Re: [Biofuel] oil price gouging poll
Perhaps those consumers are just mad at themselves for believing the hype from auto makers that convinced them to buy a big SUV, and for buying a big house in the suburbs that requires driving everywhere and lots of energy to heat, and now they have sort of been backed into a corner where they can't easily take their business elsewhere because they didn't think ahead and keep their options open, fuelwise. It's easy to try to put the blame on someone else for your own actions when they don't quite turn out like you hoped. When consumers neglect to become well informed enough to maintain their ability to affect the demand side of the economic equation, should they be suprised when the supply side ends up with all the power? On the other hand, I have a friend who just bought a new pickup truck, because he figures gas prices will be so high in 4 or 5 years that he won't be able to afford fuel for something that big, so he wants to play with it now while fuel prices are still relatively low and he's still got a good job. On 10/22/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Zeke, > > I'm not sure how we got sidetracked. I was only trying to point out that > the Federal government cannot effectively do anything to artificially stop > or slow the increasing price of oil, and that as consumers, we usually have > the ability to take our business elsewhere if we feel we are being gouged at > the pump. > > Thanks, > > Earl Kinsley > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > -- > "Behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible government > owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people. To > destroy this invisible government, to befoul the unholy alliance between > corrupt business and corrupt politics is the first task of the statesmen of > today." > - President Theodore Roosevelt - 1906 > > - Original Message - > From: "Zeke Yewdall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: > Sent: Friday, October 21, 2005 12:16 PM > Subject: Re: [Biofuel] oil price gouging poll > > > >I wasn't around in the 60's, but as long as I remember, we wore > > seatbelts. My dad refused to start the car if everyone didn't have > > their belt on, and he even added belts to some older vehicals that > > didn't have them. > > > > How did this thread turn from price gouging to seat belt use anyway? > > > > On 10/20/05, Mike Weaver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Thet were "lapbelts" in the 60's. We wore them. Most of my friends > >> didn't. I had one friend get offended when I put mine on > >> while in the passenger seat. His comment was: "I thought you trusted > >> my > >> driving" - I said, "I do, but if you are at a red light and someone > >> plows into you from behind, what does that have to do with your driving > >> skill? Are you going to look in the rear view mirrow and levitate over > >> the > >> car in front of you?" No response. > >> > >> I've always felt that any idea Detriot is dead set against means it must > >> be > >> a good one. It's a good way to judge whether or not the country should > >> do > >> it. > >> CAFE, emissions, safety - the list goes on. > >> > >> I am not a big fan of "automotive black boxes" - I don't want my car > >> spying > >> on me. I'm not buying a new car because of it, or until I figure out how > >> to > >> disable it or crack it. > >> > >> -Mike > >> > >> > >> > >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >> John, > >> > >> I completely agree with your first point that corporate welfare should be > >> stopped. However, I have to disagree with you on your second point. Labor > >> laws and government-mandated worker safety standards have had a crippling > >> effect on many small-to-medium sized companies. Many of these regulations > >> began as corporate-union concessions, or industry-standard committees. By > >> the government stepping in and enacting regulations, both labor unions > >> and > >> corporate negotiators have lost much of their bargaining powers and > >> industry > >> participants have less and less say in how their industries should be > >> operated. > >> > >> Also, while I agree you that market forces do not always choose the path > >> that is best for everyone, consumer choice can be a powerful balancing > >>
Re: [Biofuel] oil price gouging poll
Zeke, I'm not sure how we got sidetracked. I was only trying to point out that the Federal government cannot effectively do anything to artificially stop or slow the increasing price of oil, and that as consumers, we usually have the ability to take our business elsewhere if we feel we are being gouged at the pump. Thanks, Earl Kinsley [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- "Behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible government owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people. To destroy this invisible government, to befoul the unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics is the first task of the statesmen of today." - President Theodore Roosevelt - 1906 - Original Message - From: "Zeke Yewdall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Friday, October 21, 2005 12:16 PM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] oil price gouging poll >I wasn't around in the 60's, but as long as I remember, we wore > seatbelts. My dad refused to start the car if everyone didn't have > their belt on, and he even added belts to some