I'm seriously starting to wonder how much more this planet can take.
Recently the Bush administration approved oil drilling in Alaska. Just bloody brilliant. I also wonder how long it will be until our precious petroleum runs out.
Printable View
I'm seriously starting to wonder how much more this planet can take.
Recently the Bush administration approved oil drilling in Alaska. Just bloody brilliant. I also wonder how long it will be until our precious petroleum runs out.
They say 50 years.
Actually, it's a great idea. Relieve dependence on foreign oil, increase exportation... Even create more jobs, if you want to look at it that way. Lower fuel prices. It's about time they started drilling in Alaska.
Did you know that when the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge was established and set up (by Executive Order, mind you, NOT an act of Congress), there were plots specifically set aside for oil drilling? Sections of the Refuge were specifically mapped out to be drilled for oil in. Not only that, but studies have shown that oil rigs actually increase the wildlife in the area, if they affect it at all. I swear, it's ridiculous, it seems like some people think we're just gonna dig a trench and let the oil flow down the continent like a river.
Im against drilling for oil in Alaska, not because it's going to kill all the animals, but because I think we need to remove our dependancy on oil period. The age of cheap gas is over. Gas prices (or so I have heard) are not going to go down to the prices that they were a few years ago. In fact, the price of oil is going to increase. An alternative energy source which is environmentally friendly needs to be invented as soon as possible. This country doesn't just need to remove it's dependancy on foreign oil, it needs to remove its dependancy on all oil, period.
There are few political issues that concerns me more than the prospect of drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (hereafter referred to as ANWR). The plan is shortsighted, and raises a host of ethical questions.
Drilling in ANWR will not lower fuel prices. It will take on the order of between ten and 15 years before any of the ANWR oil is available commercially. This timeframe is agreed upon by both proponents and opponents of the plan. In other words, drilling in ANWR will not have an impact on fuel prices for a decade or more. Even if this eventually happens, projected changes in prices are negligible.
Furthermore, we (the US) import more oil each year than is speculated to exist in ANWR. Spread out over the time periods estimated, ANWR oil is statistically insignificant. Drilling in ANWR, then, would do little to decrease foreign oil dependence.
The effect on the environment, would, to say the least, be devastating. First off, even figuring out precisely where to drill would have immense negative impact. 3-D seismic exploration, the technique used to do this, is more damaging than 2-D seismic exploration, which was previously used. Even 2-D exploration has caused enormous damage. The actual drilling will have a grave effect on native species, particularly caribou.
Ultimately, drilling in ANWR proves to be a proposition that, for minor benefits, gravely despoils the region and deals immense environmental damage. Regardless of your overall political identification, this is a plan with little to speak for it.
EDIT: While I was forming my ideas, nik0tine made the above post. He raises an important point. Oil is a limited resource, and there is only so much in the world. In the long run, an alternative energy source removes foreign dependency, and benefits the environment. This avenue is, logically, a path that we should pursue.
So what if we run out of oil?
I mean, it isn't like we don't have alternative fuels. We're just not worrying about mass producing it yet since it isn't necessary.
Instead, we're getting oil, which is necessary.
For example, which house would you like to buy when you're 60 years old?
Oh? It isn't very important right now? I agree!
Jimmy Carter had it right during his Presidency as he was pushing for plans to find alternative sources of energy outside of oil, which had they been placed into effect and not scoffed at, could probably be helping us right now.
Take care all.
I agree. We need another Jimmy Carter in the White House.
Alaska is not the big thing to worry about, because it is just one of the consequences of a larger problem, as nikotine stated, and that is oil dependence. Through human history, we have been depending on renuwable substances, until now, where we have started absuing the use of fossil fuels, and well, the whole damn economy seems to depend on the lowering and rising of oil prices, because everything works under the use of this fuel. In class we were talking about how human culture has developed through times on the use of different types of natural resources, and about the whole paradoxes found in several ecological ethical theories, and anyway, the whole thing on the fossil fuel came up, obviously. One of my class comapanions said something like "Professor, I believe that even though the current situation is terrible, humans will end up being able to adapt to the dangers of this decadence, and that the market will obviously develop alternative energy sources as a way to keep itself away from his own destruction".
