RE: Solve the energy crisis (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message


UtopianRanger -> RE: Solve the energy crisis (4/26/2006 3:46:52 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MsMacComb

quote:

ORIGINAL: Level

I saw on the tube a couple of weeks ago that Brazil is now 100% self-sufficient in energy, due to its beginning, in the 1970s, programs of nationwide alternative fuel derived from sugar cane. Don't know how clean it is *shrugs*.... but I bet they enjoy not having to worry about Venezuala or Saudi Arabia going postal.
 
 

I saw the same thing and its supposed to be far cleaner than fossil fuels (as in a lot cleaner). I also find it amusing/sad that our own government pays farmers (like me as I own one with extensive acreage on CRPs) NOT to farm land that could be growing corn/grains for ethanol.


Amen. I watched it also and agree. I think there should definitely be an emphasis placed on any property owner with barren land to grow something in order to wean us off the influence of big oil. I too have acreage and would gladly do my part.


 - R




feastie -> RE: Solve the energy crisis (4/26/2006 4:21:06 AM)

I am employed in a facet of the oil and petrochemical industry.  Suddenly, companies like mine, people who supply us and manufacturers of the materials we use are BOOMING!  We can't begin another project until late August or early May.  Refineries and chemical plants are pulling old projects off the shelves, coming back to get an update on pricing and deliveries we provided three and four years ago.  One of the projects we hear discussion of is the ability to pull oil from sand, not only from Wyoming, but Canada as well.

That being said, there are also folks in the region starting to plant sugar cane.  My boss' truck will run on either ethanol or low-grade unleaded fuel.  This article, http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002339093_brazilfuel17.html, shows that Brazil is at about 40% on ethanol fuels.  However, if it takes twice as much ethanol to run a vehicle as gasoline, and ethanol costs half as much...where are the savings?  Also of note, there is a sugar shortage in the world, as countries like China develop a very large sweet tooth.  So, if America moves to a large ethanol fuel usage, considering there is already a sugar shortage, we'll be moving right into a supply and demand situation, as we are with fossil fuels.  Yes, sugar cane, corn, sugar beets are renewable, but someone has to grow them!  Lots and lots of someones.  The downside of Brazil's ethanol use is the loss of rain forest to grow sugar cane. 

It is a puzzle.




meatcleaver -> RE: Solve the energy crisis (4/26/2006 4:31:02 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: feastie

The downside of Brazil's ethanol use is the loss of rain forest to grow sugar cane. 

It is a puzzle.


It all comes back to using less. Estimates suggest between 20-35% of western energy use is wasted. That is before adding squandered resources on throw away luxuries.




philosophy -> RE: Solve the energy crisis (4/26/2006 4:31:12 AM)

climate change is a normal part of the way the world works.......however, this is not the same as saying we are having no effect. One can graph the climate easily enough, and can also graph against it the tow main natural causes of climate change: volcanic activity and solar activity. The two lines correlate very closely, right up to the 20th century........then you have to factor in those pesky man made pollutants........furthermore they are pushing the climate change itself faster than any natural process.
To use the fact of natural climate change as a reason not to accept any human responsibility for the current shifts is the purest ostritch position.




SirCumsSlut -> RE: Solve the energy crisis (4/26/2006 5:05:45 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Level

I saw on the tube a couple of weeks ago that Brazil is now 100% self-sufficient in energy, due to its beginning, in the 1970s, programs of nationwide alternative fuel derived from sugar cane. Don't know how clean it is *shrugs*.... but I bet they enjoy not having to worry about Venezuala or Saudi Arabia going postal.
 


Level, You took the post right our of my head.........We should have been worrying about alternative fuel sorces 30+ years ago when the "first" gas crisis hit..........but again the BIG MONEY OIL COMPANIES won out...........Maybe we need to sit down with the Brazilian scientists and engineers that brought Brazil well into the 21st century leaving us and many other countries way behind




meatcleaver -> RE: Solve the energy crisis (4/26/2006 5:37:52 AM)

This issue is going to be the big one in the coming decades because it is what other people do that is going to affect you. Where pollution is concerned there are no borders and using energy causes pollution and degradates the environment of your neighbours. It isn't a case any more, of I've got energy and I want to consume it. Its a case of fucking your country up is fine but the planet isn't yours to fuck up and basically that is what we are all doing.




