From the Baltimore Sun: “I like to call my generation the most hypocritical generation ever,” said Robert Kaufmann, a professor in the Center for Energy and Environmental Studies at Boston University.

In the face of shortages and high prices, Americans responded in the 1970s by driving 55 mph, car-pooling, buying smaller cars and driving less.

The government took action by imposing fuel-efficiency standards on automakers — regulations that have since been relaxed. The result was a more than 11 percent decline in gasoline consumption from 1978 to 1981, according to Energy Department data.

By contrast, speed and size rule today’s highways. The average car fuel efficiency is 24 miles per gallon, compared with a peak of 27 mpg in 1987.

And we can go zero to 60 mph in an average of 9.9 seconds today, compared with 14.1 seconds in 1975, an acceleration that also burns more fuel.

This article is pretty interesting, in that it contrasts Americans’ response to high gas prices in the 1970s versus the response now. In essence, then they did something, now nobody cares. The article points out that could be due to the fact that we’re wealthier as a nation now, and even though high gas prices are a pain, they’re not hitting anyone so hard that it forces them to change their lifestyle. It also goes into some basic economics.

I believe that international efforts, like the Kyoto Protocol, to cut down on greenhouse gas emissions are key to dampening the effects of global warming. The Kyoto Protocol is not just a voluntary agreement, there are costs and benefits involved to try and keep nations honest to their promises. Here is a brief history of how the protocol developed and reasons why efforts like the protocol are crucial to our fight against global warming.

In 1992 the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change was held. They basically decided that global warming was a problem and that nations should try to do something about it. They also decided to meet on a regular basis to have a Conference of Parties (COP meetings) to discuss their progress. The third COP meeting was in 1997 in Kyoto, Japan. This is the meeting where the Kyoto Protocol had its beginnings. They set greenhouse emission reduction targets for each country. In addition to this they made an emissions trading program and had further meetings to establish penalties for failure of the nations meeting their targets for cutting greenhouse emissions. Bush refused to sign the protocol when he was elected in 2000. The Kyoto Protocol had a hard time making any progress without the US involved, but finally came into force in February of 2005… of course, it’s not nearly as strong without the world’s top greenhouse gas emitter.

In today’s society, getting a tan has a positive connotation, where smoking a cigarette has a negative one. However, the two are remarkably similar: they both cause cancer!

Furthermore, both have used, or are currently using, marketing strategies aimed at high school students. Virtually everyone is familiar with marketing strategies of tobacco firms. Many of these firms specifically targeted younger people so that they could be addicted early. They did this by using cartoon characters and other aspects that would appeal to youth.

Tanning salons are doing the same thing. Studies have found that tanning salons are marketing heavily towards the younger generations, even putting advertisements in high school newspapers. Further studies have found that tanning can be addictive. So, like a cigarette firm, the tanning salon business can get children hooked early, and have them as a customer for life.

The question is, should we go ahead and restrict tanning advertisements to protect children from becoming addicted to something dangerous and carcinogenic? Is a tanning bed really as deadly as smoking a few cigarettes?

I am just trying to break up the recent posting of george on overall utility and gas/cars.

This topic of liberal arts and specific (in my case, engineering) education has recently been a factor in my life…and I was wondering what everybody thought about this.

For my one of my GRE essays they asked me to comment on (choosing a side) the difference between a liberal arts education vs. specific education in college. At that point, being a W&M guy and considering my background of indecision, I was very much in favor of liberal arts education.

Looking back at the last couple months, it seems like the atmosphere in Williamsburg was very different than up here in Ithaca.  I can’t say what the bro has experienced in Atlanta, but in Ithaca, the stress is always on jobs and applications usable in jobs.

That being said, I realized that I was ill prepared for “real life” coming right out of W&M, and I find that a lot of my friends are doing a similar path as me.  Specifically, grad school…whether it be ed school, law school, engineering grad school.  Are liberal arts schools like W&M just grad school breeding grounds?

“Because supply and demand are so tightly bound,” Comey said, “if we could just reduce the demand a little bit individually, a couple gallons a month, it would have a meaningful impact.”

This is not really an article, just a link, to the following article: Gas prices hit record; motorists hit ceiling.

Read it. Mark my words - gas prices will jump to over $4 per gallon for a period this summer. This isn’t about price gouging. It’s because we’re running out of fuel, and we’re demanding more and more.