1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum

Spain Goes on Gas Strike

Discussion in 'U.S. Politics' started by newlibertyparty, Jun 12, 2008.

  1. newlibertyparty

    newlibertyparty New Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Messages:
    13
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Spain went on a tax strike monday, though mostly truckers took part. Almost all majore roads have been blocked by the still moving, or slugishly moving cargo.

    Northern Spain has already reported gas shortages, and the Supermarkets have been all but shut down.

    Would this bring down gas prices if we did it in america?
     
  2. Andy

    Andy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2008
    Messages:
    3,497
    Likes Received:
    59
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Of course not. Prices are determined by supply and demand. The demand in spain didn't decrease, the shipment was held up, that's all.

    In theory, it may drop prices on the world market for a short... very short time, but as soon as the 'strike' was over, the demand would be up to where it was before, if not higher than before, and the price would return to where it previously was.

    Is there any indication it worked in Spain? I would wager not... UNLESS.... the government of Spain lowered gas taxes in Spain, in which case that may well work there, but likely not here.

    Taxes account for less than a dollar of one gallon of gas. Further, that dollar of tax is broken down between federal, State, and local, as well as environment taxes. All four would have to reduce their excise tax, and that isn't likely to happen without a divine act of God or something similar.
     
  3. Dr.Who

    Dr.Who Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2007
    Messages:
    6,776
    Likes Received:
    251
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Horse Country
    I think every liberal, environmentalist, global warming nut, etc. in the country should voluntarily stop using gas.

    Then I can use more myself at a lower cost. I would probably use my increased profits to start a horse breeding ranch. So I could sell my horses to you know who. Cause you know the cost of horse would go way up.
     
  4. Andy

    Andy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2008
    Messages:
    3,497
    Likes Received:
    59
    Trophy Points:
    48
    An eco-lib told me that any and all sacrifice was worth it to save the planet. I asked the eco-lib where he lived, so I could drive by at night and see if his lights were on. I also told him he had a polluting family sedan, and he should buy something smaller that polluted less. He was mad as **** to. When you push them to practice what they preach, they go nuts. :D Gives me a warm fuzzy feeling, and shuts them up at the same time.
     
  5. Dr.Who

    Dr.Who Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2007
    Messages:
    6,776
    Likes Received:
    251
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Horse Country
    They are not willing to make the sacrifice unless they can force everyone else to make it too. As if my "pollution" were at all a factor that should determine whether or not they pollute. This is illogical.

    Unless... the goal is not to stop us all from polluting but to provide the government with the excuse to have more control over all of our lives. Then it would not be illogical at all.

    So you tell me, are they illogical or are they promoting tyranny?
     
  6. Bunz

    Bunz New Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2007
    Messages:
    3,215
    Likes Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Alaska
    Dr. Who and Andy,
    I see your argument concerning a possibly hypocrisy. As a lefty, most of us dont believe going back into the stone age and thinking that having a concern about the enviroment is an all or nothing proposition is reaching pretty far.

    As for the gas strike, it ultimately doesnt mean anything but more gas being burned. Because the slow traffic mean more vehicles sat idling. I am begining to grow in concern though about what $200 a barrel gas will do to the world economy. Are we heading into a possible major crisis when this happens?
     
  7. Andy

    Andy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2008
    Messages:
    3,497
    Likes Received:
    59
    Trophy Points:
    48
    One of the reasons stereo types exist, is because generally they are true. Now you claim to be a lefty, and possibly that's true, but not that doesn't mean that you fit the stereo type completely. The same is true for me as well. I do fit some of the attributes of a right-winger, yet I can't stand repugs, so obviously I don't fit it that well.

    In this case, as it relates to eco-lefty-socialists, the general attribute of them is a massive case of hypocrisy. They are all very quick to say we should do thus and so, while they themselves either don't have to, or do things they know we could never do. For example, Al Bore buying thousands of CarbonCredits, which the average person could never afford. Or flying around in a private military craft while telling everyone to reduce oil usage.

    On a personal level, being told everyone should sacrifice to 'save the planet' while owning a large family sedan and having their lights on all night.

    Well, a small sedan is too little for my family (everyone should sacrifice), and I hate slow boring cars (everyone else should sacrifice), and I got this large house and expensive car with the money I earn at this job (everyone but me should sacrifice) so I deserve all my stuff. (Do as I say, not as I do)

    Granted, I can't speak for every single eco-nut on the planet, but this describes nearly every eco-nut I have personally met.
     
  8. Dr.Who

    Dr.Who Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2007
    Messages:
    6,776
    Likes Received:
    251
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Horse Country
    Logically if we have already caused global warming years ago by burning fossil fuels then the growing population of the planet will have to reduce carbon emmisions below the level that were produced back when warming started.

    Proposals I have seen for cuts call for cuts to levels from a certain date. A date when global warming was well under way. So logically global warming would continue even after the cuts. Cuts that would have to be obeyed by a growing world population of over 7 billion people.

    And since the present warming trend began 18,000 years ago we should be talking about the stone age.
     