MsMacComb -> RE: Solve the energy crisis (4/26/2006 12:11:07 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Level

It is sad, I agree, MsMacC. I also saw on 60 Minutes how in Wyoming (I think) they're expanding operations of getting oil from surface pits, extracting it from sand. Supposedly huge amounts of oil to be had.
 
Ah yes, the home state of one Dick Cheney. No surprise there right, lol. [:)]




Level -> RE: Solve the energy crisis (4/26/2006 3:59:49 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SirCumsSlut

quote:

ORIGINAL: Level

I saw on the tube a couple of weeks ago that Brazil is now 100% self-sufficient in energy, due to its beginning, in the 1970s, programs of nationwide alternative fuel derived from sugar cane. Don't know how clean it is *shrugs*.... but I bet they enjoy not having to worry about Venezuala or Saudi Arabia going postal.
 


Level, You took the post right our of my head.........We should have been worrying about alternative fuel sorces 30+ years ago when the "first" gas crisis hit..........but again the BIG MONEY OIL COMPANIES won out...........Maybe we need to sit down with the Brazilian scientists and engineers that brought Brazil well into the 21st century leaving us and many other countries way behind


Yep.... and I would bet there's some of that going on. It just frustrates me when I know there are solutions, but it seems to take forever to get to them.
 
Level




Level -> RE: Solve the energy crisis (4/26/2006 4:02:45 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: feastie

I am employed in a facet of the oil and petrochemical industry.  Suddenly, companies like mine, people who supply us and manufacturers of the materials we use are BOOMING!  We can't begin another project until late August or early May.  Refineries and chemical plants are pulling old projects off the shelves, coming back to get an update on pricing and deliveries we provided three and four years ago.  One of the projects we hear discussion of is the ability to pull oil from sand, not only from Wyoming, but Canada as well.

That being said, there are also folks in the region starting to plant sugar cane.  My boss' truck will run on either ethanol or low-grade unleaded fuel.  This article, http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002339093_brazilfuel17.html, shows that Brazil is at about 40% on ethanol fuels.  However, if it takes twice as much ethanol to run a vehicle as gasoline, and ethanol costs half as much...where are the savings?  Also of note, there is a sugar shortage in the world, as countries like China develop a very large sweet tooth.  So, if America moves to a large ethanol fuel usage, considering there is already a sugar shortage, we'll be moving right into a supply and demand situation, as we are with fossil fuels.  Yes, sugar cane, corn, sugar beets are renewable, but someone has to grow them!  Lots and lots of someones.  The downside of Brazil's ethanol use is the loss of rain forest to grow sugar cane. 

It is a puzzle.


Yes, I remember seeing some reportage on the Canadian sites as well. Far larger than ours I think. Now, as for the ethanol not being a "savings" situation, that is likely true, but a great benefit would be not having to rely on other countries for fuel. And I think someone said that it burns cleaner, which would be a bonus.




subtoFemDommes -> RE: Solve the energy crisis (4/26/2006 9:34:42 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: UtopianRanger
quote:

ORIGINAL: MsMacComb
quote:

ORIGINAL: Level
I saw on the tube a couple of weeks ago that Brazil is now 100% self-sufficient in energy, due to its beginning, in the 1970s, programs of nationwide alternative fuel derived from sugar cane. Don't know how clean it is *shrugs*.... but I bet they enjoy not having to worry about Venezuala or Saudi Arabia going postal.
 
I saw the same thing and its supposed to be far cleaner than fossil fuels (as in a lot cleaner). I also find it amusing/sad that our own government pays farmers (like me as I own one with extensive acreage on CRPs) NOT to farm land that could be growing corn/grains for ethanol.


Amen. I watched it also and agree. I think there should definitely be an emphasis placed on any property owner with barren land to grow something in order to wean us off the influence of big oil. I too have acreage and would gladly do my part.
- R


Well, the two of you can move north...

Washington State for one is offering tax incentives for the production of biodiesel (yes, cleaner than the petroleum based product) as Eastern Washington is particularly well suited for the production of rapeseed, a rich source of oil. 