The teacher replied "It's not like I do not believe human intelligence exists, it's simply that I don't believe or trust the market".
Neither do I.
We really need a renewable fuel. Yes we have some but they aren't the world's best vehicles.
I have read several articles that several groups have been trying a better more efficent way to store hydrogen. And they are so close I can see it... but the end of the article said they would have to wait till they devoloped the money to go on. The U.S. doesn't seem to be providing much money to help research alternitive fuel sources.
If the government would push some money into the ones that are coming very close to a breakthrough, we may get something. I mean seriousally these guys actually managed to form a small example of what they were doing... all they needed to do was see if it would work large scale. But that would cost them more money then they have avaliable.
okie.. yep definately another pet peeve of mine. We get closer and closer all the time, but yet I never hear of the Government giving funds to alternitive sources(I have only been paying attention to political stuff like that in the past five or six years). I mean seriousally, if small groups with little money can get near breakthroughs, shoudln't we have a very good alternitive source by now, if the government would provide sufficent funds of course.
We should be there has to be real world testing and other things. We are defintly moving to fuel cells...unless something better comes along in 5 years. Right now the Government, Shell and GM are going to conduct a test that ends in 2009. Shell will set up Fuel Cell "Gas" Stations along the stretch from DC to NY. GM will provide the cars.Quote:
Originally Posted by ShunNakamura
Then after the test concludes you have to problem of forcing people to transition is say a 5-10 year period of time. You have people that want the nice 70,000 viper. You have to worry about slowly transitioning to Fuel Cell stations instead of Gas Stations. At what point to you stop selling gas and tell people "Buy a new 40,000 piece of equipment". $40,000 isn't cheap and is hard to come by. It is quite hard to actually transition. Lots of planning needs to go into it. I am sure there really is no plan and that when the time comes it will be fly blind.
This coming from the man who thought of "Party Central"...Quote:
Originally Posted by edczxcvbnm
One thing that is worrisome is the greenhouse effect. I read an article posted on slashdot a while ago that said scientists have discovered the threshold for what the planet can take. Once we reach that threshold, there's no going back from the melting of the icecaps, the death of most life, etc. They don't know how long it'll take to reach that threshold point, or even if we're ever going to reach it. It's still really up to debate whether it's just a natural cycle.
Anyway, I agree wholeheartedly that we should have been looking into alternative fuels much more closely than we have been for the past couple of decades. However, the US government is too full of capitalists and Big-Business proponents to do that; most of the politicians(Democrats and Republicans alike, though mostly, and more stereotypically, Republicans) are in the pockets of those big oil companies, who definitely don't want too much money going to alternative fuel research, despite what they may say publicly.
That pissed me off mainly because i've donated to a lot of those national and state parks in alaska.I love how alaska looks mainly because its one of the last areas of this planet that has literally been remained untouched by mankind.I can believe that Bush did it mainly because he is a oilman.Conservatives really aren't conservative.Conservationist aren';t really mad mainly because this oil might help ease the economy.But that oil in alaska is gonna be dried up within 7 years. I hate the leaders of this world now.They can't see the end.HEck smurf i would start changing crap once i saw that movie The Day After Tomorrow.America really needs to raise there gas prices ro $5.00 a gallion.Then those dumbass soccer moms aklfhshflkzdhfjfklsddafdsfds I'm pissed.....Quote:
Originally Posted by Wiegrahf42
BTW if people do staZRt buying it the prices will most likely go down.Its time for a abrupt change not a casual slow change.Quote:
Originally Posted by edczxcvbnm
Do you have any evidence at all to support the above comments?Quote:
Originally Posted by masamune1600
An abrupt change is impossible.Quote:
BTW if people do staZRt buying it the prices will most likely go down.Its time for a abrupt change not a casual slow change.
And about your "Day After Tomorrow" comment... That movie was ridiculous. The ocean is not going to drop thirteen degrees in temperature over night like that. Global warming is happening, yes, however it isn't going to happen over night. It may happen in our lifetimes, and it more than likely will happen in our childrens or grandchildrens lifetimes. They WILL feel the effects of it, but we aren't going to wake up tomorrow and freeze to death.
