I'd ask you what you were smoking but I already know the answer: liberalism.
I offered to stop talking about this because it's moronic, but since you really want to find out how wrong you are, I'll explain it.
American Petroleum Institute
116.4 billion barrels of oil is enough to power 65 million cars for 60 years.
This is what the 60 years is. This is all that the 60 years is. This is what the PDF says. That's why I said to look at the PDF if you want to find out why there is a reference to “60 years”. I included the quote in the very first post I made, directly after I said “sixty years that it gives us”. It means it “gives us” 60 years to power 65 million cars, as defined by API. Over those “60 years”, which do not equate to 60 years of actual time in which we do not need energy from sources other than domestic oil supplies because of countless factors that are not considered in this statistic, we can develop alternative fuels. If you don't want to take something out of context, you have to consider the very next sentence in a paragraph. I also repeatedly stated that there is much more to the issue than domestic energy supplies, including at the end of my original post. This counts as “context”.
Now let us determine what API considers to be a “car” in this statistic.
O=oil in barrels
T=time in years
C=“a car” in barrels per year
X=number of “cars”
A “car” is a vehicle that uses 29.84615385 barrels of oil per year.
Now let us use our friend math to find out what the number of “vehicles that use 29.84615385 barrels of oil per year” in this country is.
According to the EIA, the country uses 3,389,390,000 barrels of oil per year for motor gasoline.
Xt=the total number of “cars” in the country.
The total number of “cars” in the country is 113,562,036
Now let us simplify that number to 113 million, in the hopes that you won't have another conniption about another simplification.
The total number of “cars” in the country is 113 million.
Here are some facts about 113 million:
It is closer to 65 million than 245 million
It is less than “well over 250 million”
It is less than the number of registered vehicles in the country
It is less than the number of adults in the country
Now, when you repeatedly talk about your definition of a “car” when discussing a statistic that deals with a radically different definition of a “car”, should that be considered taking it out of context, considering that they have nothing the fuck to do with each other
I'll answer it for you: yes it does. It also means you're a complete lunatic.
You're the one who is taking things out of context.
Things that people said that were correct in accordance with this context:
Is 65 million a reasonable estimate for the number of active vehicles in the country, after all things are considered? Maybe, but I'd say closer than 245 million.
I did say that the 65 million “cars” is probably closer to the total number of “cars” in the country than 250 million.
A car is not a “car”.
It's extraordinarily clear that your definition of “car” as “registered vehicle that isn't rotting in a garage” isn't even close to API's definition of “car”.
The number of registered vehicles in the country doesn't mean anything.
A person that owns fourteen cars isn't going to use fourteen times as much gas as a person that owns one car.
Things that people said that were blatantly wrong, stupid, and out of context:
Even if you go with this 116.4 billion barrels number, you still have 135 million cars and 110 million trucks/SUVs. That's not even counting commercial class vehicles or motorcycles.
Actually, according to the Department of Transportation, there were over 250 million passenger class (that would be vehicles of two axles or less) vehicles registered in the US in 2006. Somehow I doubt that number has gone down to 65 million in two years. Also consider that there are a lot of people out there who have more than one car that fit different purposes. One for driving to work, one for toting around the kids or groceries, one for fun, etc. It isn't uncommon for families to have two or more cars. You also have a lot of corporate vehicles out there, things like utility vans, pickup trucks used by construction or landscaping companies, mail or delivery vehicles, rental vehicles, and so forth. These are cars that see everyday use in addition to those used by the drivers to get to and from the office/depot. Quite often, your corporate vehicles will see MORE use than your average consumer vehicle. Not every car in America is owned by an individual and it is possible for one person to have or use multiple “active” cars.
I know exactly what I'm talking about, you just seem to be happy to ignore the majority of cars out there. The number of adults in this country doesn't matter. That doesn't determine how many active cars there are out there. How many taxi cabs are out there? delivery trucks/vans? rental cars? corporate vehicles? utility or fleet vans? construction and landscaping trucks? Those all COUNT. They are active vehicles that in most cases use even MORE gas than cars that people use to drive to and from work every day.
Also, going by the Census Bureau there are about 150 million people employed in the US. 77% of those people drive to work alone. That's 115.5 million active cars right there. Of the remainder, an additional 11% carpool. Gooing by the high estimate of the average carpool size that's another 3.5 million. So, just commuters are almost twice the number of cars on the road as you've been claiming.
Your number of “cars” is well over 250 million, and mine was “a number closer to 65 million than 245 million”.
113 is closer to 65 million than 245 million. In fact, it is much
closer to 65 million than 245 million. It is closer to “a number closer to 65 million than 245 million” than “a number well over 250 million”.
You're not going to admit that you were wrong about either misinterpreting what the hell I was talking about or being horribly wrong about what a “car” is. I've seen you be blatantly wrong before, in discussions with bravo1102 about what the definition of “marriage” is, among others. You never admit you're wrong, and you never shut the hell up. This doesn't make someone a man or a good debater. Since you don't live inside my head, you could never have a better understanding than me in regards to what I mean or why I say things. Therefore, you can never, ever
win that part of the argument. This isn't a big deal. Your problem is with a few words that I didn't think anyone would be moronic enough to misinterpret or obsess about. If you want to do something productive, shut up and move on. I gave you a chance to do that before I made this post.
Also, your name sounds like “I suck one”. I'm just throwing that out there. You can interpret it however you want, get upset about it, and bitch about it until the day you die.