Washington State provides a variety of tax incentives to encourage the development of in-state production facilities, distribution services and retail sales facilities for biodiesel and ethanol fuel.
http://www.sccd.org/policy/WashingtonBiofuelsIncentives.shtml

However, to produce enough to replace diesel currently consumed in this country (aprox 70 Billion Gallons a year)  900 million acres (an area equal to about 40% of the entire country) would have to be planted, so we aren't going to replace petrodiesel anytime soon, but production is increasing.

French company building world's largest biodiesel plant in Indiana Posted Mar 10th 2006
http://www.autoblog.com/2006/03/10/french-company-building-worlds-largest-biodiesel-plant-in-india/

There actually are federal tax incentives which were instituted in 2004 and were extended to 2008 a year later.  I'd say at this point, they'll be in place forever and hopefully will be increased.

Biodiesel Tax Incentive Extended to 2008
http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/news/story?id=34956

quote:

ORIGINAL: MsMacComb
quote:

ORIGINAL: Level
It is sad, I agree, MsMacC. I also saw on 60 Minutes how in Wyoming (I think) they're expanding operations of getting oil from surface pits, extracting it from sand. Supposedly huge amounts of oil to be had.
 
Ah yes, the home state of one Dick Cheney. No surprise there right, lol.


Oil shale exploration has a long history in WY, UT and CO, and a boom and bust cycle as well.  When I was in CO in the 70's, they expected the Western Slope to have a million people on it due to the anticipated development of shale. The best is in Colorado, not Wyoming .... hmmm...

(You'll love this article where less than a year ago, a spokesperson for WY's own Bureau of Land Management was saying they doubted development would start there, as it would be more sensible to go where the shale is richest... lol)
http://www.casperstartribune.net/articles/2005/06/16/news/wyoming/0bf06b4df4609c8c87257021008125ca.txt

The cost of extraction is very high (there isn't oil, but a precusor to it in the shale that has to be turned into oil) but the current price may sustain it.  Given the difficulties in extracting it (it takes a ton of the best to give you 30 to 40 gallons of oil) they won't get to that much of it, however, one half of the shale in those three states has 3 times the proven oil reserves in Saudi ArabiaNow if only they could figure out how to burn it cleanly... Not to mention what they're going to do with 1.25 tons of leftover material for each barrel of oil... anyone in need of processed oil shale beauty bark?

I think it's unbelievable that there's any new construction allowed today that isn't required to at least have solar to suppliment hot water heating, if nothing else.  Tax incentives to homeowners in the 70's did work to encourage that, however a lot of fly-by-night companies sold shoddy solar collectors that were leaking on people's roofs within a couple of years.  The well made ones back then were so expensive they were hard to sell.  Today's energy costs and the superior materials available, along with a rigid (as in UL type) standard for construction would seem to make that a no brainer anywhere. 

I think ultimately, as difficult as it is, it's going to be up to individuals and localities to change habits and pass regulations encouraging or requiring some of the many technologies available today to reduce consumption.  I'm a believer in finding ways to both improve efficiencies while providing what people need. 

It's obvious that the federal government is so whored out to big money that waiting for them to do much at a reasonable speed is a waste of time. Convincing people of the long term economic advantages of making changes now and requiring those technologies where they can be put in place from the first day of consumption may be the most effective thing we can do.

Thanks to everyone for the thoughtful posts.




Lordandmaster -> RE: Solve the energy crisis (4/26/2006 9:41:41 PM)

Yeah, solve the energy crisis by lining Dick Cheney's fat pockets.  Why didn't I think of that?  There has to be a job somewhere on K Street for whoever came up with this one.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MsMacComb

quote:

ORIGINAL: Level

It is sad, I agree, MsMacC. I also saw on 60 Minutes how in Wyoming (I think) they're expanding operations of getting oil from surface pits, extracting it from sand. Supposedly huge amounts of oil to be had.
 

Ah yes, the home state of one Dick Cheney. No surprise there right, lol. [:)]




MsMacComb -> RE: Solve the energy crisis (4/27/2006 1:12:09 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster
Yeah, solve the energy crisis by lining Dick Cheney's fat pockets.  Why didn't I think of that?  There has to be a job somewhere on K Street for whoever came up with this one.
 
