Personnally, I believe that it would be best if gasoline and fuel oil taxes were INCREASED all round.

If there isn't a global movement to use oil and its products and substitutes much more efficiently, future generations are going to find life a lot worse than it otherwise would be. (It will be worse anyway, but we shouldn't act to make it even worse for them.)

But people don't make any changes until they are hit in the pocket.

So the government should make us pay a lot more for oil etc and use the money for projects such as ensuring adequate water supplies by building new reservoirs.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It has been proved in the Uk that increases in fuel costs do not result in a major fall in consumption.

I agree with the principle of reducing the use of oil, but cannot agree with your ideas. Why should the right to heat or the right to run a car only belong to the super rich?

>>>Errrm, apart from oil what was the premise for going into Iraq? Hmmmm....

The USA, via the CIA, did try to orchestrate, or a least whole heartedly approve of and support, a coup in Venezuela in 2002. The USA has a long and documented history medelling in other countries affairs, particularly in South America, in order to achieve is economic desires. Nuff said....<<<

Shoulda, woulda, coulda...sorry, but we should only deal in the reality of what did or didn't happen.

The US did go into Iraq. Invade, occupy, use whatever word is trendy today. It didn't invade in South America.

Unbelievers

It was pure co-incidence that Iraq is sitting on the 2nd-largest pool of un-developed oil-reserves in the world.

In proof of which, we shall now see the USA/UK (Sorry - United Nations) go into places like Zimbabwe & Burma, to depose equally despotic dictators.

Hang-on though , doesn't Burma have a bit of oil somewhere ?