are they really going to drill in Alaska?

[jtr1962]

[ QUOTE ]
imfrogman said:
Do you know how much carbon monoxide & other so called pollutants were released when mount st helens erupted? A hell of a lot more than all gasoline engines put together.


[/ QUOTE ]
And pretend that you don't know that all that CO (and whatever else came out) was dispersed high in the atmosphere, not concentrated at ground level like it is from auto exhaust. CO doesn't concern me. It doesn't have long term effects like a lot of the trace chemicals in auto exhaust, and unless it's in a high enough concentration it can't harm you even short term. Those trace elements concern me way more than CO and CO2 (both of which are oderless BTW). What do you think gives auto exhaust such an awful smell? It's the exotic mixture of all sorts of trace chemicals which can do who knows what when they get in the body.

So we all have to die sometime. I'd rather it be when my body just gives out on its own than from an early death from cancer.

 

[Frangible]

... and we'll drill in locations far worse than the barren patch of land in the ANWR until we get off our oil crack addiction. It's going to get far, far worse before it gets better.

 

[turbodog]

[ QUOTE ]
jtr1962 said:
[ QUOTE ]
turbodog said:
Well, plenty of stuff in our environment will kill us from residual exposure but I don't see us banning all those other substances.


[/ QUOTE ]
Actually, OSHA has a whole list of banned/restricted substances which incidentally even at their zenith didn't kill even close to the numbers which air pollution does. I personally think the whole lead paint thing was an overreaction, for example.

Anyway, this thread just proves to me how selective people can be when it comes to reacting to information. We'll throw fits when a few dozen people a year die from overexposure to some chemical yet conveniently ignore hundreds of thousands of deaths because doing something about it would mean a huge loss in profits for companies with strong political lobbies and heaven forbid a change in the status quo.


[/ QUOTE ]

Loss in their profits? You mean loss for you don't you? Ignorant? Pot, kettle, black?

Any idea what would happen to you if Shell or Exxon decided to close up shop tomorrow? How long you think it would take before you city dwellers headed out to the country to try and kill something for food?

The typical American family is what? 10k dollars in debt on credit cards alone. You're gonna tell them to spend more money on greener cars when the most polluting segment is the bottom 1%.

I *live* and *breathe* in SUV central. There's more money here than you can shake a stick at. If people *here* are unwilling and unable to *buy green and live green* how in the world is anyone else gonna do it?

Drilling is going to happen in AK. There's no way around it. Gas is right at $2/gallon and will go higher in the summer. The SUV drivers do vote you know. And politicians love constituents with money.

p.s. Hi Darell.

 

[jtr1962]

[ QUOTE ]
Malpaso said:
My father has skin cancer. The dermatologist said it is likely from so much time in the sun playing golf. What should we ban here, the sun, golf clubs or dermatologists?

[/ QUOTE ]
Your father is from a generation which didn't know the effects of staying out in the sun too long. I couldn't possibly blame him for his illness because he didn't know, and even if he did, it affects him alone. On the other hand, I do which is why I rarely go out in full sun.

We can't ban everything which might cause health problems, especially when the health effects of some of these things are based on questionable studies. However, we should eliminate those things which are known to have major health effects. Air pollution comes in right at the top of the list. I'm so vocal here for the simple reason that if someone makes air pollution it doesn't just affect them only like going out in the sun or eating fatty foods. I don't care about protecting people from themselves. In fact, I'm opposed to the idea. However, nobody has the right to do something that can affect someone else, whether it is blowing second hand smoke or driving a vehicle that pollutes.

In any case, I wish your father a quick recovery.

 

[Malpaso]

[ QUOTE ]
jtr1962 said:
However, nobody has the right to do something that can affect someone else...

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmmm, like using non-rechargeable batteries in flashlights?

 

[jtr1962]

[ QUOTE ]
turbodog said:
Loss in their profits? You mean loss for you don't you?


[/ QUOTE ]
No, I'm not in the oil or auto business. Right now I'm in the electronics business. Prior to that I was.... well I'm not discussing it on a public forum. If anything alternative energy would mean more money for me, not less. I could design all sorts of electronic devices to work off solar power, for example.

[ QUOTE ]

Any idea what would happen to you if Shell or Exxon decided to close up shop tomorrow? How long you think it would take before you city dwellers headed out to the country to try and kill something for food?


