Brattleboro considers town energy committee

The town needs a committee to oversee its efforts to reduce energy usage and greenhouse gas emissions, said Paul Cameron, the town's energy coordinator, at Tuesday night's Selectboard meeting.

[Go forward not back]

I thought this committee was called the Peak Oil Task Force, which the Selectboard abolished earlier this month...

[VT Observer]

oh boy, now we can be told at what temp we are allowed to keep our thermostats? When we need turn turn out the light? What kind of light bulbs we will be allowed to use? how much oil/gas we will be allowed each year? Be warned/charged a fee if we use too much water?

here comes the continued implementation of the nanny state.

conserve, increase supply, personal responsibility. out with the nanny state mentality.

[Go forward not back]

Duh! You're not going to be told what you can use, you'll just be told how much it costs, like always, only now it costs a lot more. You're going to be crying for ways to heat and light your home without going broke. And if your local, state, or national government can make that easier for you, I know you're going to take advantage. Of course, you'll continue to use government services and infrastructure while blathering about how the government is the root of all evil. Otherwise you wouldn't be a right-wing extremist!

[Brattleboro Boneheads]

Knowing Brattleboro the first order of business of the Energy Committee will be to draft a resolution calling for the closure of Vermont Yankee.

[VT Observer]

Go forward not back wrote:

Duh! You're not going to be told what you can use, you'll just be told how much it costs, like always, only now it costs a lot more. You're going to be crying for ways to heat and light your home without going broke. And if your local, state, or national government can make that easier for you, I know you're going to take advantage. Of course, you'll continue to use government services and infrastructure while blathering about how the government is the root of all evil. Otherwise you wouldn't be a right-wing extremist!

If it is "extreme" to expect people to take responsibility for their own actions, then yes, I am an extremeist. woopee.

The government regulation of the energy industry is partly responsible for the current situation we are in. Supply has been shut off by the DC boneheads.

[Go forward not back]

VT Observer wrote:

<quoted text>
The government regulation of the energy industry is partly responsible for the current situation we are in. Supply has been shut off by the DC boneheads.

Can you be more specific? Is it that you still think there's an ocean of oil under the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and the continental shelves that could solve the whole supply/demand dynamic? Sorry, but the geology doesn't back you up. Not even close.

Why aren't you concerned that Exxon-Mobil made $41 BILLION in profits this past year while you're paying $3.70 at the pump? Doesn't that sound just a tad lopsided? Do you really love subsidizing billionaires every time you fill up?

Oil companies own the Republic Party and this White House. When you say "DC boneheads" are ruining everything, you must mean Big Oil, since that's who's pulling the strings.

[The Truth Matters]

Go forward not back wrote:

<quoted text>
Can you be more specific? Is it that you still think there's an ocean of oil under the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and the continental shelves that could solve the whole supply/demand dynamic? Sorry, but the geology doesn't back you up. Not even close.
Why aren't you concerned that Exxon-Mobil made $41 BILLION in profits this past year while you're paying $3.70 at the pump? Doesn't that sound just a tad lopsided? Do you really love subsidizing billionaires every time you fill up?
Oil companies own the Republic Party and this White House. When you say "DC boneheads" are ruining everything, you must mean Big Oil, since that's who's pulling the strings.

You've been brainwashed, buddy.

Why are you beating up on Exxon-Mobil's profits? They have some of the LOWEST profit margins of ANY industry at just 8-9 CENTS on the dollar. Now compare that to other industries:
http://bp3.blogger.com/_otfwl2zc6Qc/SB21VNa4G...

Then you have Citigroup [banking] at 32% and Microsoft at 22%. Oil companies are paupers compared to them [and they reinvest a large portion of that into discovering and developing new sources.

