http://www.fcnp.com/519/peakoil.htm

Britian is looking at plans for rationing energy consumption. The personal market, where you can sell your unused energy units, is an interesting twist.

...

Under the plan, every adult in the country would be given (for free) an annual “Personal Carbon Allowance” (PCA). This allowance would be measured in “carbon units.” One carbon unit would be equal to one kilogram of carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere when the fuel is burned. Carbon units can be equated easily to gallons of gasoline, heating oil, diesel, or jet fuel, or to pounds of coal, BTUs of natural gas, or KWh of electricity. For example, one gallon of gas would be the equivalent of about nine carbon units. Thus, for every gallon of gas purchased, nine carbon units would be subtracted from your account.

...

The next most interesting feature of the plan is the government would also establish an electronic free market to buy and sell carbon units. Thus, those who have no need for their complete annual carbon allowance would be free to sell their excess units for cash at the market price. Those individuals who want and can afford more than their allocated share can buy as much as they want at the going price. Note that above-allocation consumers would not only have to pay for the energy, they would also have to pay for the right to buy the above-allocation energy. Non-residents visiting a country would not be given an annual allowance, but would have to buy the carbon units they use on the open market as they consume energy. Businesses that consume energy would buy their carbon units on the open market and would pass the cost on to the final consumer either money or in cases such as airplane rides as a PCA debit.

Energy Rationing Plans in Britain

Dead at 67. Always figured this is how he would go honestly.

Hunter S. Thompson Kills Himself

Rather than keep adding fuel to the fire, can we just drop this?

My thoughts:

Decius: It is not that easy to figure out the original poster. If you could include the original topic in the thread, or something to otherwise designate that it originally came from User X on Date Y, it would prevent a lot of these cases of mistaken identity. I had to go click on your Memestream to backtrack and find out you were the original poster. I too thought Dolemite was the one who wrote it. Am I stupid and lazy too?

As for the issue itself, I don't need to be told I am a jerk if I don't do this or that. I'm glad you're concerned, but you should have found a nicer way to convey it to others.

Terratogen and Vile: The following words aren't my words, they are from another forum, but they sum up my thoughts on unwanted solicitation and the guilt trips some people try to play:

...

"people do not like to be solicited for charitable donations.

charity should be a personal choice.

personally, ii'll be donating, but i'd be hard pushed to think less of anyone who chooses not to.

i'm motivated by the fact that there are human beings out there, whose relatives have been killed, property has been destroyed, roots have been ripped up, permanence has been wiped out, accumulated wealth is meaningless, and who are now facing cholera, typhoid and worse with no medical infrastructure.

the horror of this situation is of such a magnitude that it's impossible to imagine from my comfy little flat in scotland.

so... i'll donate. but that's my choice.

...

Concern for an issue like this is manifest in different ways. I think Tom's way might have struck a nerve, sure, it did with me too. And of course people's responses to being affronted will differ. Some will say "Fuck you" to the person, other's will say "Fuck you and fuck them" to the people affected. That's fine. I have to disagree with both counts, but that's your opinion and you're free to speak it. And I'm free to say, have a heart will ya?

I guess I'm trying to say, "Can't we all just get along?"

Any flames from this go straight to /dev/null.

RE: Tsunami Relief

Neoteric wrote:
] If any of your are in DC on Jan 20th please join these guys.
]
] --timball

I haven't read this link, don't really care to since it's probaby just more of the same Doing Something but really Doing Nothing protesting that's so common.

But, I think this is a good segue to this question: Why do we have Inaugurations for sitting Presidents? Seems like a lot of pomp and circumstance for nothing.

What does the Oath of Office entail? Do Presidents only swear to do the job honestly for 4 years? Is there some technical reason for it? Or is it just tradition?

RE: Turn Your Back On Bush

noteworthy wrote:

] "Compared to others, what I sacrificed is nothing. It's true I
] sacrificed a son, but others have sacrificed two or three. I
] hope more of my sons will become martyrs."
]
] "Allah be praised. I thank Allah for all the good He has
] bestowed upon us. He has blessed us with martyrdom. Allah
] willing, we too will be martyred, just as they did."
]
]
] Do you find this compelling?

No more compelling than an American with pictures of their dead sons in their homes who died in combat. People who want to die for their cause, it's been around for ages.

RE: Mothers of Hizbullah Martyrs: We are Very Happy and Want to Sacrifice More Children

] POPLAR BLUFF, Mo. (Reuters) - President Bush
] offered an unexpected reason on Monday for
] cracking down on frivolous medical lawsuits: "Too many
] OB-GYNs aren't able to practice their love with women all
] across this country."

BWAHAHAH!

Yahoo! News - Bush: OB-GYNs Kept from 'Practicing Their Love'

The poll is the first of its kind conducted in America that surveys attitudes regarding US government complicity in the 9/11 tragedy. Despite the acute legal and political implications of this accusation, nearly 30% of registered Republicans and over 38% of those who described themselves as "very conservative" supported the claim.

...

People are waking up. They realize the 9/11 commission was a whitewash and want further probes.

Half of New Yorkers Believe US Leaders Had Foreknowledge of Impending 9-11 Attacks and “Consciously Failed” To Act

Email that I sent to the folks at www.implosionworld.com. I still cannot convince myself that fire caused WTC 7 to collapse.

Why can I not just forget this and accept the official story? Because the FEMA report is inconclusive and the "official" 9/11 report doesn't even mention it.

It's getting washed down the memory hole. No one cares to know what happened.

-----

To Whom It May Concern,

re: http://www.implosionworld.com/wtc.htm

I enjoyed your FAQ about the WTC. However, there is no mention of
the WTC 7 collapse. WTC 7 was not struck by an airplane. FEMA's
report suspected fire, but was inconclusive:

“The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the
building to collapse remain unknown at this time.”

The building exhibited the signature of a controlled demolition.
The leaseholder, Larry Silverstein, is quoted as saying:

"I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander,
telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to
contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of
life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made
that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."

It would be more complete to address the structural failure of WTC 7 in your FAQ. The videos are available here:

http://www.wtc7.net

There are many who believe WTC 7 was destroyed by controlled
demolition. By addressing WTC 7, you would go further in your
stated mission of "help[ing] foster a constructive base of
knowledge and understanding through education, while dispelling
false rumors related to the attack."

The American Library Association (ALA) today welcomed the Department of Justice's decision to rescind its request that the Government Printing Office Superintendent of Documents instruct depository libraries to destroy all copies of five Department of Justice publications addressing forfeiture. The Justice Department claimed that the documents are "training materials and other materials that the Department of Justice staff did not feel were appropriate for external use." ALA disagreed with this categorization of the public documents, two of which are texts of federal statutes, and with the instruction to destroy them. ALA trusts that there will be no repetition of such unjustified instructions to destroy government information.

...

Did you catch that? The DOJ had instructed libraries to destory copies of federal laws. The writing is on the wall if you choose to read it. This is not a good thing.

ALA welcomes Department of Justice decision to rescind destruction request

White House spokesman Scott McClellan said Bush's misstatement "just shows even the most straightforward and plain-spoken people misspeak."

...

I disagree. When you size up the enemy, you try to understand how they would attack you. It is true that an enemy will always think of new ways to attack you. If you are not doing the same thing, constantly assessing your enemy's tactics and predicting what they could do, you are at a disadvantage.

Bush could have stated this more eloquently, but I think that's the message he was trying to convey. Can't fault him for that really, but I'm sure people will.

Bush misspeaks?