[/ QUOTE ]
NYC will survive better than most places should that come to pass. Subways don't use oil, distances are short enough to walk or bike, and we can still get food sent in by rail. Anyway, the oil companies won't close up shop overnight no matter what happens. There will be a transition period as with any other major change in the economy so your premise really makes no sense to me.

[ QUOTE ]

The typical American family is what? 10k dollars in debt on credit cards alone. You're gonna tell them to spend more money on greener cars when the most polluting segment is the bottom 1%.

I *live* and *breathe* in SUV central. There's more money here than you can shake a stick at. If people *here* are unwilling and unable to *buy green and live green* how in the world is anyone else gonna do it?


[/ QUOTE ]
Who says they have to suddenly buy a new vehicle? When their present vehicle is ready for replacement, which is something like 5 to 7 years on average, and they're going to spend the money anyway at that time to buy a new vehicle, then they buy a green one. A mass produced EV will cost less than a mass produced ICE vehicle. I just don't get what your point is. What we can and should do now is make sure that enough EVs are produced to meet that replacement demand by requiring an ever increasing percentage of vehicles made each year to be zero emissions. Efficiencies of mass production and the free market will take care of the rest. You're telling me that people won't want a vehicle which costs less to buy, less to operate, less to maintain, and last far longer than what they're driving? After all, they have that $10K in credit card debt so it certainly makes sense to me that they would spend less on transportation if they had the chance to.

And I don't know where you get this idea that the most polluting segment is the bottom 1%. So we all know a Hummer is in the bottom 1%. That doesn't mean an Explorer is that much better. To me this seems like legalease double talk. If today's vehicles are so clean then why does the air stink when there's enough of them? And why don't the executives of the big three pump auto exhaust into their offices?

[ QUOTE ]

Drilling is going to happen in AK. There's no way around it. Gas is right at $2/gallon and will go higher in the summer. The SUV drivers do vote you know. And politicians love constituents with money.


[/ QUOTE ]
The House has yet to pass it, and then it can be tied up for years in the courts like any other controversial legislation. I personally don't care that they want to drill in the ANWR. I do care that we're doing it for all the wrong reasons.

[ QUOTE ]

p.s. Hi Darell.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not Darell. I may agree with him on a lot of issues, but I can assure you I'm not him.

 

[turbodog]

I know you're not him. You didn't get it.

By the time the government taxes an EV car, it'll cost the same or more to operate as an ICE car. Your local coffers will dry up quickly without the daily stream of money from pump taxes to keep them filled.

The bottom 1%. How could you think this included hummers? No, the bottom 1%... to use a phrase from "coneheads".... "a rusted out **itbox" that spews smoke and drips oil.

Once again, move somewhere less crowded. Pollution dilution? No..... move somewhere where the ratio of trees to emissions isn't so one-sided. Nature can and will take care of these emissions provided it is not overwhelmed. Maybe *you're* doing the irresponsible thing by living somewhere where the ecosystem is already overburdened.

Let me assure you, if shell and exxon close tomorrow, you'd starve. You're in the electronics business? Who do you think consumes your products? Who do you think supplies you with materials? Oil runs it all.

 

[jtr1962]

[ QUOTE ]
turbodog said:
By the time the government taxes an EV car, it'll cost the same or more to operate as an ICE car. Your local coffers will dry up quickly without the daily stream of money from pump taxes to keep them filled.


[/ QUOTE ]
You're not seeing the big picture here. It's not a zero sum game. First of all, gas taxes are a very small percent of revenue. The income taxes on individuals and corporations and real estate taxes account for most tax revenue at all levels of government. Second, once EVs are in use you'll see much lower spending on Medicaid, much less damage to structures like bridges, less pollution in waterways. These are all ways the government will save big time. They won't need the small revenue stream from the gas tax because they'll be spending less. And you're forgetting another thing. These EVs will mostly recharge from the grid so the end user will be paying whatever tax surcharges are usually tacked on to electric bills. I just don't see that they'll be a special "EV tax" like you say. Any politician voting for that once EVs become popular will be voted straight out of office.

[ QUOTE ]

The bottom 1%. How could you think this included hummers? No, the bottom 1%... to use a phrase from "coneheads".... "a rusted out **itbox" that spews smoke and drips oil.