Global warming is happening, yes, but not because of human activity. There are weather and climate patterns that change every so often, and this is one of them. The world's been around for a long time, I wouldn't worry that it's gonna end in the next hundred years. And in a long time, we'll have another ice age. It happens.
I really worry about the environment, I have started to realise it is changing rapidly.
One of the reasons I like Leonardo DiCaprio so much is because of his work for the environment, he has made speeches and works toward a better world, as many others do. I think more people need to care for the world before it's too late
oil.... gonna run out in 50 years, then you'll be up a creek without a paddle. other energy sources take a large amount of land, time and money to be effecient, it can not be done overnight, if you want to be ready for the loss of oil then things need to change now. the 50 year map is only covered if oil consumption progresses as it has before, but it isn't and won't, developing countries are using far more than ever and it's usage is growing expotentially, america's use of oil has also risen dramatically. oil can not last for much longer. the 50 year mark is based on all extractable oil, alot of that is very hard to get to and would require more investment. money which could be spent on trying to save this god forsaken hell hole we live on.
global warming will serverly change this earth. the studies are there. what else do people think CO2 does these days? the hole in the ozone? just natural occurances? the greenhouse affect is a growing problem and has only one cause and it's not fairy dust. but america won't listen, too busy with it's own business making itself rich. who cares if the gurlf stream stops, who cares if there are famines in afirca, who cares if a few thousand eskimos villages fall into the sea, if the ports flood and if millions die due to famine. that's not the point america is making money and that's what important. because in 50 years time america will suffer.and that is what is important. that america's blind eye awkens when it runs out of oil and it's coast line gets closer, when the droughts start, when the flooding kills. when the snow cripples. that is when global warming will be important. when america suffers from it. who cares if africans die? they don't vote and don't pay for campaigns.
Only one cause? Ever heard of CFCs? Chloroflourocarbons. Commonly found in aeresol sprays. They've been banned in aeresol because they break up ozone. Environmentally conscious, right? Sure. Guess what else makes CFCs? Volcanic eruptions. And they produce millions of tons of CFCs--they spew out of volcanic eruptions constantly. So, would banning CFCs from hair spray and spray paint and air freshener do anything at all in depleting the amount of CFCs? It would be like taking a handful of sand from the Sahara Desert.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cloud No.9
"Ozone", as it's commonly referred to, is simply O3 (I don't know how to do subscript). We breathe O2, Ozone is O3. The "Ozone Layer" is, just that, a layer of our atmosphere made up primarily of O3 molecules. O3 molecules are actually pretty light, and so they are very high in our atmosphere. But there's no proof that anything we do at sea level that might deplete the Ozone Layer actually gets into the upper atmosphere to do so. So we're depleting the amount of ozone on earth--ozone at ground level that doesn't do anything--but there's no proof that the chemicals and such that would deplete the Ozone Layer are actually getting to the Ozone Layer.
By the way, would somebody care to explain how the holes in the Ozone Layer can contribute to the "Greenhouse Effect"? Yes, a hole in the Ozone Layer would let in more of the harmful aspects of the sun. However, it wouldn't "trap" anything in our atmosphere.
Again. The climate is changing. Is there a "global warming epidemic"? Hell no. Are humans responsible for "global warming"? To a very slight extent.
edit by eest: use < sub > html tags.
(EDIT: Ah. Makes sense. Thanks.)
This is almost too sad to the point where it isn't even funny...luckly it has not reached that point yet.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasquatch
*points*
:laugh:
You should be a stand up comedian.
This is true. i dont think it would make much of a difference. But why add to it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasquatch
But wouldnt O3 be technically heavier than than O2 since it has one more oxygen atom?Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasquatch
The ozone layer has nothing to do with the "greenhouse effect" Greenhouse gases would accually get trapped in the layer of the atmosphere lower than the one ozone settles in.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasquatch
who knows,, i wont worry about it though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasquatch
the ozone layer is a layer of o3 in the atmosphere which is pretty damn good at stopping lots of nasty stuff like radaitiona and uv rays. also creates heat loss which is jolly nice for a planet which is heating up.
the greenhouse is totally unrelated and is caused mostly by carbon oxides. same kind of stuff you breath out. normally the cycle went like so. air expired- plants take it in-make new-oxygen-breath in some more.