[Retired-Marine Liberal]

The Truth Matters wrote:

<quoted text>
You've been brainwashed, buddy.
Why are you beating up on Exxon-Mobil's profits? They have some of the LOWEST profit margins of ANY industry at just 8-9 CENTS on the dollar. Now compare that to other industries:
http://bp3.blogger.com/_otfwl2zc6Qc/SB21VNa4G...
Then you have Citigroup [banking] at 32% and Microsoft at 22%. Oil companies are paupers compared to them [and they reinvest a large portion of that into discovering and developing new sources.

Saying "margins" is a bit of a sneaky side step Florida boy! Fact is, the profits in the oil biz have been the largest overall profits of any company in the history of the planet lately.

Exxon-Mobil's profits alone the last three years have each year broken the previous record for the largest profit of any American company in history.

Is profit bad? No. And frankly, gas should be a lot more expensive than it is. But I had to call you out on your cute little sashay around the real point there!

[Steve]

Supply and demand boys. Nothing else nothing more. Oil companies -4 cents a gallon is profit, 46% in tax, the rest in operating and capital investments. India and China love this, they corner the demand,-keep kicking the messenger and they will just sell elsewhere.

Hey, China and Venezuela and even Cuba have Gulf of Mexico oil field leases because we have chosen to be PC and not go after

Get ready for the cap and trade legislation that will add another $1.50+/gallon, another PC appeasement to our environmental boys

30 years since the last refinery build, you don't hear any bills passed to expedite this

Supply and demand - Supply and demand

[Retired-Marine Liberal]

Reagan sold us to China and India, so no whining about them.

And supply and demand? Your own monkey boy, Bush, admitted publically last week that no matter what we do - demand is likely to outstrip demand from here on out.

Google on it. Peak oil ain't no political fantasy.

[The Truth Matters]

Retired-Marine Liberal wrote:

<quoted text>
Saying "margins" is a bit of a sneaky side step Florida boy! Fact is, the profits in the oil biz have been the largest overall profits of any company in the history of the planet lately.
Exxon-Mobil's profits alone the last three years have each year broken the previous record for the largest profit of any American company in history.
Is profit bad? No. And frankly, gas should be a lot more expensive than it is. But I had to call you out on your cute little sashay around the real point there!

Now, now, now. You should know that the true measure of a company is profit MARGIN, not total dollars profit. Higher sales will give you a higher dollar total profit but it is the margin that really counts. A company with a 22% profit margin is almost infinitely more profitable than a company making only an 8% profit margin. You are getting a much better return on investment with the higher profit margin. You usually can't even get a venture capital loan with less than a 12% profit margin. What kind of return would you like your company to make, a return of 9 cents on every dollar of sales or a return of 20 cents?

Gross profit margins [or net income] don't even include taxes yet to be paid on that profit. Real costs include taxes that must still come out of that profit margin. In 2004, ExxonMobil paid more in income taxes and other taxes in the United States than was earned here. Total federal and state tax expenses in 2004 were $11.8 billion, compared to earnings of $8.2 billion from U.S. operations.

The 13 largest newspaper chains turned an average profit margin of 20 percent. The most profitable, such as McClatchy and Gannett, turned a profit margin of 30 percent; Knight-Ridder, 19 percent.

Most financial institutions, such as commercial banks, are routinely more profitable than Exxon Mobil. By percentage of total revenue, banking is consistently the most profitable industry in America, followed closely by the drug industry - yet, I don't hear you calling for a windfall profits tax on these groups [or the media calling for a windfall tax on their profits].

[Go forward not back]

The Truth Matters wrote:

Why are you beating up on Exxon-Mobil's profits? They have some of the LOWEST profit margins of ANY industry at just 8-9 CENTS on the dollar...Oil companies are paupers compared to them...

Oh boo hoo!!! Those poor, persecuted billionaires! We'd all love to be such $41 billion-a-year paupers and control the government!

Don't you get it? Supply and demand being what they are, those $41 billion a year still come out of your pocket when you gas up.

[The Truth Matters]

Go forward not back wrote:

<quoted text>
Oh boo hoo!!! Those poor, persecuted billionaires! We'd all love to be such $41 billion-a-year paupers and control the government!
Don't you get it? Supply and demand being what they are, those $41 billion a year still come out of your pocket when you gas up.