It boggles the mind how anyone could seriously think that anyone within the Bush Administration has any true desire to rectify anything related to global warming or the oil price "gougefest". H.W.Bush and his son "W." are in the oil business. Oil is what runs through Cheneys veins (notice he optioned some Halliburton stocks this year?) and the rest that have their investments in "blind trusts" are no doubt invested in KBR and Halliburton and big oil. Its not in their or their cronies best interest to do anything but keep prices high and lie, lie, lie about the reasons for it while posting record profits and lining their pockets. I sometimes think this is the most corrupt administration ever, (actually am sure of it).




Mercnbeth -> RE: Solve the energy crisis (4/27/2006 7:05:55 AM)

Blame instead of plan.

More politicians here than I realized - pick your party.

It's no wonder our elected officials get away with it, they are a reflection of their constituency.




mnottertail -> RE: Solve the energy crisis (4/27/2006 7:14:21 AM)

Cut the war short.  Dump all that money in this pisshole rather than that pisshole.

Then government gets the patents and the production rights, sells licencses  to them like they do bandwidth in the radio spectrum. Fucks all that up, but at least they got some money coming in to feed the beast.

Ron 
(this was posted on the wrong thread originally)
_____________________________




subtoFemDommes -> RE: Solve the energy crisis (4/27/2006 9:41:51 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth
Blame instead of plan.
More politicians here than I realized - pick your party.
It's no wonder our elected officials get away with it, they are a reflection of their constituency.



When I thanked people for the "thoughtful posts" it was for the ones that made suggestions, not accusations, although I do have to wonder why exploration would get cranked up where WY's own B of LM would say it's not likely due to inferior shale. 

That being said, I also absolutely agree with your statement about the citizenry getting what they deserve.  What's particularly shocking to me is that there are probably a lot of successful business owners on this thread who think it's government manipulation and corporate collusion that are causing these high prices.  It flies in the face of the laws of supply and demand, as although there is a record supply of petroleum, there is also a record demand for it

While China and India and all of those third world countries (that I'm sure many of the liberals who think this is the result of evil conservative collusion wanted to progress to "our standard of living) come on line with record demands for fuel (they pay more than we do folks, and they are happy to do it) and we don't significantly reduce our consumption, partially because we can't and partially because we just don't want to - it doesn't hurt enough yet (see below).

Despite how terrible the cost seems to be, it's still not high enough to modify people's habits that much.  How many people went right back out and bought low gas mileage vehicles as soon as the last bump in fuel prices was over? 

Yes; the government can raise CAFE standards, and stop doing crap like letting the automakers include huge SUV's under the truck exclusion.  But there were plenty of higher mileage choices available, people just decided to buy the lower ones.  Those huge cars are just like the huge, energy hog houses that contractors love to build, they are far more profitable than a couple of small ones and they'll consume more energy for as long as they exist.*

Of course, then you can watch your 401k's decline as automaker profits do, and of course I'm sure that Exxon stock going down won't hurt anyone either, after all, we all know that it's just the corporate execs who hold that, not your mutual fund.  See folks, this really isn't that simple?  By the way, oil industry return on capital since 1970 is lower than the rest of the industrial market. 

Was anyone crying for them when oil was ten dollars a barrel and they were laying off thousands?  Opening a new field cost billions, building a new refinery? Six billion dollars.  (I heard this morning from an industry analyst that despite the talk show hosts saying that environmental concerns have stopped refinery construction, the industry really doesn't feel they need new ones as it's cheaper to expand existing ones.  Bad information and appeals to emotion are everywhere, on both sides of the political spectrum.)

People may bitch, but they aren't altering much behavior because in reality, the cost of gas still isn't eating into the cost of other things as much as they might believe, and at times over the years, has actually (relative to the factors shown in these links) gone down.  They just have had it good and the cost of fuel has allowed much discretion in other areas, some of which are going to cause a lot of real pain if the ratio of these factors changes more to their detriment. 

My summation of the factors you can find in the links,  is that given yesterday's gas price in CA compared to the inflation related cost of gas in 1981, average mileage has increased 25% (22 vs. 27.5) and gas right now, relative to inflation, has increased 17%. (2.49 vs. 2.92).  Per mile, given higher average fuel mileage, the inflation adjusted cost of driving is apparently less than it was 25 years ago.

Just listen to recent news reports about the people who've decided to commute further and further from work, obviously making some determination that the cost of doing so related to mileage was worth it, as if it was hard to predict the cost of gas would continue to rise 

Gas being as cheap as it has been (and still is relative to other countries and inflation) has left people with money for other things, like deciding to move to bum fuck Egypt and drive to work from there or buying Ford Expeditions.

