Handlebars said:
<SNIP> I am already doing my part to conserve fuel.
Who is authorized to judge H2 owners of not doing their part to conserve fuel (no A/C usage at home or on in the H2, car pooling, recycling, water conservation, tree plantings, victory gardening, petrochemical experiments in the kitchen, riding a Honda trail 90 commuter during the week and driving the H2 on the odd Saturday wildland's excursion, etc.)?
Does the ELF have the right to judge all H2 owners (do you)?
Handlebars said:
Let me see if I can get us all on the same page here. I don’t know whether be proud or scared of all of your cries of environmental degradation. You night brand me a greenie if I complimented you on your environmental sensitivity. While pollution is part of the ELF’s agenda, it is not my main concern.
This is where much of the dialog is not on the same page, it appears the illegal and potentially life threatening actions of the ELF are of no concern to you. Is this true; you care nothing for the risk of lives, livelhood, and economic stability for those impacted by the result of the ELF actions?
Begin with your yes or no answer to a simple question, "were the terrorist ELF actions justified and legitimate?"
Handlebars said:
What concerns me is our nation’s increasing reliance on oil imports to supply our needs. I think we all agree that our economy revolves around the availability of cheap, plentiful oil. The United States has 2% of the world’s oil reserves. Once that is gone we will either be at the mercy of the oil supplying countries or will have to take foreign oil by force. I’m pretty sure that the American public realizes the need to conserve oil. Unfortunately, Americans are extremely apathetic when it comes to taking action. It is a point I have brought up in every post, so far everybody has dodged it, instead choosing to pick apart my motives.
Is there any good reason to have 20, 000 Hummer H2s that get 11 mpg rolling off the assembly line each year? Gas will run out that much sooner. I will repeat the following from an earlier post because nobody has had any comment about it. Perhaps you missed it?
Once again, would be happy to have my interpretation proven wrong.
If you began the discourse with condemning the actions and tactics of the ELF, before presenting your point regarding fears resulting from the USA dependence on oil, you may have received a more focused discussion.
What is your fear regarding petroleum dependence (terrorist actions, another price hike by a cartel, flat running out and the impact on the economy, what)? We are reliant on petroleum oil because it has the least cost and ecological impact given today's technology. Maybe you can offer a better solution (or maybe the ELF can offer something better)?
Nuclear power generation and electric distribution is environmentally cleaner, but considering the cost of safeguards, disposal, and insurance it is not cost effective. There is also the problem of power transmission & distribution (no blackouts allowed) and the threat of terrorists (domestic like the ELF, and those abroad) attacking the distribution.
Electric and Hybred powertrain technology is a more efficient means of transport, but environmentally sound battery recycling and disposal is not yet developed to serve the State of California in a cost effective manner (even the sixth largest GNP in the world cannot overcome this environmental problem). Transmission is also a problem (that blackout problem

, with 50 million commuter cars plugged in at night).
LNG is another cleaner technology (CO2 & H2O exhaust), and non-point source friendly, as opposed to a centralized generation and transmission solution (like a high profile terrorist target: a power plant or critical transmission tower or grid intersection). I forget, LNG is petroleum.
LH2, hydrogen, is a great mobile fuel (H2O vapor exhaust with minimal lubricant oil hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides), but it takes electricity to extract and generate (even by chemical means, not by pure electrolysis). We are back relying on high profile, difficult to defend, terror targets for generation and transmission.
The 2% figure, of the world oil reserves contained in the USA, is a debatable number. It is also of zero consequence, politically, when viewed on a global scale if we conserve it (by exploiting other's oil reserves).
The north slope of Alaska was once estimated to include 6% of the worlds known oil reserves, maybe more, as the developed reserves have proven to be more productive than the estimates (it is just that the previously unknown reserves found in the rest of the world have proven even greater potential). The oil capable of being extracted from the coal reserves in Utah are estimated to be large enough to provide a century or more of today's USA petrochemical consumption. We can get more oil, it's just the process will cost more and is less efficient in economical and ecological terms (the investment cost and total environment rehabilitation required will be more comprehensive).
Does it matter, in global or local politics, that our oil will not run out in the next twenty years, or forty years? Probably not. Does it matter than the USA consumes the most oil? Probably not. What does matter is supply and demand, and that the country that exploits the least expensive supply will have an economic advantage in global trade. As long as we exploit the low cost of foreign oil we will remain at an advantage in global trade. Why do I believe this? Look at the long term possibilities?
The eventual result of the USA exploiting non-domestic oil (or depleting our own oil)? The oil runs out. Who suffers the most, the country with depleted reserves or the country that retained a domestic reserve? What country would you prefer to live in when the eventual crisis occurs (simply for the petrochemical drugs, if anything else)? Should we accelerate the decline of the USA, by avoiding cheap foreign oil, to resolve another countries terrorist problems (or a domestic terror problem)?
When the middle eastern oil reserves run out, who is going to dominate world trade (the sailing powerhouse of New Zealand)?
I am a proponent of conservation, but I harbor no fear of low cost petroleum usage exploitation (domestic or worldwide). There are no viable alternative solutions motivating me to revise my environmental concerns, or lowered threat considerations to restructure oil away from my favored power source list. I agree in conservation and fuel efficiency, but they only delay the eventual conclusion of depleated reserves: ours or theirs (so what is your choice).
Please tell me why are you so concerned with foreign oil usage? Is this concern greater than your concern regarding violent terroist actions threatening your livelyhood (or life)? What can you do to address each concern? What does this have to do with people trading in their 8-mpg Benz 500SL's for 11-mpg H2's?