[/ QUOTE ]
Alright, so you have 1% that really dirty and 99% that's just plain dirty. It still boils down to the only vehicles which are truly clean, at least where they operate, are EVs.

[ QUOTE ]

Once again, move somewhere less crowded. Pollution dilution? No..... move somewhere where the ratio of trees to emissions isn't so one-sided. Nature can and will take care of these emissions provided it is not overwhelmed. Maybe *you're* doing the irresponsible thing by living somewhere where the ecosystem is already overburdened.


[/ QUOTE ]
How's that? I leave a smaller footprint than almost anyone except maybe Darell. Maybe even smaller since I don't and won't have children to consume resources after I'm gone. Again, look at the big picture. You talk about cars needing oil. It makes more sense to live in a place like I do with an "overburdened" ecosystem where you don't even need to have the car in the first place. I dare say if not for the transition to suburbia in the 1950s we wouldn't even be in this position. If everyone had stayed in cities the auto never would have became popular as they offer no real advantage in an urban environment. Rather, we would have further developed means of transport which already worked fine in cities, such as electric subways and trolleys, and generated the power for them via nuclear reactors located outside the cities. Without suburban settlements, there would have been no NIMBYs to oppose the reactors. We would still have cars, but they would be a niche market mainly used in rural areas.

Again, I don't follow your logic here. Move someplace less developed, and clear a few acres of trees for every family? And then buy a car which throws junk in the air to get around? How is this better than just staying in a place which is already cleared out where you can just build higher to accomodate more people? And where the transportation for those people is already built and doesn't pollute?

I have a question for you. If the whole surburban lifestyle is so wonderful overall for the environment then why do a bunch of other countries actively discourage such settlements by basically taxing the hell out of them? Look at Japan. They left more land in a natural state despite having the most acute land shortage of anyplace on earth precisely because sparsely populated settlements are horribly wasteful in more ways than I can think of. No turbodog, you should move somewhere more crowded, give up your car, learn to walk, bike, take public transportation. You're doing the irresponsible thing, not I.

Also, I might add that if not for the huge numbers of people on the planet, it might not really matter what lifestyle you choose. However, as we get more crowded even small amounts of waste by enough individuals can have huge overall effects on the planet.

[ QUOTE ]

Let me assure you, if shell and exxon close tomorrow, you'd starve.


[/ QUOTE ]
But they're not. That's not a realistic assumption so the rest of your argument is meaningless. I'd like to see them gradually shut down in the next few years while we transition to alternatives though.

[ QUOTE ]

You're in the electronics business? Who do you think consumes your products? Who do you think supplies you with materials? Oil runs it all.

[/ QUOTE ]
And there can't possibly be any alternative to oil ever? Please. I hate close-minded thinking like that. There are alternatives. Some have existed for half a century. Not having the will to adopt them is quite different than if we didn't have them at all. We could transition completely off oil in a decade with minimal disruption to the economy. We could do it in five years if pressed to with some minor disruptions. We don't lack the technology, we lack the leadership.

 

[Frangible]

The worst polluting cars are owned by people too poor to afford anything else. Yeah, I'm *sure* they're gonna go out and blow $25k on a Prius or EV or something cause you told them to. Besides, cars are only part of oil use.

 

[turbodog]

[ QUOTE ]
jtr1962 said:
[ QUOTE ]
turbodog said:
By the time the government taxes an EV car, it'll cost the same or more to operate as an ICE car. Your local coffers will dry up quickly without the daily stream of money from pump taxes to keep them filled.


[/ QUOTE ]
You're not seeing the big picture here. It's not a zero sum game. First of all, gas taxes are a very small percent of revenue. The income taxes on individuals and corporations and real estate taxes account for most tax revenue at all levels of government. Second, once EVs are in use you'll see much lower spending on Medicaid, much less damage to structures like bridges, less pollution in waterways. These are all ways the government will save big time. They won't need the small revenue stream from the gas tax because they'll be spending less. And you're forgetting another thing. These EVs will mostly recharge from the grid so the end user will be paying whatever tax surcharges are usually tacked on to electric bills. I just don't see that they'll be a special "EV tax" like you say. Any politician voting for that once EVs become popular will be voted straight out of office.