(That could be fodder for another completely different conversation on how nuts people are regarding the subject of "improved quality of life" they perceive from living out in the boonies.  Some of them have kids who even can remember them on weekends, since many leave before they get up and come home when they're going to sleep.) 

CAFE Averages over the years don't represent what cars actually get, but they do represent the difference between the mileage they met at one time and what they meet now, figuring the variations with real driving are probably similar.  Most people don't get that mileage that high, but you could come close if you drove judiciously.

CAFE info and so much more..
http://www.dieselnet.com/standards/us/fe.php

Gas costs in CA and their inflation adjusted cost over the years. (Naturally, there's more available information on auto related topics and CA than any other state...)
http://www.energy.ca.gov/gasoline/statistics/gasoline_cpi_adjusted.html

Yesterday's average gas cost in CA (compiled by AAA)
http://198.6.95.31/

*A lot of those insanely huge, water and energy hog, and polluting homes only started being built when people who were taking huge profits from homes in one area moved to another and were faced with either buying a larger home, or paying the capital gains tax on the profits.  So they opted for a energy hog home that the contractors were happy to build for them and started a trend of "super-sized houses" ...  An example of "The law of unintended consequences" which alters situations with both harmful and beneficial effects.

Beautifully illustrated in the great PBS series "Connections" that showed how history is altered by it.  http://www.shoppbs.org/sm-pbs-connections-connections-3-dvd-5pk--pi-1450814.html

http://www.palmersguide.com/jamesburke/burke_biography.html

That, and the underlying resistance to change until things get really painful or the benefits appeal to deeply rooted emotional needs, regardless of how rational they are (Like driving a 13 mpg PU that's empty 95% of the time) is the real "conspirator" in human events.




Lordandmaster -> RE: Solve the energy crisis (4/27/2006 10:24:45 AM)

I actually agree with a lot of what you're saying, but come on--when REPUBLICAN lawmakers ask for an audit of oil companies' tax records, I'll take that as a sign that there might be more than just supply and demand behind the recent price spikes.

You almost had me there--I was ALMOST feeling sorry for oil companies.  Then I regained my senses.




subtoFemDommes -> RE: Solve the energy crisis (4/27/2006 11:34:49 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster
I actually agree with a lot of what you're saying, but come on--when REPUBLICAN lawmakers ask for an audit of oil companies' tax records, I'll take that as a sign that there might be more than just supply and demand behind the recent price spikes.
You almost had me there--I was ALMOST feeling sorry for oil companies.  Then I regained my senses.


I'm not asking you to be sorry for anybody, unless you want to be sorry for the irrational behavior and inability to logically and unemotionally think through a problem, of the whole human race.  And by the way, in a capitalist society, "the oil companies" are the stock holders.  In a socialist society, "the oil companies" are just people who have no choice in whether they want to own part of one or not.  So the answer for some people is, let government, which they think is corrupt and ineffective, nationalize the oil companies.  Of course they'll operate them better than they do everything else.





Mercnbeth -> RE: Solve the energy crisis (4/27/2006 12:31:53 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster

I actually agree with a lot of what you're saying, but come on--when REPUBLICAN lawmakers ask for an audit of oil companies' tax records, I'll take that as a sign that there might be more than just supply and demand behind the recent price spikes.

You almost had me there--I was ALMOST feeling sorry for oil companies.  Then I regained my senses.


L&M,
My entire rant and rambling on this and other political posts is that we, as a group of tax paying citizens, have to stop prejudicial knee jerk responses, insult, and blame based upon the party of the speaker. I've noted that the best (or worse) person to make an argument against smoking is an ex-smoker. Many of the "conservative" talk show hosts who are the loudest and most adamant anti-Democrats were formally Democrats. Lost is focus on the solution.

Announcing today that in 10 years the USA will not import any oil, and pointing to the "Brazil Example" would be applauded. But if the practicality of that program was freeing up "environmentally" protected land and the waters off the continental for drilling it would be bogged down and in 10 years will be complaining when gas is $10/gallon and remembering the good old days of $4.00/gal.