older vehicals that > didn't have them. > > How did this thread turn from price gouging to seat belt use anyway? > > On 10/20/05, Mike Weaver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Thet were "lapbelts" in the 60's. We wore them. Most of my friends >> didn't. I had one friend get offended when I put mine on >> while in the passenger seat. His comment was: "I thought you trusted >> my >> driving" - I said, "I do, but if you are at a red light and someone >> plows into you from behind, what does that have to do with your driving >> skill? Are you going to look in the rear view mirrow and levitate over >> the >> car in front of you?" No response. >> >> I've always felt that any idea Detriot is dead set against means it must >> be >> a good one. It's a good way to judge whether or not the country should >> do >> it. >> CAFE, emissions, safety - the list goes on. >> >> I am not a big fan of "automotive black boxes" - I don't want my car >> spying >> on me. I'm not buying a new car because of it, or until I figure out how >> to >> disable it or crack it. >> >> -Mike >> >> >> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> John, >> >> I completely agree with your first point that corporate welfare should be >> stopped. However, I have to disagree with you on your second point. Labor >> laws and government-mandated worker safety standards have had a crippling >> effect on many small-to-medium sized companies. Many of these regulations >> began as corporate-union concessions, or industry-standard committees. By >> the government stepping in and enacting regulations, both labor unions >> and >> corporate negotiators have lost much of their bargaining powers and >> industry >> participants have less and less say in how their industries should be >> operated. >> >> Also, while I agree you that market forces do not always choose the path >> that is best for everyone, consumer choice can be a powerful balancing >> weapons to keep those market forces on the right path. >> >> As a side note, both Ford and Chrysler began offering seat-belts in 1956 >> as >> a result of pressure from several industry groups, including the SAE and >> AMA. This was 5 years prior to the first seat-belt law (WI & NY in 1961). >> And I know my family (and I'll bet your's too) didn't wear the seat belts >> in >> our cars until the late 1980's. Does this prove how ineffectual >> government >> safety regulations can be? You be the judge. >> >> Thanks, >> >> Earl Kinsley >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> -- >> "That government is best which governs least." -- Thomas Paine >> -- >> Check out my latest blogs at >> http://KinsleyForPrez08.blogspot.com >> >> - Original Message - >> From: "John E Hayes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: >> Sent: Monday, October 17, 2005 9:29 AM >> Subject: Re: [Biofuel] oil price gouging poll >> >> >> >> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> Government >> >> >> meddling in a free-market economy is never a good thing. >> >> a) Well, removing the billions in corporate welfare the petroleum >> industry gets from the government might be a good place to start. Why >> ExxonMobil needs my tax dollars to fund
Re: [Biofuel] oil price gouging poll
I wasn't around in the 60's, but as long as I remember, we wore seatbelts. My dad refused to start the car if everyone didn't have their belt on, and he even added belts to some older vehicals that didn't have them. How did this thread turn from price gouging to seat belt use anyway? On 10/20/05, Mike Weaver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Thet were "lapbelts" in the 60's. We wore them. Most of my friends > didn't. I had one friend get offended when I put mine on > while in the passenger seat. His comment was: "I thought you trusted my > driving" - I said, "I do, but if you are at a red light and someone > plows into you from behind, what does that have to do with your driving > skill? Are you going to look in the rear view mirrow and levitate over the > car in front of you?" No response. > > I've always felt that any idea Detriot is dead set against means it must be > a good one. It's a good way to judge whether or not the country should do > it. > CAFE, emissions, safety - the list goes on. > > I am not a big fan of "automotive black boxes" - I don't want my car spying > on me. I'm not buying a new car because of it, or until I figure out how to > disable it or crack it. > > -Mike > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > John, > > I completely agree with your first point that corporate welfare should be > stopped. However, I have to disagree with you on your second point. Labor > laws and government-mandated worker safety standards have had a crippling > effect on many small-to-medium sized companies. Many of these regulations > began as corporate-union concessions, or industry-standard committees. By > the government stepping in and enacting regulations, both labor unions and > corporate negotiators have lost much of their bargaining powers and industry > participants have less and less say in how their industries should be > operated. > > Also, while I agree you that market forces do not always choose the path > that is best for everyone, consumer choice can be a powerful balancing > weapons to keep those market forces on the right path. > > As a side note, both Ford and Chrysler began offering seat-belts in 1956 as > a result of pressure from several