The thing is, the Greens couldn't care less about what's good for people. They're more concerned with anything that's NOT people. Of course they regard wealth as a bad thing and poverty as a good thing.

Not to mention, the correlation of high gas prices and increased fuel efficiency (if the ever was one) is broken. Fuel efficiency is going down as prices rise.

Fuel efficiency has been delining since 2006.

(DoT miles travelled divided by gallons of finished motor gasoline supplied from EIA is much higher than the DoT's estimates of MPG. Either DoT over estimates miles travel and gallons of gasoline bought, and/or EIA under estimates gasoline supplied. Maybe our car are more fuel efficient than we think, DoT might be biased toward over estimating gasoline sold. Gas stations probably don't mind paying taxes on imaginary gallons they sell.)

The commies insisted that their system of "scientific socialism" would produce more food, more apartment blocks, more tractors, more televisions...more Stuff.

They failed ignominiously.

So now they call themselves "greens" and insist that Stuff is EVIL.

--Next the greens will be telling us that poverty is good for [other] people.--
Yeah, a lot of this amounts to "I've got mine already."

Simon nails it above. Greens insist that *other people's* Stuff is EVIL. I know a lot of Greens, and they gotta lotta stuff.

It may yet get even worse! Read D. Keith Mano's 1973 novel "The Bridge" for an idea of just how wacko these people can be.

It isn't just the greenies who believe poverty is good for other people. Pelosi left town after refusing to allow any energy bills tocome to the floor, and Obama wants to place a windfall tax on the oil companies who will just pass it on by raising their prices to us.

Retread: it's actually worse than that. Of course, the oil companies will pass on whatever extra tax costs that the market will bear. But the market won't bear all of it. People will either burn less gas, or prefer imported gas (which is cheaper because it wasn't subject to the tax). Either way, this reduces the business of the oil companies. Of course, a small decrease in volume can result in a big decrease in profit, or even a loss.

Be careful when passing judgment on the "greens". It will always be one of three primary colors, and, at least for now, most fondly associated with the grass we walk on, the forests we move through...and the dollars we save or spend.

As the Messiah has told us:

"We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times ... and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK," Obama said.

"Have a look at this chart. A country's wealth correlates very well with its CO2 output."

On a hopeful note, consider a triplet of rich countries significantly below the main trend line: Switzerland, Sweden, and especially France. Virtually all of their electricity comes from hydro and nuclear. There's not much potential to increase hydropower, but a lot of countries could replace fossil-fuel plants with nukes.

Ragnar, you are confusing the label which the Green Party chose for itself with the actual color.

I mean, are Europeans so stupid that they cannot even see this kind of blunder?

Just to make things a little clearer for you, Ragnar:

"Be careful when passing judgment on the "reds". It will always be one of three primary colors, and, at least for now, most fondly associated with the colors of the sunset, the tint of our human blood itself, and the {name_that_culture} symbol of joy and rebirth."

What do I write here? Duh! or SuperDuh! (?)

Commies/Greens/socialists suck, big time.
Come and watch their progress in Africa, for g*ds sake, THINK.