[ QUOTE ]

The bottom 1%. How could you think this included hummers? No, the bottom 1%... to use a phrase from "coneheads".... "a rusted out **itbox" that spews smoke and drips oil.


[/ QUOTE ]
Alright, so you have 1% that really dirty and 99% that's just plain dirty. It still boils down to the only vehicles which are truly clean, at least where they operate, are EVs.

[ QUOTE ]

Once again, move somewhere less crowded. Pollution dilution? No..... move somewhere where the ratio of trees to emissions isn't so one-sided. Nature can and will take care of these emissions provided it is not overwhelmed. Maybe *you're* doing the irresponsible thing by living somewhere where the ecosystem is already overburdened.


[/ QUOTE ]
How's that? I leave a smaller footprint than almost anyone except maybe Darell. Maybe even smaller since I don't and won't have children to consume resources after I'm gone. Again, look at the big picture. You talk about cars needing oil. It makes more sense to live in a place like I do with an "overburdened" ecosystem where you don't even need to have the car in the first place. I dare say if not for the transition to suburbia in the 1950s we wouldn't even be in this position. If everyone had stayed in cities the auto never would have became popular as they offer no real advantage in an urban environment. Rather, we would have further developed means of transport which already worked fine in cities, such as electric subways and trolleys, and generated the power for them via nuclear reactors located outside the cities. Without suburban settlements, there would have been no NIMBYs to oppose the reactors. We would still have cars, but they would be a niche market mainly used in rural areas.

Again, I don't follow your logic here. Move someplace less developed, and clear a few acres of trees for every family? And then buy a car which throws junk in the air to get around? How is this better than just staying in a place which is already cleared out where you can just build higher to accomodate more people? And where the transportation for those people is already built and doesn't pollute?

I have a question for you. If the whole surburban lifestyle is so wonderful overall for the environment then why do a bunch of other countries actively discourage such settlements by basically taxing the hell out of them? Look at Japan. They left more land in a natural state despite having the most acute land shortage of anyplace on earth precisely because sparsely populated settlements are horribly wasteful in more ways than I can think of. No turbodog, you should move somewhere more crowded, give up your car, learn to walk, bike, take public transportation. You're doing the irresponsible thing, not I.

Also, I might add that if not for the huge numbers of people on the planet, it might not really matter what lifestyle you choose. However, as we get more crowded even small amounts of waste by enough individuals can have huge overall effects on the planet.

[ QUOTE ]

Let me assure you, if shell and exxon close tomorrow, you'd starve.


[/ QUOTE ]
But they're not. That's not a realistic assumption so the rest of your argument is meaningless. I'd like to see them gradually shut down in the next few years while we transition to alternatives though.

[ QUOTE ]

You're in the electronics business? Who do you think consumes your products? Who do you think supplies you with materials? Oil runs it all.

[/ QUOTE ]
And there can't possibly be any alternative to oil ever? Please. I hate close-minded thinking like that. There are alternatives. Some have existed for half a century. Not having the will to adopt them is quite different than if we didn't have them at all. We could transition completely off oil in a decade with minimal disruption to the economy. We could do it in five years if pressed to with some minor disruptions. We don't lack the technology, we lack the leadership.

[/ QUOTE ]

You think the government's gonna give up tax revenue?

You don't know me at all. Go read some old posts.

Modern cars a very clean. The older, broken cars outpollute at what? 100:1 ratio for a new car? So when you see that the older cars aren't going anywhere, new cars can have very little impact.

At least there was *some* good news in your post.

And you think the US doesn't tax the heck out of suburban/rural citizens? Pleeeeeeze! I pay plenty of tax. Way more than my share. Tons more than my share.

WTF? Who wants to live somewhere crowded! You've been sucking in too much exhaust.

You're going about this wrong. I don't know what your attitude problem is. Who pissed in your pocket?

Can't go outside because of exhaust
Can't go outside because of sun
Can't ride because of motion sickness
Can't bike because of no indoor bike rack

Good grief!

This is killing your credibility, and your corrosive words are doing the rest.

But I bet that's not your fault either.

 

[ikendu]

[ QUOTE ]
turbodog said:Every think that this could BE part of energy policy as you guys say?

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure it can.

So where is the rest of the energy planning?
If drilling in ANWR is step 1...what is step 2?