industry groups, including the SAE and > AMA. This was 5 years prior to the first seat-belt law (WI & NY in 1961). > And I know my family (and I'll bet your's too) didn't wear the seat belts in > our cars until the late 1980's. Does this prove how ineffectual government > safety regulations can be? You be the judge. > > Thanks, > > Earl Kinsley > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > -- > "That government is best which governs least." -- Thomas Paine > -- > Check out my latest blogs at > http://KinsleyForPrez08.blogspot.com > > - Original Message - > From: "John E Hayes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: > Sent: Monday, October 17, 2005 9:29 AM > Subject: Re: [Biofuel] oil price gouging poll > > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Government > > > meddling in a free-market economy is never a good thing. > > a) Well, removing the billions in corporate welfare the petroleum > industry gets from the government might be a good place to start. Why > ExxonMobil needs my tax dollars to fund R&D when they had $25 billion > dollars in profits last year, I don't really know. > > b) I disagree with your contention that the the government doesn't have > a place in the market. > > First of all, laize-fair capitalism was rejected by the American people > over a hundred years ago. We have labor laws and worker safety standards > for a reason - a pure free market sucks for almost everybody except > those at the very top/ > > Second, market forces will *not* always result in choices that are best > for society as a whole. Without governmental regulations, we'd still be > driving seatbelt-less, no-crumple zone cars powered with leaded gasoline. > > Free market ideologues always seem to ignore this little detail. > > > ___ > Biofuel mailing list > Biofuel@sustainablelists.org > http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org > > Biofuel at Journey to Forever: > http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html > > Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 > messages): > http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ > > > > ___ > Biofuel mailing list > Biofuel@sustainablelists.org > http://sus
Re: [Biofuel] oil price gouging poll
Thet were "lapbelts" in the 60's. We wore them. Most of my friends didn't. I had one friend get offended when I put mine on while in the passenger seat. His comment was: "I thought you trusted my driving" - I said, "I do, but if you are at a red light and someone plows into you from behind, what does that have to do with your driving skill? Are you going to look in the rear view mirrow and levitate over the car in front of you?" No response. I've always felt that any idea Detriot is dead set against means it must be a good one. It's a good way to judge whether or not the country should do it. CAFE, emissions, safety - the list goes on. I am not a big fan of "automotive black boxes" - I don't want my car spying on me. I'm not buying a new car because of it, or until I figure out how to disable it or crack it. -Mike [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: John, I completely agree with your first point that corporate welfare should be stopped. However, I have to disagree with you on your second point. Labor laws and government-mandated worker safety standards have had a crippling effect on many small-to-medium sized companies. Many of these regulations began as corporate-union concessions, or industry-standard committees. By the government stepping in and enacting regulations, both labor unions and corporate negotiators have lost much of their bargaining powers and industry participants have less and less say in how their industries should be operated. Also, while I agree you that market forces do not always choose the path that is best for everyone, consumer choice can be a powerful balancing weapons to keep those market forces on the right path. As a side note, both Ford and Chrysler began offering seat-belts in 1956 as a result of pressure from several industry groups, including the SAE and AMA. This was 5 years prior to the first seat-belt law (WI & NY in 1961). And I know my family (and I'll bet your's too) didn't wear the seat belts in our cars until the late 1980's. Does this prove how ineffectual government safety regulations can be? You be the judge. Thanks, Earl Kinsley [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- "That government is best which governs least." -- Thomas Paine -- Check out my latest blogs at http://KinsleyForPrez08.blogspot.com - Original Message ----- From: "John E Hayes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Monday, October 17, 2005 9:29 AM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] oil price gouging poll [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Government meddling in a free-market economy is never a good thing. a) Well, removing the billions in corporate welfare the petroleum industry gets from the government might be a good place to start. Why ExxonMobil needs my tax dollars to fund R&D when they had $25 billion dollars in profits last year, I don't really know. b) I disagree with your contention that the the government doesn't have a place in the market. First of all, laize-fair capitalism was rejected by the American people over a hundred years ago. We have labor laws and worker safety standards for a reason - a pure free market sucks for almost everybody except those at the very top/ Second, market forces will *not* always result in choices that are best for society as a whole. Without governmental regulations, we'd still be driving seatbelt-less, no-crumple zone cars powered with leaded gasoline. Free market ideologues always seem to ignore this little detail. ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] oil price gouging poll
