Heh, even the liberal mouthpieces think the 350.org campaign led by Bill McKibben against the Keystone XL pipeline is stupid, calling it “bizarre”. They write in a forceful editorial today:
Mr. Obama should ignore the activists who have bizarrely chosen to make Keystone XL a line-in-the-sand issue, when there are dozens more of far greater environmental import. He knows that the way to cut oil use is to reduce demand for the stuff, and he has begun to put that knowledge into practice, setting tough new fuel-efficiency standards for cars and trucks. That will actually make a difference, unlike blocking a pipeline here or there.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/mr-obamas-second-chance-on-keystone-xl-pipeline/2013/01/23/3b6f709c-5b77-11e2-beee-6e38f5215402_story.html
I predict weepy Bill’s next line in the sand will be in Australia.
Ian L. McQueen says:
January 24, 2013 at 8:16 am
“Unfortunately, the new fuel-efficiency standards are pie-in-the-sky. Unattainable unless everyone wants to drive around in dangerously crushable mini-cars. Powered bicycles, anybody?
Amen. I wonder why so few of us are willing to speak out and state the obvious facts.”
56 MPG is delusional at best in the proposed timeframe. Due to the MSM I doubt that very many realize the difficulty of achieving this with a vehicle that meets the needs of a typical family. No vehicle today meets that criteria unless you gin up some phoney numbers like the EPA have for electric cars.
My rule is that before any such criteria is imposed by Washington on the public, the Washington crowd shoul live under the criteria for 5 years to prove it is viable even for the privileged. No exceptions, starting with the President like the kind they have provided for themselves for Obama care and Social Security. This nonsense would end quickly.
Joe Grappa says:
January 24, 2013 at 10:32 am
“The opposition to fracking is even harder to understand.”
Isn’t fracking allowing some sort of crud to get into groundwater, not to mention causing earthquakes?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
No the scary “fracking technology” was PATENTED just after the CIVIL WAR. It is the technique that has been used for over a hundred years but it is a great way for the Econuts to scare the pants off the ignorant.
Unfortunately, the new fuel-efficiency standards are pie-in-the-sky. Unattainable unless everyone wants to drive around in dangerously crushable mini-cars. Powered bicycles, anybody?
I worked on an assembly line at Chrysler during the summer to put myself through school. This was over 30 years ago. The old guys on the line–one had worked there for nearly 50 years–said that it was easy to produce a big car that ran 100/mpg, and that they (Chrysler) had produced tires that never ran out. He said the technology had been around for years (and by that he meant decades).
I asked the 50-year vet, Then why aren’t they making them? He smirked and and rubbed his right thumb, index, and middle fingers together. He said there was a much better engine than the internal combustion engine to run cars, more efficient and quieter, but they kept it locked up. It had been locked up since WWII.
“I predict weepy Bill’s next line in the sand will be in Australia.”
Let him come, we’ll use his pathetic digit to draw that line … and then, to use ‘The Rock’s’ famous term, “turn is sideways and shove it up … “
“The government’s job is to set standards”, wow. And here I thought Attenborough was going to have said the dumbest thing I heard this month.
And you believed him??
“I predict weepy Bill’s next line in the sand will be in Australia.”
We have more than enough of our own morons thank you !
We already have protests against coal seam gas where a small plant occupying a few hundred square metres extracts gas from coal seams rather than open cut mines destroying hundreds of hectares.
Greens also favour biodiesel where the deforestation in Borneo to plant palm oil is threatening the orangutan.
People behave like sheep rather than use their intellect.
He knows that the way to cut oil use is to reduce demand for the stuff, and he has begun to put that knowledge into practice, setting tough new fuel-efficiency standards for cars and trucks.
Greater efficiency in fuel use will increase total consumption.
http://www.ecnmag.com/blogs/2013/01/us-energy-usage-and-jevons-paradox
I’m ROFL at Ian L. McQueen’s mention of powered bicycles, given stupid laws here in BC.
The dividing line between a motor-assisted bicycle and a motor scooter, thus requirement for licenses, is pedals. Some people ran afoul of the law by removing the pedals from their device, which is integrated like a light version of a motor scooter like a Vespa, not like a bicycle with add-on motor. (Crude gasoline engine decades ago, electric today.)
More silliness is that bicycles are not allowed on sidewalks, never mind that adjacent WA state allows them (and has appropriate rules for all surfaces and conveyances including feet), but electric mobility scooters are (used by people with mobility problems). Those compact skateboards with a handle are verboten if electric powered.
All by the same people trying to control your carbon – bureaucrats and politicians.
As for “pokerguy” on pauses, keep in mind that if the 60-year sinusoidal cycle is valid, its reversal of trend will not be sudden – it’s like the change of daylight duration away from the equator. Near a peak or valley rate of change will be low, so easily obscured by other phenomenon, though we are halfway into max>min timing of a 60-year cycle thus at the greatest rate of change.
Other factors may be at work, besides variations like ENSO and volcanoes there is the slow rise from the LIA.
But I doubt there is enough knowledge to accurately predict if a trend like the 60-year variation or the slow trend will continue – the MWP and LIA did not.
And there are lags, notably the massive heat sink called oceans.
policycritic says:
January 24, 2013 at 5:35 pm
I worked on an assembly line at Chrysler during the summer to put myself through school. This was over 30 years ago. The old guys on the line–one had worked there for nearly 50 years–said that it was easy to produce a big car that ran 100/mpg, and that they (Chrysler) had produced tires that never ran out. He said the technology had been around for years (and by that he meant decades).
I asked the 50-year vet, Then why aren’t they making them? He smirked and and rubbed his right thumb, index, and middle fingers together. He said there was a much better engine than the internal combustion engine to run cars, more efficient and quieter, but they kept it locked up. It had been locked up since WWII.
=====================================================================
My Grandad used to say similar stuff – “if all the advances for automobiles had been applied instead of bought up and locked away by the manufacturers, you would buy one car which would last all your life with only the need to add fuel, oil & water occasionally”
He wasn’t daft enough to say tyres would never wear out, I am sure the more science/physics minded here would explain why.