance, the average worker lives 1-3 hours commute from their office.

The way we built our country, we do need cars. Needless to say, that needs to change in the near future.

Why are people getting sidetracked by the science? There is absolutely no evidence of abiotic oil production at a level that will avoid the political consequences of declining oil reserves.

Unless, of course, "AbSoldier" can provide some proof that oil is being produced at 3.3 billion barrels a year.

At 2/19/08 11:18 AM, Slizor wrote: Why are people getting sidetracked by the science? There is absolutely no evidence of abiotic oil production at a level that will avoid the political consequences of declining oil reserves.

Unless, of course, "AbSoldier" can provide some proof that oil is being produced at 3.3 billion barrels a year.

Ok more links. Read all of part2
part1part2eugene islandwiki

Look UFOs exist!

Your evidence of abiotic oil production at a level that makes it politically significant is as good as my evidence that UFOs exist - unsourced websites. Essentially, your "evidence" is a pile of wank that isn't even worth considering.

Anyhow, that's it, I'm out. I don't waste my time on people who don't even bother to think.

that's ok, I don't think you all my links anyway.