My sense is that a lot of those folks that are for drilling in ANWR are thinking, "Step 2...we don't need no stinking Step 2; we've got ANWR coming on-line in 7-10 years".

The sad part is we just keep using what we are used to, what companies make money on today...until it is simply gone, and we really start to hurt (anyone remember the long recession kicked off by the last energy emergency in the 80's? I do.)

Planning ...is about thinking ahead, averting problems before they screw up your society.

We could be doing a lot with existing technology, right now. BEVs already have the technology to replace something like half the petroleum used for personal transportation in the U.S. Hmmm...technology exists, would really stimulate new jobs and the economy, increase our national security ...but it is not a priority. Wonder what that means for the leadership in the U.S.?

We have enough restaurant fryer oil discarded every year to replace 5% of all of the diesel fuel we use in the U.S. with recycled biodiesel. That would be like finding an ANWR that requires no drilling, and could be online in 2-3 years...and, would never run out. ANWR will some day.

 

[LEDSmith]

I for one will never buy an electric vehicle. I live in phoenix - where we replace our car batteries once a year due to the heat. How many batteries do these electric cars employ?

I would instead get a high efficency diesel engine (like the 50MPG diesel beetle). By the way, why are we still driving cars with extremely inefficient engines? Perhaps the reason is that any super efficeint ICE engine and fuel delivery system has been either derailed by the oil industry, or perhaps Americans are just so slow to change.

If things had been different, you could be driving a big block engine vehicle and getting 100mpg.

Do some reasearch and you will find the designs that I am talking about.

 

[lymph]

Have any of you been up there? I'll tell you this - it ain't Yosemite.

Does it just "feel good" to know there's a place up there that you'll never visit, where animals can run around without having to see an oil pump or a pipeline? Is that what it all comes down to? Does it not matter what the people who actually live up there want?

I'm all for finding alternatives, and I realize that some day, we'll run out of oil. But what's the point of not drilling in Alaska? I think it just delays the inevitable switch to renewable fuels. It's easier for industry to lobby for more drilling than it is to develop something new. Let them drill it dry. Then they'll have no more excuses and they'll _have_ to come up with something renewable.

Nothing is going to change until the oil's practically gone. That's human nature. All this hemming and hawing now is a waste of time.

 

[paulr]

According the Dept of Energy] we currently import about 10 million barrels of oil per day, which is around 3.6 billion/year, so 10 billion barrels in the Refuge would be enough to replace 3 years of imports, not 30 years (Saudi Arabia alone is 1.6 million barrels/day). Whether 10 billion bbl is actually recoverable also seems to be in question. As for the 2000 acre figure, it's a complete scam if the area is not contiguous. The affected area is much larger.

 

[wasabe64]

One other consideration...

My views are similar to jtr1962, we must look at alternatives to ALL fossil fuels, and possibly reduce our growing energy demands.

Our supply of fossil fuel is finite. EV's as an alternative, much like Hydrogen fuel cell technology still requires electricity. The majority of North American electricity is still being generated by burning natural gas or coal. In the end, we are slowing down consumption of one fuel type, but we are still dependant on another fossil fuel.

EV/HFC technology is a step in the right direction, but we must have along hard look at our energy consumption as a whole. We consume an astronomical amount of electricity in North America, and as we grow economically, our need for energy will grow. A loose example is the steady increase in the cost and demand for crude oil or steel as China and other nations adopt a free market economy.

I am not trying to belittle the potential of EV's, but we must really look at our own consumption since we are still currently burning fossil fuels for electricity. Renewable energy to supply electricity for EV's would be a slam-dunk as far as I am concerned. EV's depentant on natural gas or coal for electricity just accelerates the depletion of another fossil fuel.

jtr1962 has mentioned the principle of 'peaking' where we have basically consumed all of the sweeter easier to obtain oil from a given deposit and now must expend more and more energy to obtain less and less oil from the same deposit.

Drilling in Alaska - the environmental impact would be regrettable. Our economy (meaning all industrialized nations) is currently too dependant on fossil fuels to allow us the luxury of not searching and developing new sources of petroleum.

 

[StuU]

[ QUOTE ]
twentysixtwo said:
The 2000 acre figure has reached urban legend status - even the supporters of drilling acknowledge that 1) that number is grossly understated 2) the 2000 acres is distributed and doesn't include pipelines, roads, etc. Game, set, distort incorrect facts?

