Serves him right that jackass SUV driving moron! Read my lips, "buy a 4-cylinder"

I have an old 4-banger Toyota truck. The only reason I have it is because I need it for a construction project. I enjoy driving it, but will ditch it or barely drive it at all once I finish the project. Besides adding to my butch outdoorsy mechanic gayboy image, it gets about 25 miles to the gallon and is quite utilitarian. My Dad, on the other hand, drives a Dodge Ram 2500 on the farm. That 3/4 ton bohemith gets less than 10-miles to the gallon. He's selling it.

I promote that! Let's have a national SUV selloff! We'll match the tax breaks everyone got for buying them in the first place.

I hear the argument all the time that SUV's feel safer because you are higher than everyone else and there is a strong sense of secuity. In fact, it is quite the opposite. The large tires, high center of gravity and heavy weight decreases your safety at highway speeds. And, how high are you going to feel when every moron is driving a 6,000 pound full-time 4x4 SUV? When I was a child, the car you wanted for safety is a Volvo. They get about 24-27 miles to a gallon. I once had a Honda that got 39mpg.

Yesterday, I watched your President discuss energy problems in context with domestic production. Stating that while consumption has rissen 5%, production has only risen about 1% (I think those were his #s). He view of the problem is that we're not producing enough fuel domestically to meet the rising demand. Frustrated, I almost threw my Ipod from the treadmill at him (trust me, NYSC hasn't kicked me out yet, they won't). In my view, the PROBLEM is not that production is not keeping up -- the PROBLEM is that consumption is going up. With everything we know from issues with foreign oil investment (Human rights in Nigeria, instability of the middle east), why the hell do we promote fuel consumption?

Oh right, the Texas oilmen have taken over DC.

I watched your President Who is your President? I am so in the market for a change.

In my view, the PROBLEM is not that production is not keeping up -- the PROBLEM is that consumption is going up.

And it's not just here in the U.S.

I have one idea for discouraging the purchase of battleship-sized SUVs like the Chevy Yukon and the now-defunct Ford Excursion: require a Class A license to drive one.

Not a bad idea on the Class A. I had a Hummer H2 on my ass on the highway last weekend and the guy driving looked impatient as hell to burn those 2 gallons. I wonder how well that thing would stop if we came upon traffic quickly? I wonder how worse I would be hurt because his car weighs 6000lbs and mine doesn't.

Well, I can't really call GWB him "the" or "my" president. Unlike most on Alarming News, My president is still licking his wounds in Tennessee debating a beard and flannel shirt. Remmber him? He was the guy with the energy policy. Like many (oh, I'm soo gonna get lambasted for this), I feel the free-government has been kidnapped by underhanded electoral schemes in a large corporate takeover. At least this guy has nicer thighs I guess... it isn't all bad.

We can and should have the freedom to drive SUVs. We can't drive whatever we want for safety reasons though (ie: cars with no fenders over the wheel-wells). Hell, I'm not for the government taking away anyone's freedom and would really like to drive a car with no fenders (a buggy if you will). Yet, when something is objectively known to be bad (ie: using huge amounts of gas, creating gobs of carbon monoxide and effectively making every other car on the road less safe by the sheer weight/size of your vehicle), couldn't such activity be taxed to promote safer/better policy?

I will give Mr. Nice Thighs credit where credit is due though... the 2-billion Hydrogen program seems pretty right on. Definately not "bull--it." Reduction, conservation and utilizing renewable and passive energy should, however, be higher in the priorities.

I remember that SOTU address where he first announced that hydrogen fuel initiative. I was pretty skeptical that an oilman would live up to it.

That was early 2003 and I was pretty liberal back then.

I've always said it depends on how much blood for how much oil.

Guest blogging a link to your own blog - you are evil!

Toby, where do you propose to get the energy to manufacture the hydorgen? You can't pull it out of thin air.

Bush's comment about declining domestic production made me sigh Al Gore style. U.S. production peaked in 1970 -- as predicted by Dr Hubbert (see www.hubbertpeak.com). Opening Purdoe Bay later that decade did NOT reverse the trend. Likewise, global production will peak (last predected between 2000 and 2020). It's simple geophysics. But this talk about simply increasing supply and keeping SUVs makes it real hard not to look down on Bush's supporters as a bunch of dumb hicks. We should have tightened energy efficiency standards ten years ago. Right now, there is NO replacement for fossil fuels. That means when we pass the peak, we will simply not have the energy we now consume. That means economic disaster. The less fuel we burn TODAY, the more time we have to develop a replacement. If only Bush would fund such development...

Now, does it really take so much damage to the economy to make the majority of Americans understand this? Tell me, is it better for the economy to deplete our fuel supplies slowly or quickly? Because I voted for slowly, but quickly won the last two elections. I am NOT looking forward to being proven right.