  9. Andy

    Andy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2008
    Messages:
    3,497
    Likes Received:
    59
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Maybe the Communists were really just empowered eco-nuts, and slaughtering as many people as possible was their way of 'saving the planet'. Perhaps Stalin was just a more animated Al Bore or something.
     
  10. Dr.Who

    Dr.Who Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2007
    Messages:
    6,776
    Likes Received:
    251
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Horse Country
    As far as i can tell the eco left still loves population control as a way to save the planet. Or at least if their policies eventually lead to losses in population they won't recoil inside so much. So how long will it be before someone in the world carries out a plan to reduce population with saving the planet as the stated reason?

    Wait, this is already happening and no one seems to mind. Can you say malaria and DDT.
     
  11. Andy

    Andy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2008
    Messages:
    3,497
    Likes Received:
    59
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Oddly, I never did study DDT much at all. I have no idea how much or little of the wailing and nashing of teeth over it is actually true. Of course, generally speaking, if liberals are talking about it, it must be false.
     
  12. Dr.Who

    Dr.Who Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2007
    Messages:
    6,776
    Likes Received:
    251
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Horse Country
    I actually think that the best of what the liberals have is worthy and the best of what the conservatives have is worthy. Same for the worst in reverse. Overall though conservative idiology is superior.

    DDT is a highly effective insecticide that wiped out malaria in many parts of the world. After the publication of silent spring which outlined some of the problems of indiscriminate spraying it was banned in most parts of the world. Bald eagles have made a comeback in the US. But many people die needlessly in other parts of the world to this day.
     
  13. Bunz

    Bunz New Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2007
    Messages:
    3,215
    Likes Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Alaska
    Well thats just it, making that gross of an generalization isnt at all indicitive of reality in a greater society. One can be concerned about the environment, but still consume resources that are either harmful or non-renewable for Earth. Individual modern society is virtually impossible without it.
    What the idea and concept is really looking towards the future. Minimizing waste through recycling, being thoughtful of your energy use, being aware of resource developments, and pushing for the development of a cleaner future.
     
  14. Bunz

    Bunz New Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2007
    Messages:
    3,215
    Likes Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Alaska
    Doc, I know where you are going with your argument and there is some validity in it. I think the evidence could be shown that the Earth has warmed more rapidly in times when the Earths atmosphere has more CO2. What concerns me is the rapid coastal erosion, vast glacial/ice cap decreases that I am witnessing with my own eyes.
     
  15. Andy

    Andy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2008
    Messages:
    3,497
    Likes Received:
    59
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Mathmatically, it's impossible for CO2 to make the kind of impact that is claimed. As in... not possible.

    The single largest contributer to the "green house effect" (GHE), is oddly enough... water. H2O. Roughly 90% to 95% of the whole "GHE" is water. We'll assume 90%.

    Yeah but 10% of the GHE is massive!! Not exactly... of the remaining 10%, there are other GHE gasses like Methane, Nitrogen oxide, Ozone, and of course carbon dioxide, with CO2 being the largest. So now, only ~8% of the GHE, is due to CO2.

    But that 8% is all us, and that's huge! Well no, because from the most recent measurements, human activity only accounts for 3.4% of the yearly emitted CO2. So we only own up to 3.4% of the 8% GHE due to CO2... or... 0.27% of the GHE is due to humans. That's less than half of 1% of the total GHE.

    Well that still could be an incredible effect!!! Well... not exactly. Another problem is that simply because there is more CO2 to absorb heat, doesn't mean there is more heat to be absorbed. It's the principal of diminishing returns.

    Well yeah whatever, I bet our 0.27% causes a huge rise in temps! No not exactly. There are three competing theories for how much the GHE raises temps on the earth. All three conclude that it raises it around 33ºC. So that 0.27% of the 33ºC effect is a change in temp under 0.089ºC Or not noticeable on bare skin.

    In order to increase the worlds average mean temp by just 1ºC, we would be required to boost the amount of atmospheric CO2 by nearly 3X. Which will be hard since we currently only account for roughly 3.4% of yearly CO2. In other words we would have to increase CO2 production by 59 times current world wide human production.

    But here's the best part... we could never do it. Even if we pumped all the oil world wide, burnt all the trees world wide, and cranked out every source of CO2 possible... in the end we could never make enough CO2, to raise the earths temp by 1ºC.... why? Because CO2 becomes toxic at 6,000 PPM, and in order to do this, we'd have to hit 90,000 PPM... as in, we'd all be dead long before we raised the earths temp by 1ºC from man made CO2.

    Bottom line... Global Warming from man made CO2 is a fraud and a scam.

    Coastal erosion has been happening for thousands of years. If you wish to deal with it, great. But it has nothing to do with national policy (as far as I know), or some fantastical human caused issue. If you know something more, feel free.

    Glacial changes and Ice cap changes, are normal. According to the Swedish glacial monitoring service, 57% of glaciers are advancing. Further, the Antarctic cap is growing. In fact, the antarctic has recently set a huge record, and the temps in the southern hemisphere have dropped 1ºC in the past years. In other words, the normal natural changes in our environment are happening on their own.
     
Loading...

Share This Page