John, I completely agree with your first point that corporate welfare should be stopped. However, I have to disagree with you on your second point. Labor laws and government-mandated worker safety standards have had a crippling effect on many small-to-medium sized companies. Many of these regulations began as corporate-union concessions, or industry-standard committees. By the government stepping in and enacting regulations, both labor unions and corporate negotiators have lost much of their bargaining powers and industry participants have less and less say in how their industries should be operated. Also, while I agree you that market forces do not always choose the path that is best for everyone, consumer choice can be a powerful balancing weapons to keep those market forces on the right path. As a side note, both Ford and Chrysler began offering seat-belts in 1956 as a result of pressure from several industry groups, including the SAE and AMA. This was 5 years prior to the first seat-belt law (WI & NY in 1961). And I know my family (and I'll bet your's too) didn't wear the seat belts in our cars until the late 1980's. Does this prove how ineffectual government safety regulations can be? You be the judge. Thanks, Earl Kinsley [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- "That government is best which governs least." -- Thomas Paine -- Check out my latest blogs at http://KinsleyForPrez08.blogspot.com - Original Message - From: "John E Hayes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Monday, October 17, 2005 9:29 AM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] oil price gouging poll > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Government >> meddling in a free-market economy is never a good thing. > > a) Well, removing the billions in corporate welfare the petroleum > industry gets from the government might be a good place to start. Why > ExxonMobil needs my tax dollars to fund R&D when they had $25 billion > dollars in profits last year, I don't really know. > > b) I disagree with your contention that the the government doesn't have > a place in the market. > > First of all, laize-fair capitalism was rejected by the American people > over a hundred years ago. We have labor laws and worker safety standards > for a reason - a pure free market sucks for almost everybody except > those at the very top/ > > Second, market forces will *not* always result in choices that are best > for society as a whole. Without governmental regulations, we'd still be > driving seatbelt-less, no-crumple zone cars powered with leaded gasoline. > > Free market ideologues always seem to ignore this little detail. ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] oil price gouging poll
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Government > meddling in a free-market economy is never a good thing. a) Well, removing the billions in corporate welfare the petroleum industry gets from the government might be a good place to start. Why ExxonMobil needs my tax dollars to fund R&D when they had $25 billion dollars in profits last year, I don't really know. b) I disagree with your contention that the the government doesn't have a place in the market. First of all, laize-fair capitalism was rejected by the American people over a hundred years ago. We have labor laws and worker safety standards for a reason - a pure free market sucks for almost everybody except those at the very top/ Second, market forces will *not* always result in choices that are best for society as a whole. Without governmental regulations, we'd still be driving seatbelt-less, no-crumple zone cars powered with leaded gasoline. Free market ideologues always seem to ignore this little detail. jh ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] oil price gouging poll
On 10/16/05, Zeke Yewdall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Where in the basic definitions of capitalism does price gouging evenexist? This seems like people are putting a moral demand on companiesnot to profit as much as the market will bear. Sounds sort ofsocialist to me... I personally think that capitalism is a lousy system of economicsbecause it discourages human compassion if properly practiced. Itjust happens that most other systems tried have turned out even worsein practice, so a somewhat regulated system of capitalism seems to be the least worst option at this point. Americans are demanding regulation on companies because a vast majority of us are too lazy to actually get off our butts and do something ourselves. We don't want to make the sacrifices that would have to be made in order for us to exercise our half of the consumer/producer and supply/demand balances. Capitalism, technically, is at the mercy of the consumer. We as an American People could very, very easily force car companies to produce nothing but super-efficient, inexpensive cars, but doing so would force a lower standard of living and severely cripple the economy for the short period. Just. Stop. Buying. We are the consumer, and the power of the dollar is ours, not the businesses'. But then again, there I go ranting again about the "Cater to my whims" culture that my fellow Americans seem to have developed. Seems to have become epidemic in my rants lately. Oh well, back to biking. ;p -Kurt ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] oil price gouging poll