worked well when all that was expelling co2 was animals not cars and power stations in huge amounts. also helped when you weren't busy destroying the rain forests. so it builds up sitting happily in the atmosphere reflecting back heat which was gonna escape. so the planet heats up. this is global warming.
there is also something known as global dimming which is when heat was blocked out by air pollution and things like jet exhaust trails. (sept 12-14 2001 showed a great upsurge in average temperatures across the world) this for a time slowed down global warming. but we decided to cut down on air pollution so got rid of global dimming and so global wamring is now much faster than predicted.
the sequence would work like this for the global warming. world slowly heats up and ice caps slowly melt, gulf stream is cut off, heat deprived to europe and it freezes. southern hemisphere though would continue to heat. at the bottom of the sea there is a material who's name can't quite come to mind (it was on panorama or horison for anyone who saw it). this material is very sensitive to temperature and at the point where the temperature of the earth reaches a consistent 5 degrees higher for a length of a few years these deposist will be expelled from the sea as gas into the atmosphere. the gas released is 100 times more effective at the greenhouse effect than co2 and there are a few million tons of the stuff down there. which is a bugger. at this point there is no turning back. plant life will die due to intense heat or cold. this won't be another ice age. that was slow. animals evolved. animals don't eveolve in 50 years. so with the planet fast heating up. billions upon billions of animals and plants dead what then?
we are doomed to this fate until you put down that bloody gas can. stop burning all that bloody coal and gas and do something about it. america's view on this is sickening. a constant reactionist soceity. i have two hopes in this, that either america in the next few years turns around, agrees to kyoto and drops it's co2 levels dramtically. or come 50 years it suffers immensly for it's crimes against this planet and rues the day when it says it would never happen.
and i'm not sure as to the claim of cfc's being hugely a part of volcano's as far as i am aware and was taught that human releaseof the gas far out weighed volcano eruptions same is true with co2 and sulphur.
http://volcano.und.edu/vwdocs/Gases/man.html
goes other the various gases released by volcanos.
*shudder*Quote:
I agree. We need another Jimmy Carter in the White House.
Cloud 9--
And we were supposed to run out 10 years ago, and we're gonna run out in 5 years, and in 20, and in 30, etc., depending on when it was decided. Every time they tell us we're about to run out of oil, we still somehow manage to find more.
AkiraMakie--
O3 is heavier than air, but it's created (and destroyed, and recreated, etc; the supposed problem is that CFC's get into this cycle and bind up the Oxygen so it can't get recreated) constantly.
Likewise, CFC's are four to eight times heavier than air, which means if they're not put into the atmosphere, they're not getting there. Instead they go to the ground, where they're broken down by various ground-living bacteria.
As far as ANWR is concerned, the same dire predictions were made about Prudhoe Bay--it wouldn't supply enough oil, it'd ruin the environment, it would destroy the native species, and not only has it become one of our major sources of oil, but animal populations have skyrocketed since it and other oilworks (such as the Pipeline) were built.
The major problem, however, is not production, but refinement. Because of environmental restrictions, we haven't built any new refineries in decades, and the ones that are there are breaking down and generally getting old. All the crude oil in the world won't propel one car one foot until it's refined into gasoline.
And other sources of energy would be a great idea--if they worked. They don't, and putting the entire nation on a starvation diet won't make them work.
They don't work yet. With proper funding and the ability to safely research, the possibilities are endless when it comes to finding a clean (or cleaner) burning fuel source, that is safe to use.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Redneck
I don't understand why people shun potential greatness in preference of present mediocrity. Honestly, the more I look at things and the more I learn, it's all a money issue. And I don't think it should be.
I'm not sure which part of GA you're from, Redneck, but if it's the northern part then you've surely experienced what a lot of us mountain people in Western North Carolina refer to as the hazing or the fogging. I've lived here for all of my twenty years, and every year since I was around eleven I've watched the summer sky get hazier and hazier. Why? Because the nationally mandated emissions standards for factories (the same kind of refining factories you speak of) and automobiles are so miserably low that the tourists who drive through here get away with murder, in what I feel is a very literal sense and the factories in Tennesse send so much pollution rolling down the French Broad river the plant and animal life in it are untouchable. Like it or not, both the Blue Ridge Mountains and the Great Smoky Mountains have (up until last year)* been going through a change very negative to both the enviornment and the people that dwell with it. Why? Because enviormental standards aren't priority. Because we would rather have the quick fix that causes harm than the go in for the long haul when it could possibly have much better results.
