GREENIES ARE PARTLY TO BLAME FOR HIGH GASOLINE PRICES

Nationally, the average per gallon price for regular gasoline is $2.50. Are gasoline prices high? That's not the best way to ask that question. It's akin to asking, "Is Williams tall?" The average height of U.S. women is 5'4", and for men, it's 5'10". Being 6'4", I'd be tall relative to the general U.S. population. But put me on a basketball court, next to the average NBA basketball player, and I wouldn't be tall; I'd be short. So when we ask whether a price is high or low, we have to ask relative to what.

In 1950, a gallon of regular gasoline sold for about 30 cents; today, it's $2.50. Are today's gasoline prices high compared to 1950? Before answering that question, we have to take into account inflation that has occurred since 1950. Using my trusty inflation calculator (www.westegg.com/inflation), what cost 30 cents in 1950 costs $2.33 in 2005. In real terms, that means gasoline prices today are only slightly higher, about 8 percent, than they were in 1950. Up until the recent spike, gasoline prices have been considerably lower than 1950 prices.

Some Americans are demanding that the government do something about gasoline prices. Let's think back to 1979 when the government did do something. The Carter administration instituted price controls. What did we see? We saw long gasoline lines, and that's if the gas station hadn't run out of gas. It's estimated that Americans used about 150,000 barrels of oil per day idling their cars while waiting in line. In an effort to deal with long lines, the Carter administration introduced the harebrained scheme of odd and even days, whereby a motorist whose license tag started with an odd number could fill up on odd-numbered days, and those with an even number on even-numbered days.

With the recent spike in gas prices, the government has chosen not to pursue stupid policies of the past. As a result, we haven't seen shortages. We haven't seen long lines. We haven't seen gasoline station fights and riots. Why? Because price has been allowed to perform its valuable function -- that of equating demand with supply.

Our true supply problem is of our own doing. Large quantities of oil lie below the 20 million acre Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). The amount of land proposed for oil drilling is less than 2,000 acres, less than one-half of one percent of ANWR. The U.S. Geological Survey estimates there are about 10 billion barrels of recoverable oil in ANWR. But environmentalists' hold on Congress has prevented us from drilling for it.

They've also had success in restricting drilling in the Gulf of Mexico and off the shore of California. Another part of our energy problem has to do with refining capacity. Again, because of environmentalists' successful efforts, it's been 30 years since we've built a new oil refinery.

Few people realize that the U.S. is also a major oil-producing country. After Saudi Arabia, producing 10.4 million barrels a day, then Russia with 9.4 million barrels, the U.S. with 8.7 million barrels a day is the third-largest producer of oil. But we could produce more. Why aren't we?

Source




ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF OUTRAGEOUS GREENIE "SPIN" ON WHAT IS PROBABLY A RANDOM EVENT

Read the bit of speculation below and then read the research results that follow it:

"Evidence continues to pile up that hormone-disrupting chemicals can gender-bend human babies. Earlier this year it was reported that the sons of women exposed to phthalates during pregnancy tend to have smaller penises (New Scientist, 4 June, p 11). This was the first direct evidence that such chemicals can feminise fetuses in the womb.

Now nearly twice as many girls as boys are being born in the Aamjiwnaang community, who live next door to the Sarnia-Lambton Chemical Valley complex in Ontario, Canada. And though no chemical has yet been shown to be to blame, high levels of hexachlorobenzene (HCB), which also has hormone-disrupting properties, have been found in the local soil, and phthalates are being emitted from part of the complex. The proportion of male births began falling around 1993, says Constanze Mackenzie of the University of Ottawa. And the ratio has become more skewed since then. Between 1999 and 2003, the community saw just 46 boys born compared to 86 girls".

People living in the community have not yet been tested for contaminants in their blood, but chemicals are "at the top of our list" of possible causes, she says.

And now for some real research:

"Contrary to earlier reports, everyday exposure to phthalates -- chemical plasticizers used extensively in household products and in certain medical products -- may not have harmful effects on fertility in young men, a new study shows.

Previous studies suggested that low levels of phthalate exposure could adversely affect human semen, the authors explain in a report in Epidemiology, a medical journal, but high doses of phthalates are required to provoke male reproductive toxicity in rats.

For their study, Dr. Bosse A.G. Jonsson from Lund University Hospital, Sweden, and colleagues looked for associations between phthalate metabolite levels in urine and semen quality and reproductive hormone parameters in 234 young Swedish men entering the military. There was "no clear pattern of associations" between any of the phthalate metabolites and any of the biomarkers of reproductive function measured. In fact, exposure to phthalic acid seemed to be associated with improved reproductive function, as measured by several markers.

"I do not think it is clear whether phthalate constitutes a risk for the male fertility," Jonsson told Reuters Health. "More studies must be performed." "We plan to study biological samples stored in biobanks from pregnant mothers and study the fertility in their grown-up male children," Jonsson added".

Source





KYOTO CRUMBLING

The Australian Prime Minister crows a little

John Howard claims he has been vindicated over his opposition to the Kyoto Protocol after business groups in New Zealand and Germany demanded their countries quit the agreement as soon as possible and join the Asia-Pacific climate pact. A coalition of 22,000 New Zealand businesses, under the auspices of the New Zealand Chambers of Commerce and Industry, called on both parties in the New Zealand election to start talks on pulling out of the Kyoto Protocol by 2008 - the earliest possible date to do so.

The chief executive of the Employers and Manufacturers Association of New Zealand, Alasdair Thompson, said compliance had cost companies much more than the Government predicted. It has been estimated that New Zealand may have to spend between $600million and $1.2billion to meet its Kyoto commitments on greenhouse gas emissions instead of gaining carbon credits. "The Government's carbon credit calculations were incorrect to begin with, and business concern is growing that the latest calculations on the extent of the liability are still wrong," Mr Thompson said.

Germany's industry bodies said last week "the hopes on the Kyoto Protocol were unfortunately not fulfilled" and that consideration for all countries to join the recently agreed six-nation Asia-Pacific Clean Air and Development partnership "after the expiration of the Kyoto Protocol in 2012". The industry group president, Juergen Thumann, said "we could fully use our potential on new climate conversing technologies in international competition with such an alliance". "Added value and growth, thus new jobs, are also created this way in Germany," he said.

The Prime Minister said yesterday that the calls by the New Zealand and German business groups to join the Asia-Pacific partnership "is a dramatic repudiation of those who say the only way forward on the environment is to sign up lock, stock and a barrel to Kyoto". Mr Howard said the Coalition's refusal to ratify the Kyoto Protocol was based on the belief it would hurt Australian industry and cost jobs. He said the experience in New Zealand and Germany would further isolate Labor in Australia because it was "slavishly locked into Kyoto despite the threat it will cost jobs".

Australia and the United States have refused to ratify the Kyoto Protocol but have helped establish the new clean air and development partnership which aims to cut greenhouse emissions through technology.

More here

***************************************

Many people would like to be kind to others so Leftists exploit that with their nonsense about equality. Most people want a clean, green environment so Greenies exploit that by inventing all sorts of far-fetched threats to the environment. But for both, the real motive is to promote themselves as wiser and better than everyone else, truth regardless.

Global warming has taken the place of Communism as an absurdity that "liberals" will defend to the death regardless of the evidence showing its folly. Evidence never has mattered to real Leftists

Comments? Email me here. My Home Page is here or here. For times when blogger.com is playing up, there are mirrors of this site here and here.

*****************************************