[phlanx]

I am not going to listen to statistical crap, we can all bend and twist figures to suit, this doesn't alter the pot at the end of the meal - the US is still by far the largest consumer of fuel of any other

You have to question your logic, if refined oil is placed back into the world market - something you have denied in another post! Then all you are stating is the companies can get a higher price elsewhere than your own - so of course you will export if this is the case

Who gives a rats @@@ about who refines more or less - the US uses more oil than any other nation - if you don't like the idea that its how the world sees you, then buy a lower cc engine!

Empire - you need more than one country under your control to be called that! - As for ogre, don't use as much oil!

[ETWolverine]

I am not going to listen to statistical crap, we can all bend and twist figures to suit,

Except when they suit you. Please keep in mind that you tried to prove that my statistics were wrong by using statistics of your own. https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/curren...ml#post2077373

this doesn't alter the pot at the end of the meal - the US is still by far the largest consumer of fuel of any other

Except that we are NOT, as I have pointed out. On a person for person basis we are NOT the largest consumer. As a whole, yes we are. So what... as you tried to point out, it is the NUMBER OF PEOPLE that creates that fact, not the misuse of oil or natural greed of Americans.

You have to question your logic, if refined oil is placed back into the world market - something you have denied in another post!

Where did I deny that?

Then all you are stating is the companies can get a higher price elsewhere than your own - so of course you will export if this is the case

Naturally. So what?

Who gives a rats @@@ about who refines more or less - the US uses more oil than any other nation - if you don't like the idea that its how the world sees you, then buy a lower cc engine!

Let me try to explain it again. As I have stated above, and as Paraclete argued, the USA is being called a greedy nation for only having 5% of the world's population but using 25% of the world's oil. This would indeed seem to be indicative of greed and evil... except for the fact that the USA contributes to the world at least as much as it consumes in terms of energy. And I have pointed out what those contributions are.

Now... if you think that the rest of the world can get by without the USA's refinery capacity, you are sorely mistaken. If you think that you could survive through a winter without the heating oil produced by us, or have enough fuel for your cars without the fuel oil produced by us, you are wrong. You simply do not have the capacity to produce enough. You need what we produce.

Now... if we consumed oil without actually producing any for the world market, then yes, we would be greedy. If we didn't supply you with the rerfined oil you need to survive and only produced enough for ourselves, that would indeed be selfish. And in such a situation, the accusations would be correct.

But the fact is that we DO produce refined oil for the rest of the world. And you get it rather cheaply, relatively speaking. Which means that instead of being greedy and selfish, we are instead acting as global citizens and make our resources available to the rest of the world. And we are doing so AT LEAST to the same degree as which we consume. Which would seem to me to be fair. If we produce as much as we consume, we are actually acting in good faith, aren't we?

But you cannot recognize this fact.

Empire - you need more than one country under your control to be called that!

Agreed. Which makes it all the more of a mystery that so many on the left call the USA an Evil Empire.

- As for ogre, don't use as much oil!

Or, in the alternative, produce in proportion to what we consume. Which we do.

Elliot

[ETWolverine]

One other point, Phlanx...

Were you aware that the USA, which as you have said is 5% of the world's population, actually produces 11% of the world's oil? We produce 8,457,000 barrels per day. That makes us the 4th largest producer of oil in the world, after the Arab League, Russia and Saudi Arabia. (Source: The CIA World Factbook)

We are also the second largest producer of natural gas, after Russia. We produce 582.2 billion cubic meters per year, or 18% of the world's natural gas.

And finally, we are the worlds largest producer of electricity, with 4.368 trillion KwH per year, or 22% of the world's electricity.

Does that fact make us generous instead of greedy?

After all, if consuming energy out of proportion to our population makes us bad, then producing energy out of proportion to our population should, by the same logic, make us good.

That would seem logical, anyway.

But I doubt that this is the case. Liberal logic doesn't work that way.

Elliot

[paraclete]

Liberal logic doesn't work that way.

Elliot

I don't think any logic works that way. Of course if you are going to use 25% of the world's anything resource you are going to have to produce something yourself and some of the resource yourself, you are not just going to pour it on the ground. But the point is well made within your statistics, you use 25% of the worlds oil but produce only 11 % yourselves.

As far as providing fuel cheaply to Britain or Europe have you ever purchased fuel there? It is a remarkably more expensive purchase than you might imagine so your benevolence just doesn't wash. I'm pleased that my nation obtains it's excess from SE Asia, it might be much more expensive obtaining it from the US

[tomder55]

Now the nannystate in Great Britain is going to compel individuals to adhere to carbon allowances .
Everyone in Britain could be given a personal 'carbon allowance' - Telegraph

Lord Smith of Finsbury believes that implementing individual carbon allowances for every person will be the most effective way of meeting the targets for cutting greenhouse gas emissions. It would involve people being issued with a unique number which they would hand over when purchasing products that contribute to their carbon footprint, such as fuel, airline tickets and electricity. Like with a bank account, a statement would be sent out each month to help people keep track of what they are using. If their "carbon account" hits zero, they would have to pay to get more credits. Those who are frugal with their carbon usage will be able to sell their unused credits and make a profit. Lord Smith will call for the scheme to be part of a "Green New Deal" to be introduced within 20 years when he addresses the agency's annual conference on Monday. An Environment Agency spokesman said only those with "extravagant lifestyles" would be affected by the carbon allowances. He said: "A lot of people who cycle will get money back. It will probably only be bankers and those with extravagant lifestyles who would lose out."

