<p>
</p>
<p>Guess that one shouldn’t have been overturned either;) </p>
<p>
</sigh></p>
<p>haha!</p>
<p>Excessive judgements are just that, EXCESSIVE :D</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yeah! What’s that all about! Geesh! Somebody else provide power, NOT in my backyard!!!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>They will distract us from the ugly brown water ;)</p>
<p>The Exxon case was not decided on the same grounds as the BMW case. Instead, the majority decided that the federal maritime cap that sets punitive damages at a 1:1 ratio should apply. There was language suggesting,however, that the decision may have been the same had they ruled on constitutional grounds.</p>
<p>I don’t know how we mandate $4 gas in our system. Can we make it $3? Then I’m all for it. $4–maybe, but not more and that covers premium.
We did run into this after the 70’s oil scare and the rush to new fuels. In the 80’s oil got cheaper and all the energy research died. Come to think of it weren’t they claiming the end of oil back in the 70’s?? It’s deja vu all over again.</p>
<p>It looks like high corn prices are not good for ethanol production as well as for hungry people around the globe, and the recent floods are not going to help:</p>
<p>[Ethanol</a> Death Watch As Corn Prices Rocket : TreeHugger](<a href=“http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/06/ethanol-death-watch.php]Ethanol”>http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/06/ethanol-death-watch.php)</p>
<p>Barrons, I think they are seeing behavioral changes at $4 for gas that didn’t occur at $3 or even $3.50. If you look at Shell’s data in the scenarios, the charts and all, the color bars for petroleum products stay pretty much the same, it’s all the other stuff that goes up. What they seem to be saying is not that we’re going to “run out of oil”, but that as the developing countries come on line consumption is world wide is going to double, triple or quadruple. This will occur even with massive amounts of energy conservation on everyone’s part (like all the gas cars get 60 mpg, ALL of them). So what they are saying is that in order to avoid a world war over energy, or massive rioting, or mass starvation, etc, the world will need huge amounts of energy, more than we can possibly provide with current sources and technology. So it’s actually a slightly different problem than the 70’s. The fact that big oil sees it for what it is, that’s scary enuf for me.</p>
<p>They are also factoring in climate change in the scenarios, thus recognizing that as well. And look at the dates they are talking about. 10,15, 20 years out for things to get better. When they talk about “turbulence” from 2015 to 2030 as a best case scenario, they mean rough scary times. Under their “scramble” scenario the turbulence extends to 2040 or beyond, not stabilizing until 2050. That’s with doing everything, conservation, developing all sources of energy, all of it. Or we could just force China, Africa, South America and India to continue to live in the dark ages, but I don’t see that happening.</p>
<p>What happened to Larry Summers?</p>