>CSI president Pam Solo said: "Americans have seen too much >price gouging and too little action from Washington on >energy prices, fuel-efficient vehicles and our dangerous >reliance on foreign oil. The benefits of making 40 miles >per gallon the standard for all autos in the United States >are obvious to Americans: consumers save money; we reduce >our dangerous reliance on Middle Eastern oil, making us >more secure in the world; air pollution is reduced; and >we can cut the U.S. contribution to global warming by nearly >a third. Greater fuel efficiency makes sense, it is >technologically possible, the benefits are real and the >challenges can be overcome." Where in the basic definitions of capitalism does price gouging even exist? This seems like people are putting a moral demand on companies not to profit as much as the market will bear. Sounds sort of socialist to me... I personally think that capitalism is a lousy system of economics because it discourages human compassion if properly practiced. It just happens that most other systems tried have turned out even worse in practice, so a somewhat regulated system of capitalism seems to be the least worst option at this point. Zeke ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] oil price gouging poll
There is not much we, as consumers do about the price gouging, except perhaps to use less oil. Not just in your cars, but by using less energy overall. As Mike already pointed out, President Carter wore a sweater around the White House and turned the thermostat down. But turning off lights in rooms not in use, turning down your hot water heaters in the summer months, getting heavier drapes to keep out the hot sun/cold drafts, etc. Oh yeah, and maybe try using some of that fancy biofuel. If W is encouraging us to use it, then it must be good stuff. Seriously, it is good to see that more and more people are waking up and realizing that the United States has a profit-driven economy, and that supply and demand works (supply runs short, demand doesn't, so raise prices). But to think that the Federal Guvment will fix it by taxing us more? What are they thinking? OK, let's assume (snicker, ha-ha) that the Federal Guvment was able to efficiently and effectively manage the dispersement of R&D funds towards alternative fuels research. And let's also assume that the Federal Guvment were to add an additional tax on the windfall profits that oil companies are making on this price gouging (yeah, like W's puppetmasters would go for that). Well, how do they define windfall profit? All profit? Only profit that is considered excessive? How excessive is excessive - 10%, 20%, 30%? Who sets the bar? Would you trust W to set the bar? How about Congress? Given their (W, his administration, the Congress, etc.) track record with collecting taxes and spending money on the right things, IMHO, they should just stay out of it. Government meddling in a free-market economy is never a good thing. Enjoy! Earl Kinsley [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- "That government is best which governs least." -- Thomas Paine -- Check out my latest blogs at http://KinsleyForPrez08.blogspot.com - Original Message - From: "Alt.EnergyNetwork" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2005 5:27 AM Subject: [Biofuel] oil price gouging poll > H, so in light of this poll, does anyone believe that the > oil co's, auto co's and politicos are going to > actually do anything about it, besides some feeble, feel good > conservation PR?? > > regards > tallex > > > Most Americans say oil companies are price gouging > > Four out of five Americans would support "a tax on > the windfall profits of oil companies" if the resulting > revenues were devoted to alternative energy research, > according to an Opinion Research Corp. (ORC) poll > conducted for 40mpg.org and the Boston-based nonprofit > and nonpartisan Civil Society Institute (CSI). > > CSI is a think tank and the 40mpg.org campaign is a > project of CSI. > > Other key survey findings include: 87 percent of Americans > think that oil companies are gouging gasoline consumers > today; 81 percent say the federal government is not doing > enough about high energy prices and America's overreliance > on Middle Eastern oil; 73 percent believe that recent > gasoline price hikes now make it more important that the > federal government impose higher fuel-efficiency standards; > and four out of five adults say that U.S. automakers should > follow the same path as Toyota, which intends that "all of > its new cars going forward will use fuel-saving hybrid > technology." > > In response to the poll, 40mpg.org has launched an online > petition at www.40mpg.org allowing Americans to tell their > members of Congress and the White House that they want > major steps taken in terms of a windfall profits tax on > oil companies and tougher fuel-efficiency standards on > vehicles. > > CSI president Pam Solo said: "Americans have seen too much > price gouging and too little action from Washington on > energy prices, fuel-efficient vehicles and our dangerous > reliance on foreign oil. The benefits of making 40 miles > per gallon the