Digging this oil now is just another kick in the pants for people like me who can't stand this kind of change. I see effort being put towards something that seems pretty unnecessary to me when things that could use some real work go unnoticed and uncared for. Why save the white pine by finding a cleaner burning fuel source when we can dig more oil to drive bigger cars that cause more pollution and bring about more filthy rain to increase the disease and drought among the forest so the pine beetle has nothing to stand in it's way?
*Between the summer of 2003 and the summer of 2004, pollution levels in the Great Smokey mountains were significantly lower than in the previous fifteen years. Which is a good thing, I just didn't want to leave out the fact that good things are happening for our environment.
While I don't intend to say we've never done anything bad to our environment, let me remind you that there is a reason they're called "The Great Smokey Mountains"--haze and fog are not by any means a new phenomenon.
To continue upon the point, however--we've indeed done some stupid things (including some that were intended to help the environment--check out Mesa Verde or the presence of mon... mongeese? mongooses? Whatever... on various tropical Pacific islands.), ranging from the complete deforestation of much of Appalachia to various toxic dumping (Amusingly enough, that's how we discovered antifreeze--some company was dumping their byproduct into the local stream and folks couldn't figure out why it was the only stream that winter to not freeze over.) to the Erie River, which was so shrouded with trash and oil that the river itself caught fire at least twice.
However, far more common are the hoaxes, scares, and flat-out BS perpetrated in the name of the environment, so perhaps I tend to be a bit too leery when it comes to such matters.
As for government funding, there should not be. There is nothing within our government's rights or duties to stop people from using oil, and companies are already working on other sources of energy for the reason that companies always work on making new things--it'll make them a fortune.
Not only do I think that eventually we will find non-petroleum-based sources of energy, I'm sure of it. After all, think of what someone in New York City, circa 1900, would have said if you asked what would be the biggest problem by 2000. Most likely, it would be horses. (Just think of the biggest problem; a horse craps about 20-25 pounds a day. Assume that every 3rd person in 2000 owns a horse (after all, in real life about every second person owns a car in America) and you're dealing with more than 2 million horses. How are you going to dispose of more than 40 million pounds--upwards of 20,000 tons--of horse crap every day?) And yet, horses were a minimal problem in New York City in the year 2000--in fact, I don't believe it would be much of a stretch to say they weren't a problem at all. Science. And we didn't need a government grant to figure out how to make a car, either--it was some horrid capitalist who realized that if he figured this out it would make him filthy rich.
In the meantime, if you want these resources discovered, the best way to do it is not to thrust the invisible foot of government into the matter, which invariably screws up everything it comes into contact with and at best screws it up only slightly. What's going to solve the 'car problem' is exactly what solved the 'horse problem'--good ol' American ingenuity. And the way to help them is not to monitor, regulate, and generally screw them, but to give them--actually, to just step aside and let them get for themselves--what they need, and let them go to work.
Nuclear power would be great, and extremely efficient, but environmentalists protest that the byproduct--usually depleted Uranium pellets, I believe--still gives off radiation and will therefore destroy the entire planet. However, these pellets, upon having outlived their usefulness, are collected into tubes/rods that are designed not to let any radiation or toxins in or out. Those tubes are set into barrels, which are designed not to let radiation or toxins in or out. Finally, these barrels are buried VERY far underground--much farther undergound than the water table--in, you guessed it, a hole dug, walled, coated, and filled in ways that don't let any radiation or toxins in or out.
That's an interesting concept. My only question would be, how long could this process of storage last? In the extreme long term, would we only be hurting ourselves further by piling up waste, even if it doesn't effect us for hundreds of years?
Take care all.