Pragmatism isn't pretty, there will be causalities. If a national referendum were posed to the country with a clear yes/no option who would win? To me, the distinction between the parties was never more blurred. President Bush and his policies is no more representative of a conservative Republican than Bill Clinton. In fact, President Clinton was more Republican than President Bush. What a joke that they want to send us all $100 checks! "Bread & Circuses"

At least the Green Party is consistence and distinct, but I doubt, here in LA at least, 12 million people will turn in their cars for bicycles. 

When the whole house of cards falls while the our "leaders" finger point and insult, I won't get any satisfaction if the last guy standing was a Republican or Democrat. I may not agree with the entirety of anyones platform who plans to run for office. My determination if they are worth my vote and support will be based exclusively if they have a goal for this country and a logical plan to achieve it. If they hedge or blame to me they will just continue the status quo. Currently the status quo is what we need to fear the most in every level of goverment.




MsMacComb -> RE: Solve the energy crisis (4/27/2006 12:44:17 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: subtoFemDommes

[
What's particularly shocking to me is that there are probably a lot of successful business owners on this thread who think it's government manipulation and corporate collusion that are causing these high prices.  It flies in the face of the laws of supply and demand, as although there is a record supply of petroleum, there is also a record demand for it
 

Umm yea, check. In a time when Katrina happened, Iraq, now rumors of an Iranian war the oil companies are price gouging plain and simple. I love how people keep parroting big oils comments (also known as BushCo) about supply and demand. This past winter it was heating oil and natural gas, now petrol for autos and last night I saw a news article that we can expect a 67% increase in electric rates this summer (except for some east coast areas that will be 100%).
Meanwhile back in reality land the price of lighters is the same as they were (butane, propane or whatever they are) Iraqis are still paying about 35 cents per gallon, Bush has been pumping gas into the reserves and big oil is under investigation for not paying their taxes and price gouging. How do you make 44 BILLION in profit during a war, in the aftermath of the most devasting natural disastor the US has ever seen and then have the audacity to state that profits are not that high but its just supply and demand. There is no shortage of supply and demand is growing at the same rate that suppliers can provide for. There are wells all over the US and other areas that are capped that could be put back into "action" but then that would increase supply and then big oil would have no argument about the supply/demand reason for its gouging.




MHOO314 -> RE: Solve the energy crisis (4/27/2006 12:53:48 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

In the past five years fuel prices have doubled. There has been no comprehensive US energy policy in 20 years. It's time for action. "Investigating", as President Bush suggests, distracts and doesn't solve. My pragmatic solution is this.

Immediately half the federal, state, and local tax on gasoline. Establish a national driving age of 18. Open the entire continental shelf to exploration and drilling as well as the Alaskan field. Reestablish the use of nuclear power. As an incentive and to address the NIMBY attitude, anyone living and any business within 10 miles of the plant gets free energy and pay zero real estate tax.

Establish a national "prize" of $100 Million for any person or company who develops a alternative fuel source or power storage device (battery) which provides a 300 mile range for a 4 passenger sedan.


I think we need to look at ( at least here in the US) a three-fold approach: 1. reduce consumption, 2.stimulate some form of fuel development  AND 3. change the way we are employed or produce for our incomes.
 
  •  I agree with the driving age at 18,( I have a 16 year old and she doesn't even want to get her license yet, thinks 16 yr olds aren't developed enough emotionally)--but not for the fuel consumption, Q.--would we not use as much fuel taking these kids here and  there instead of them driving themselves? Or is the thinking that residual effect gets stopped because parents won't haul children around?
  • I agree completely with finding an alternative means of something, I'm all for cow dung or corn or something because it brings back farming and provides food and fuel--ok laugh all you want, its the nature side of Me--<smiles>
  • but we have to change the way we work---as Merc said, 12 M LA people won't go get bikes, why? because they commute---miles and miles--should we not also look at doing what My company did? Encourage telecommunting for the occupations that CAN work at home via the internet, wireless, etc? I work at home and home school My child, both cars are energy efficient--when we go out, most of the time its combined purposes--we are in most of the week--I spend My day on conference calls all over the world, telecommuting--with what My company saved on office rent, it reimburses My second phone line, offsets My office supplies, pays My phone bills and other things.

Q--Is this not the other side we need to look at as well? Changing how many of us or where many of us work?




Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
8.984375E-02