[/ QUOTE ]

I would make a few comments here about the reality of oil exploration on the North Slope of Alaska. I worked up there for several months and was able to get a good look at how the oil business works on the slope.

All this talk of just 2000 acres out of 19 million is just pure propaganda. We had directional drilling all the way back into the 1970s and still the roads, pipelines, rigs, oil service facilities, warehouse, huge tanks, worker housing, offices, airfields, equipment dumps, etc. sprawls all over the place. And there are a lot more spills than are admitted or discussed publicly- especially on the talk radio propaganda network. This ANWR project will do the same because the oil companies *do not* care about enviromental interests except to the extent that their corporate feet will be held to the fire.

This ANWR will not make much difference except to the bottomline of the oil companies. We need to develop alternative energies and cut back on the gas guzzlers and monster mansions.
Stu

 

[LightChucker]

[ QUOTE ]
BlindedByTheLite said:
that would be so sad and wrong in many ways.

after the vote does that make it set in stone? i ask since it was such a close count.

[/ QUOTE ]


I have been there, and toured the oil fields. There is nothing to be afraid of. There is more oil on your face than there is in and Alaskan oil field. The Caribou walk all over the place and cuddle up close to the pipeline, because it is hot. The caribou get up on top of the roadways to get away from the mosquitoes.

They have to move all the equipment from time-to-time. They have a beautiful system of moving everything - buildings, wells and all. There is nothing left behind to tell that they were ever there. Even the roadways melt every year.

Your biggest fear should be that we are getting 60% of our oil from other countries. Being dependent on foreign oil, now that IS a big risk. If we lose our oil supply from other countries, this country will die, and we will lose our freedom. Our freedom depends on oil.

We need to start drilling and building refineries as fast as possible to give us time to convert to alternate energy sources.

Chuck

 

[ikendu]

[ QUOTE ]
lymph said:Nothing is going to change until the oil's practically gone. That's human nature. All this hemming and hawing now is a waste of time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, I pretty much agree with this point of view.

Regretable, but very likely true.

 

[BlindedByTheLite]

[ QUOTE ]
LightChucker said:
[ QUOTE ]
BlindedByTheLite said:
that would be so sad and wrong in many ways.

after the vote does that make it set in stone? i ask since it was such a close count.

[/ QUOTE ]


I have been there, and toured the oil fields. There is nothing to be afraid of. There is more oil on your face than there is in and Alaskan oil field. The Caribou walk all over the place and cuddle up close to the pipeline, because it is hot. The caribou get up on top of the roadways to get away from the mosquitoes.

They have to move all the equipment from time-to-time. They have a beautiful system of moving everything - buildings, wells and all. There is nothing left behind to tell that they were ever there. Even the roadways melt every year.

Your biggest fear should be that we are getting 60% of our oil from other countries. Being dependent on foreign oil, now that IS a big risk. If we lose our oil supply from other countries, this country will die, and we will lose our freedom. Our freedom depends on oil.

We need to start drilling and building refineries as fast as possible to give us time to convert to alternate energy sources.

Chuck

[/ QUOTE ]
we have alternate energy sources. they're just not as convenient as oil, it seems. last time i checked Bush was putting more money into war than alternate energy research.

say there really is 10 billion barrells of oil in the Alaskan refuge. in the US we use, what? 20 million barrels a day? personally, i don't support moving in 100 square feet of the refuge for less than 2 years of oil.

 

[Brock]

I have no problems with not drilling in Alaska, and I have no problems with gasoline being $5+ a gallon. They are the same in my book; you can't have cheap fuel and be worried about the environment, and on the flip side you have to understand not drilling or drilling and keeping the surface as intact as you can costs more money, again that defeats the reason for drilling in the first place. If that is the case so be it.

I am of the opinion that until it isn't economically feasible to use oil the way we currently do there won't be a change. As was mentioned above, look at Europe. Gas and diesel are much more expensive over there and they run cars that use far less fuel.

If oil had increased at the rate of inflation as say milk did since the 70's it would be in the $4 range, but it hasn't, so I can't complain about oil companies that even though they make money they are beating inflation. I believe because f this people can enjoy their cars and trucks and pay less now (adjusted for inflation) then they ever have. Until it at least levels off or actually increases I don't see any real change taking place.