No sh**, Sherlock. If you want lower gas prices then support drilling for oil everywhere in this country and the immediate building of new refineries.

It's the stupid government policies and the kowtowing to the environmental wackos that have gotten us to where we are currently - not the oil companies. We have plenty of oil to last us until a cost-effective, reliable alternative energy source is ready. If you want ever-higher gas prices then just keep following the current path that is being proposed.

[VT Observer]

Go forward not back wrote:

<quoted text>
Oh boo hoo!!! Those poor, persecuted billionaires! We'd all love to be such $41 billion-a-year paupers and control the government!
Don't you get it? Supply and demand being what they are, those $41 billion a year still come out of your pocket when you gas up.

So, I guess you believe they are not entitled to sell oil at a profit? Profit is wrong? Only in a communist state is it wrong. In the US of A it is what keeps the country running.

Sure, the current situation is not good, however to blame it all on the oil companies is silly. They are buying oil at a much higher price and must turn around and sell it at a higher price. If they are operating illegally (which they are not) then they should be frog marched to the klink.

World demand is skyrocketing, so we are in a situation where we must bargain for our share of the oil that is available.

As you know, I believe we need to further develop our own supply, but in the liberal view "we don't have any". Since improving our own supply situation is not PC at this point in time, we will be digging the hole we are in ever deeper.

Once alternative fuels are realistic things will change, until then we need to get realistic about supply and conservation.

[Watcher]

>>World demand is skyrocketing, so we are in a situation where we must bargain for our share of the oil that is available.<<

Translated:

World demand is skyrocketing, so we are in a situation where we must invade more nations and slaughter more children for OUR "fair" share of the oil that is available.(Who cares if its under THEIR land, its OURS!)

[VT Observer]

Watcher wrote:

>>World demand is skyrocketing, so we are in a situation where we must bargain for our share of the oil that is available.<<
Translated:
World demand is skyrocketing, so we are in a situation where we must invade more nations and slaughter more children for OUR "fair" share of the oil that is available.(Who cares if its under THEIR land, its OURS!)

Please show us the country we invaded for their oil. We have sent oil industry people to drill for oil in other countries, but I am not aware of any we have invaded for it.

You have no proof of this other than a hate America liberal imagination.

[Watcher]

Clearly not even worth the energy hear VT-OBs.

Operation
Iraqi
Liberation

The oil tanker Condelezza.

Decades of direct family connection.

Decades of unblinking military support for horrific nations while ignoring even more strife and suffering in nations where we need nothing.

We kill for oil. Its pretty damn clear.

[Brattleboro Belle]

How could anybody look at the ethics, morals, motivations, human rights issues and such from that nation which gave us most of the 9/11 hijackers: Saudi Arabia. And NOT realize much of our foreign policy is based on oil?

To claim that nations like Cuba and North Korea are part of the "Axis of Evil" much because of their human rights records, but to support Saudi Arabia without question? We should at least find a new excuse!

But, perhaps its ok to overpower nation-states, and even kill to keep your nations most precious natural resource flowing. I don't think its acceptable, but if you do. At least have the courage of your convictions sir! We have NO reason to be wasting any American lives or $ in that part of the planet if its not for either natural resources, mythology, or both!

[Steve]

Since the elitist among us have all the answers, cough it up. But if it's anything to do with freezing in the dark, coolaid party, or giving up a limb,-that's where I draw the line!

[Brattleboro Belle]

I'd be interested in which talk specifically is "elitist" and why? If you are certain you are right, and that the facts are on your side, how is that less "elitist".

My Merriam-Webster says:
"Elitist:
1: leadership or rule by an elite
2: the selectivity of the elite; especially : snobbery <elitism in choosing new members>
3: consciousness of being or belonging to an elite

I'd be very interested in knowing how the rights leadership, rule, selectivity, or sense of belonging are any less "elitist" than any other groups?!