Quote Originally Posted by kokopup View Post
I do believe that we all will have to make sacrifices if we are to emerge from this crisis. I'm not advocating going back to horse and buggy or tilling our crops by mule and plow, but there are ways to improve how our resources are being used.
Something we all can agree on.

If you want to drive a gas hog , ok, we can have a gas guzzeler tax but lower the mpg that qualifies for gas guzzler. With the bailout that our government gave the US auto industry you would think they would change their tactics, but it is just business as usual so we are damned to repeat. Unfortunately the average American just doesn't get it. If they can afford to drive a big car it's their right. Right?
My 12mph gas guzzler is paid for. I cannot now or in the near future afford to buy outright or even afford payments on an econo-box that can get me around when the weather turns bad around here. I do wish I still had my Samurai for when the winter roads are good and for during the summer, I just cant afford to buy another Sammy in good reliable shape at the moment. So I should pay more in taxes because I cant afford a econ-box?

We did put men on the moon , and i can say I was among those that made it possible. I am a believer that given the right incentives our men of science can find better ways of utilizing our resources, and finding sources that are today not known.
One of my uncles worked with NASA on some project or other, when we talk over Christmas Ill ask which one. I do find it funny that a jet and rocket propulsion scientist cant work a VCR and the internet is still a mystery to him.

I guarantee you if we were faced with fossil fuel being depleted in 10 years there would be a break through in alternative energy before that happened.
Why not work towards cleaner energy with the existing resources, while simultaneously working towards alternative and renewable energies? Or is the agenda to damn all fossil fuels regardless of the costs? 1st world countries could ween themselves of fossil fuels and could afford to help 2nd and third world countries clean up their fossil fuel emissions. Or does that go against the Global Warming Agenda agenda?

When it comes to having enough food to feed the world because of the cost of producing enough, nature has always had a remedy for such eventualities. Rather than say "survival of the fittest" you can say survival will depend on your ability to adapt. Today we have thousands of people dieing of starvation all over the world purely because they are unable to adapt through no fault of their own. We have people dieing because of the despot or Warlord and we are helpless to assist. If new methods and energy are not found man is going to out grow this planet. Soon! We are destined to repeat history.
The USA has had a habit for many years, even decades, of paying farmers and Big Corps, not to grow various crops. By past estimates we should already have mass starvations do to worldwide population growth, yet that hasent happened yet. One of Obama's appointee's even suggested that forced sterilization was the answer for the "over population" problem.

Despite dire past predictions we have adapted and we continue to adapt, when government has allowed us to.

Ill start worrying about Globull Warming when Gore lives up to the example ShrubCo has set in his own residence.