Quantcast

National Speed Limit?

What do you think?

  • Reinstate the national speed limit and set it to 65.

    Votes: 5 9.6%
  • National speed limit and mechanically limit cars and trucks.

    Votes: 2 3.8%
  • Keep it like it is and let people drive 100+.

    Votes: 45 86.5%

  • Total voters
    52

1453

Monkey
Non sequitur much?

N8, my idea is anti-rationing. Raise the price and the market will control demand. As ohio pointed out elsewhere you often seem to espouse (and by espouse I mean copy and paste) anti-free market ideas, strange for a self-declared conservative.
not sure where I proclaimed myself as a conservative per se.

The bit about flat salary was a bit tongue in cheek since the only place tah still does is Cuba and not sure if anyone would go for that. But since you could care less how people live with 20 dollar/g gas then hey, anything is possible.
 

vtjim

Beware of Milo & Otis
Jan 6, 2006
1,346
0
North Andover MA
QFT






Ever stop to think that there's TONS and TONS of raw oil out there that hasn't been drilled in to, maybe he's suggesting we tap into it. And I agree, we should.

It's been shown that at our current rate, the world's oil supply will last another 50 years or so.

That's more than enough time to develop and implement new, more effecient, technologies. Hell, the automobile was the main method of transport by the 1950's (1970's if you start when automobiles really began to be popular). By that calculation, we can change our entire country in less than fifty years.

Now, with the added motivation of higher fuel costs, people are getting cars that are more efficient and companies are devising new technologies.


How about we keep this thread on track, though, boys? National speed limit, yes or no?
So I'm going to reveal my tree-hugging alter ego here (but if anyone calls me a hippie I swear I'll...) but let's take that 50 year figure in to thought for a minute.

IF we drill all over the US and elsewhere we could pull fuel for another 50 years at the current rate (I'm assuming that incorporates demand going up?). 50 years is not a long time. At all. Sure, I'll be 80 by then if I'm still kicking around, but my daughter will only be 50, and grandkids younger than me.

So you mean to tell me that the destruction of pristine natural habitat and ecosystems is a worthwhile side effect to pull oil that will only last for another couple of years? Really? Seems like a lot of destruction for a very little product.

I would like my kids and grandkids and so on to enjoy what little natural wilderness is left in the US, and the world.
 

SkaredShtles

Michael Bolton
Sep 21, 2003
66,364
13,200
In a van.... down by the river
<snip>

I would like my kids and grandkids and so on to enjoy what little natural wilderness is left in the US, and the world.
Have you been west of the Mississippi lately? There still are $hitloads of uninhabited, wild places left in the US. And even more in the world...

Not to imply we shouldn't be good stewards of the wild places we DO have, just sayin'...



 

vtjim

Beware of Milo & Otis
Jan 6, 2006
1,346
0
North Andover MA
Have you been west of the Mississippi lately? There still are $hitloads of uninhabited, wild places left in the US. And even more in the world...

Not to imply we shouldn't be good stewards of the wild places we DO have, just sayin'...



I have actually. And I agree with you that there are uninhabited places. I think that gaining a couple of extra years of oil at the expense of just 1 acre of land is pretty dumb at this point.

My view might change if it would open up 500 years worth of oil. But that is just not the case.
 

thebornotaku

Monkey
May 19, 2008
359
0
Northern Bay Area
So I'm going to reveal my tree-hugging alter ego here (but if anyone calls me a hippie I swear I'll...) but let's take that 50 year figure in to thought for a minute.

IF we drill all over the US and elsewhere we could pull fuel for another 50 years at the current rate (I'm assuming that incorporates demand going up?). 50 years is not a long time. At all. Sure, I'll be 80 by then if I'm still kicking around, but my daughter will only be 50, and grandkids younger than me.

So you mean to tell me that the destruction of pristine natural habitat and ecosystems is a worthwhile side effect to pull oil that will only last for another couple of years? Really? Seems like a lot of destruction for a very little product.

I would like my kids and grandkids and so on to enjoy what little natural wilderness is left in the US, and the world.


Depends on where and how you drill.

Companies, using the right techniques (ice runways, clearing as few trees as possible) can drill in ANWR with a very small loss of trees/wildlife, and very little permanent damage. Trees grow back and animals reproduce, and given how little damage could be done, it might not even effect anything at all.


Granted, the ways people would probably go about it would be to whack down acres of forest for optimal oil derrick placement, etc...


Also, being eco-friendly doesn't make you a hippie. Hippies have music festivals and camp on college campuses to protest stuff. Hippies are useless humans. They always call for change but give no viable options... =/
 

vtjim

Beware of Milo & Otis
Jan 6, 2006
1,346
0
North Andover MA
Depends on where and how you drill.

Companies, using the right techniques (ice runways, clearing as few trees as possible) can drill in ANWR with a very small loss of trees/wildlife, and very little permanent damage. Trees grow back and animals reproduce, and given how little damage could be done, it might not even effect anything at all.


Granted, the ways people would probably go about it would be to whack down acres of forest for optimal oil derrick placement, etc...