Right ...sell it with the phoney soak the rich BS !

Can the Democrats in Congress be far behind ? If they can unconstitutionally force people to buy into a government approved insurance plan ,can carbon credit cards be far behind ?

[amdeist]

Life is all about choices. Whether global warming is good or bad for the future of mankind on Earth is of no consequence, since it won't be our children or our children's children who are affected. Take a trip to Salt Lake City, Utah, Denver, Colorado, or Los Angeles, California. No one seems concerned that the pollution is so bad that there are days they tell joggers to stay inside to protect their lungs. We have much bigger problems in America to solve. I liken this debate to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. We can't even stop gangs from terrorizing our major cities in America. What makes us think we have a snowball chance in Hades to win a war in Afghanistan or Iraq? If you don't understand this analogy, then how about our healthcare system. Congress is trying to pass a bill that takes an approaching bankrupt system, and add millions more beneficiaries (costs). How stupid is that? Americans have a severe learning disability when it comes to problem solving, and that might just be the reason our capitalist system is on its way down!

[paraclete]

Lord Smith of Finsbury believes that implementing individual carbon allowances for every person will be the most effective way of meeting the targets for cutting greenhouse gas emissions. It would involve people being issued with a unique number which they would hand over when purchasing products that contribute to their carbon footprint, such as fuel, airline tickets and electricity. Like with a bank account, a statement would be sent out each month to help people keep track of what they are using. If their "carbon account" hits zero, they would have to pay to get more credits. Those who are frugal with their carbon usage will be able to sell their unused credits and make a profit. Lord Smith will call for the scheme to be part of a "Green New Deal" to be introduced within 20 years when he addresses the agency's annual conference on Monday. An Environment Agency spokesman said only those with "extravagant lifestyles" would be affected by the carbon allowances. He said: "A lot of people who cycle will get money back. It will probably only be bankers and those with extravagant lifestyles who would lose out."
[/INDENT]

And this is different from an ETS how? The way an ETS works is you slowly reduce the cap to force the reduction

[tomder55]

Who gets to decide what a person's ration number is? I'd like to see how that gets hashed out. I know someone like the Goracle is deemed more essential and thus should benefit from a higher consumption rating . Or do you think it will be an equitable distribution of credits?? Not likely!

This is effectively a 100% tax on consumption above a certain level.But it reminds me a lot like indulgences to be paid to the high priests of the cult of the Environmentalists .

Meanwhile it turns out that the more carbon we add to the air the better plant life grows.

The more carbon emissions we dump into the air, the faster forests and plants grow.
This new revelation is the result of research done by the North American carbon program. Scott Denning, Ph.D., a physicist from Colorado State University in Fort Collins, Colorado, explains the North American Carbon Program… Physicists tracking the data have found an unexpected benefit of rising carbon dioxide levels. Dr. Denning says it's unusual. “Stuff is growing faster than it's dying, which is weird,” he says.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/videos/2...good_thing.htm

[phlanx]

Now the nannystate in Great Britain is going to compel individuals to adhere to carbon allowances .
Everyone in Britain could be given a personal 'carbon allowance' - Telegraph

Right ...sell it with the phoney soak the rich BS !

Can the Democrats in Congress be far behind ? If they can unconstitutionally force people to buy into a government approved insurance plan ,can carbon credit cards be far behind ?

You read in article in a newspaper and think it is reflective of the views of the country... please!

[tomder55]

Then I'll defer until I hear the details of his address and “Green New Deal” proposal.
Please update after his speech today.

[excon]

Meanwhile it turns out that the more carbon we add to the air the better plant life grows.

Hello again, tom:

It didn't turn out for me. But, I understand science..

The point, of global warming, though, isn't about how well the plants like it. It's about how the polar ice caps are going to melt and put NY City under the pond...

But, the plants'll like it... Dude!

excon

[tomder55]

Except the claim about the ice caps is also junk science. The only thing shrinking is the credibility of the global warming cult.

Revealed: Antarctic ice growing, not shrinking | The Australian

[ETWolverine]

Hello again, tom:

It didn't turn out for me. But, I understand science..

The point, of global warming, though, isn't about how well the plants like it. It's about how the polar ice caps are gonna melt and put NY City under the pond...

But, the plants'll like it... Dude!

excon

So we've gone from "I don't know anything about science but I know pollution is bad" to "I understand science", and from "It isn't about global warming, but rather pollution" to "It's about how the polar ice caps are gonna melt and put NY City under the pond".

How often do you plan on contradicting yourself?

Elliot

[phlanx]

except the claim about the ice caps is also junk science. The only thing shrinking is the credibility of the global warming cult.

Revealed: Antarctic ice growing, not shrinking | The Australian

I think it is well documented the ice caps and glaciers covering the poles have been shrinking year on year

What is in dispute is whether it is man made or natural, eitherway as Ex states the seas will rise to accommodate the new water, so whether you feel it is aload of junk or not, New York shoreline will be inland for a while, that is not in dispute

[tomder55]

Good I'll have beach front property

[speechlesstx]

I think it is well documented the ice caps and glaciers covering the poles have been shrinking year on year

What is in dispute is whether it is man made or natural, eitherway as Ex states the seas will rise to accomodate the new water, so whether you feel it is aload of junk or not, new york shoreline will be inland for a while, that is not in dispute

All the more reason to desalinate and drink it and save our groundwater... or to water crops since saving the delta smelt is more important than feeding the world.