standard for all autos in the United States > are obvious to Americans: consumers save money; we reduce > our dangerous reliance on Middle Eastern oil, making us > more secure in the world; air pollution is reduced; and > we can cut the U.S. contribution to global warming by nearly > a third. Greater fuel efficiency makes sense, it is > technologically possible, the benefits are real and the > challenges can be overcome." > > Some key highlights of the poll are: > > + Price gouging. Some 87 percent think "big oil companies > are currently gouging consumers at the gas pump," with 57 > percent saying there is a "great deal" of such price gouging > going on. Fewer than 4 percent say "no price gouging is > going on." Political affiliation makes almost no difference > in how Americans respond to this question with 87 percent > of independents, 82 percent of Republicans and 91 percent > of Democrats saying there is a "great deal" or "some" price > gouging going on. > > + Windfall profits tax on oil
Re: [Biofuel] oil price gouging poll
You bet they are and the local gov and fed are in on it to an extent. The big power players own the oil co globally in stocks bonds except. It is in there best interest to get the price as high as they can. That is there personal gain. On the other side of the fence is those same people as a government and there is a big problem they are or were all broke now the taxes coming in are fixing some of there screwed up values and I don't think there going to look very hard at fuel prices since it is lining there pockets very well. I only wish they would have to do a budget as we all do. No more cash no more spending. Thank for listening. Derick -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Alt.EnergyNetwork Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2005 2:28 AM To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org Subject: [Biofuel] oil price gouging poll H, so in light of this poll, does anyone believe that the oil co's, auto co's and politicos are going to actually do anything about it, besides some feeble, feel good conservation PR?? regards tallex Most Americans say oil companies are price gouging Four out of five Americans would support "a tax on the windfall profits of oil companies" if the resulting revenues were devoted to alternative energy research, according to an Opinion Research Corp. (ORC) poll conducted for 40mpg.org and the Boston-based nonprofit and nonpartisan Civil Society Institute (CSI). CSI is a think tank and the 40mpg.org campaign is a project of CSI. Other key survey findings include: 87 percent of Americans think that oil companies are gouging gasoline consumers today; 81 percent say the federal government is not doing enough about high energy prices and America's overreliance on Middle Eastern oil; 73 percent believe that recent gasoline price hikes now make it more important that the federal government impose higher fuel-efficiency standards; and four out of five adults say that U.S. automakers should follow the same path as Toyota, which intends that "all of its new cars going forward will use fuel-saving hybrid technology." In response to the poll, 40mpg.org has launched an online petition at www.40mpg.org allowing Americans to tell their members of Congress and the White House that they want major steps taken in terms of a windfall profits tax on oil companies and tougher fuel-efficiency standards on vehicles. CSI president Pam Solo said: "Americans have seen too much price gouging and too little action from Washington on energy prices, fuel-efficient vehicles and our dangerous reliance on foreign oil. The benefits of making 40 miles per gallon the standard for all autos in the United States are obvious to Americans: consumers save money; we reduce our dangerous reliance on Middle Eastern oil, making us more secure in the world; air pollution is reduced; and we can cut the U.S. contribution to global warming by nearly a third. Greater fuel efficiency makes sense, it is technologically possible, the benefits are real and the challenges can be overcome." Some key highlights of the poll are: + Price gouging. Some 87 percent think "big oil companies are currently gouging consumers at the gas pump," with 57 percent saying there is a "great deal" of such price gouging going on. Fewer than 4 percent say "no price gouging is going on." Political affiliation makes almost no difference in how Americans respond to this question with 87 percent of independents, 82 percent of Republicans and 91 percent of Democrats saying there is a "great deal" or "some" price gouging going on. + Windfall profits tax on oil companies. Seventy-nine percent would "support a tax on the windfall profits of oil companies" if the resulting revenues were spent on "research on alternative energy." Support for targeting windfall profits tax revenues to underwrite alternative energy research was higher than two other listed alternatives: "wetlands restoration in Gulf Coast states to minimize the impact of future hurricanes" (70 percent); and "a direct rebate to each consumer with a driver's license" (53 percent). + Federal inaction. Four out of five think "the federal government is not doing enough about high energy prices and the U.S. dependence on Middle Eastern energy sources." Political affiliation was somewhat more evident as a factor in the responses to this question, with 83 percent of independents, 74 percent of Republicans and 90 percent of Democrats expressing dissatisfaction with current federal policies + Higher fuel-efficiency standards. Seventy-three percent think that recent gasoline price hikes now make it "much more" or "somewhat more" important "that the federal government takes new steps to require higher fuel-efficiency standards for cars and other vehicles." + Hybrid technology. Four out of five Americans think that "U.S. automakers should follow the same path" as Toyota, which "has announced that a