Also, being eco-friendly doesn't make you a hippie. Hippies have music festivals and camp on college campuses to protest stuff. Hippies are useless humans. They always call for change but give no viable options... =/
And they smell. Bad.
 

SkaredShtles

Michael Bolton
Sep 21, 2003
66,364
13,200
In a van.... down by the river
I have actually. And I agree with you that there are uninhabited places. I think that gaining a couple of extra years of oil at the expense of just 1 acre of land is pretty dumb at this point.

My view might change if it would open up 500 years worth of oil. But that is just not the case.
Damn, dude - if we gained a couple extra years for an acre we'd only need to drill 250 acres. That's NOTHING! ;)
 

Westy

the teste
Nov 22, 2002
55,026
20,914
Sleazattle
I'm just defining "wilderness" or "wild places" as places with very few people. Of course there's lots of "stuff" living in those places. :rolleyes:
A lot of those vast wild places west of the 'sip have few people because they are filled with corn fields and cow ****. Not exactly wild. flying across the country it is a bit shocking how few places have been significantly altered by people.
 

narlus

Eastcoast Softcore
Staff member
Nov 7, 2001
24,658
63
behind the viewfinder
A lot of those vast wild places west of the 'sip have few people because they are filled with corn fields and cow ****. Not exactly wild. flying across the country it is a bit shocking how few places have been significantly altered by people.
plus a lot of those places have no water (nv, nm, az, tx, co, etc).
 

woodsguy

gets infinity MPG
Mar 18, 2007
1,083
1
Sutton, MA
Senator proposes lower national speed limit

10:23 AM CDT on Friday, July 4, 2008
The Associated Press

WASHINGTON — An influential Republican senator suggested Thursday that Congress might want to consider reimposing a national speed limit to save gasoline and possibly ease fuel prices.

Sen. John Warner, R-Va., asked Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman to look into what speed limit would provide optimum gasoline efficiency given current technology. He said he wants to know if the administration might support efforts in Congress to require a lower speed limit.

Congress in 1974 set a national 55 mph speed limit because of energy shortages caused by the Arab oil embargo. The speed limit was repealed in 1995 when crude oil dipped to $17 a barrel and gasoline cost $1.10 a gallon.

As motorists headed on trips for this Fourth of July weekend, gasoline averaged $4.10 a gallon nationwide with oil hovering around $145 a barrel.

Warner cited studies that showed the 55 mph speed limit saved 167,000 barrels of oil a day, or 2 percent of the country's highway fuel consumption, while avoiding up to 4,000 traffic deaths a year.

"Given the significant increase in the number of vehicles on America's highway system from 1974 to 2008, one could assume that the amount of fuel that could be conserved today is far greater," Warner wrote Bodman.

Warner asked the department to determine at what speeds vehicles would be most fuel efficient, how much fuel savings would be achieved, and whether it would be reasonable to assume there would be a reduction in prices at the pump if the speed limit were lowered.

Energy Department spokeswoman Angela Hill said the department will review Warner's letter but added, "If Congress is serious about addressing gasoline prices, they must take action on expanding domestic oil and natural gas production."

The department's Web site says that fuel efficiency decreases rapidly when traveling faster than 60 mph. Every additional 5 mph over that threshold is estimated to cost motorists "essentially an additional 30 cents per gallon in fuel costs," Warner said in his letter, citing the DOE data.
 

BMXman

I wish I was Canadian
Sep 8, 2001
13,827
0
Victoria, BC
So you mean to tell me that the destruction of pristine natural habitat and ecosystems is a worthwhile side effect to pull oil that will only last for another couple of years? Really? Seems like a lot of destruction for a very little product.

I would like my kids and grandkids and so on to enjoy what little natural wilderness is left in the US, and the world.
QFT :cheers: :clapping:
 

BurlyShirley

Rex Grossman Will Rise Again
Jul 4, 2002
19,180
17
TN
Depends on where and how you drill.

Companies, using the right techniques (ice runways, clearing as few trees as possible) can drill in ANWR with a very small loss of trees/wildlife, and very little permanent damage. Trees grow back and animals reproduce, and given how little damage could be done, it might not even effect anything at all.
That's where you're wrong. Though I agree to some extent that drilling ANWR could be done in a reasonably ecologically sound fashion, without much overall environmental impact, given the sheer vastness of the place, it would certainly affect many things, no matter how people try to downplay it.
The most important of which, IMHO, is the weakening of any legislation previously passed by congress to protect places like just like ANWR across the nation. The passing of the Alaska Natl. Wildlife Refuge act was meant to be PERMANENT....as in a permanent sanctuary for nature, wildlife, etc. The precedent we would set by allowing such very meaningful legislation to be cast aside simply because the people feel a little pinch at the pump hurts ALL environmental legislation across the board. Any time a shortage of (insert finite commodity here) pops up in the future, big businesses will know congress is willing to sacrifice national treasures for a quick buck, and nature will be exploited no matter what laws are in place to protect them. Be they national parks, national wildlife refuges, national forests, etc.
It's opening a terrible can of worms.