Re: [Biofuel] oil price gouging poll
Never happen. The Republicans will decline - look at the Energy Bill - and we'll forget all about it. You guys are making me feel old: Look at: http://www.techcentralstation.com/the70smedia.html Alt.EnergyNetwork wrote: >H, so in light of this poll, does anyone believe that the >oil co's, auto co's and politicos are going to >actually do anything about it, besides some feeble, feel good >conservation PR?? > >regards >tallex > > >Most Americans say oil companies are price gouging > >Four out of five Americans would support "a tax on >the windfall profits of oil companies" if the resulting > revenues were devoted to alternative energy research, > according to an Opinion Research Corp. (ORC) poll >conducted for 40mpg.org and the Boston-based nonprofit > and nonpartisan Civil Society Institute (CSI). > >CSI is a think tank and the 40mpg.org campaign is a >project of CSI. > >Other key survey findings include: 87 percent of Americans > think that oil companies are gouging gasoline consumers >today; 81 percent say the federal government is not doing > enough about high energy prices and America's overreliance > on Middle Eastern oil; 73 percent believe that recent >gasoline price hikes now make it more important that the > federal government impose higher fuel-efficiency standards; > and four out of five adults say that U.S. automakers should > follow the same path as Toyota, which intends that "all of > its new cars going forward will use fuel-saving hybrid >technology." > >In response to the poll, 40mpg.org has launched an online > petition at www.40mpg.org allowing Americans to tell their > members of Congress and the White House that they want >major steps taken in terms of a windfall profits tax on > oil companies and tougher fuel-efficiency standards on > vehicles. > >CSI president Pam Solo said: "Americans have seen too much > price gouging and too little action from Washington on >energy prices, fuel-efficient vehicles and our dangerous > reliance on foreign oil. The benefits of making 40 miles > per gallon the standard for all autos in the United States > are obvious to Americans: consumers save money; we reduce > our dangerous reliance on Middle Eastern oil, making us >more secure in the world; air pollution is reduced; and >we can cut the U.S. contribution to global warming by nearly > a third. Greater fuel efficiency makes sense, it is >technologically possible, the benefits are real and the > challenges can be overcome." > >Some key highlights of the poll are: > >+ Price gouging. Some 87 percent think "big oil companies > are currently gouging consumers at the gas pump," with 57 > percent saying there is a "great deal" of such price gouging > going on. Fewer than 4 percent say "no price gouging is >going on." Political affiliation makes almost no difference > in how Americans respond to this question with 87 percent > of independents, 82 percent of Republicans and 91 percent > of Democrats saying there is a "great deal" or "some" price > gouging going on. > >+ Windfall profits tax on oil companies. Seventy-nine percent > would "support a tax on the windfall profits of oil companies" > if the resulting revenues were spent on "research on alternative > energy." Support for targeting windfall profits tax revenues > to underwrite alternative energy research was higher than two > other listed alternatives: "wetlands restoration in Gulf Coast > states to minimize the impact of future hurricanes" (70 percent); > and "a direct rebate to each consumer with a driver's license" > (53 percent). > >+ Federal inaction. Four out of five think "the federal government > is not doing enough about high energy prices and the U.S. >dependence on Middle Eastern energy sources." Political >affiliation was somewhat more evident as a factor in the > responses to this question, with 83 percent of independents, > 74 percent of Republicans and 90 percent of Democrats expressing > dissatisfaction with current federal policies > >+ Higher fuel-efficiency standards. Seventy-three percent >think that recent gasoline price hikes now make it "much more" > or "somewhat more" important "that the federal government takes > new steps to require higher fuel-efficiency standards for cars > and other vehicles." > >+ Hybrid technology. Four out of five Americans think that >"U.S. automakers should follow the same path" as Toyota, >which "has announced that all of its new cars going forward > will use fuel-saving hybrid technology." > >Survey results are based on telephone interviews conducted > among a sample of 1,019 adults age 18 and up living in >private households in the continental United States. >Interviewing was completed by Opinion Research Corp. during > the period of Sept. 15-19. The margin of error is plus or > minus 3 percentage points for the complete sample of 1,019 >adults. Smaller sub-groups will have larger error margins. s > >http://www.fairfieldcbj.com/current_issue/101005frop07.html