Im a proponent of nuclear power to a degree. Unfortunately, you can't run a car on nuclear power.Quote:
Nuclear power would be great, and extremely efficient, but environmentalists protest that the byproduct--usually depleted Uranium pellets, I believe--still gives off radiation and will therefore destroy the entire planet. However, these pellets, upon having outlived their usefulness, are collected into tubes/rods that are designed not to let any radiation or toxins in or out. Those tubes are set into barrels, which are designed not to let radiation or toxins in or out. Finally, these barrels are buried VERY far underground--much farther undergound than the water table--in, you guessed it, a hole dug, walled, coated, and filled in ways that don't let any radiation or toxins in or out.
That's true in part--just like you can't run a car (at least, not efficiently) off of coal. But you can shovel the coal into a power-plant and run your car off of the electricity--and if we were to go to electric cars and increase the demand for coal, we wouldn't really be helping much; especially since coal is not only far dirtier than gasoline, but gives off more radioactive material than nuclear fission.Quote:
Im a proponent of nuclear power to a degree. Unfortunately, you can't run a car on nuclear power.
Nuclear power would do two things--one is to make electricity cheaper and cleaner; thus electric vehicles would be a more available and more attractive alternative. The other is to make not just the electricity for cars but electricity in general much cheaper and cleaner--we use tons upon tons off the stuff every day, after all.
I see your point. However, one problem is that it is pretty expensive to build a nuclear power plant, and I doubt that it would be immediately profitable. This prevents it from happening. Another thing, is where are we going to put the nuclear power plants? More would obviously need to be built. Nobody wants to live by a nuclear power plant. If they were put even remotely close to a neighborhood, those homes would lose a large amount of thier value. If the plants were too far away from society, the amount of energy that would be able to come from tehse would be decreased.
True--but these are the same problems that we have with coal-fired power plants, after all.
sorry but why resort to nuclear power? america has thosuand of miles of coast for wave and tidal power, enough rivers for hydro-electric, plenty of sun for solar, enough wind for wind power? why not use them? well because it would mean the demand for oil would drop and so then woukd prices and some very very rich people might lose a bit of money. boo hoo. don'y lose any jobs, plenty of stuff to be build with envirmentally friendly power, and it needs to be manned. it comes down to a very small gorup of people owning most of america and not caring how many people die for their swiss bank account.
Personally I hope Fusion power is developed soon.. It looked like NIF was doing well back 3 or 4 years ago(saw it in the National Geographic and then did alot of research) but aparently it didn't acheive what it hoped, cause I haven't heard much from it there.
Fusion would be nice. The cons if I remember correctly mainly dealt with the increadible initial cost of such a plant. Supposidly clean, and NIF was expected to produce one heck of alot of energy. So really cost and the fact taht we haven't figured it all out yet is what is wrong with Fusion.
That and I remember reading somewhere that if we figure out Cold Fusion it would be possible for people to make Nuclear weapons at home... which sounds a bit extreme to me.. but meh.
Anyways, I don't car for Nuclear Fision power alot.. seems it causes several drawbacks.. though I guess it is better then coal/oil. But I am a fan of Nuclear Fusion.. we just gotta work the kinks out.
As for the capitalistic comments, true it works that way... but will it work fast enough on its own? the government could try and spur it a bit. Perhaps by somehow rewarding the first one to develop a pratical fusion plant or some such.
Why not? Because they're expensive as hell to set up. Wind and solar power are unreliable at best, expensive to set up and run, and not very efficient. As for damming up our rivers, you've got to think a bit, it's not like sticking a mill paddle out the side of a barn over the river. Nuclear power is cheap compared to most other types, usually very safe, very efficient, and extremely clean. Why not resort to nuclear power?Quote:
Originally Posted by Cloud No.9
wind power is perfectly efficient, 40% of scotlands power is soon to come from it. and we are hardly the richest nation either so the cost can't be that dramatic can it for the worlds (second) richest nation (depends how you count it). Nuclear power is still as expensive to set up anyway. brazil did a great job of building the worlds biggest dam and getting 60% of not only it's own but one of it's neighbours power as well. no mean feat at best. what's wrong with the hoover dam? did that before, alright very difficult to do. but a whole lot easier than getting the polar ice caps to refreeze and to stop New York being underwater.
this even shouldn't be about cost, this is about saving the planet and millions of lives. of course greedy american doesn't care about that. nope better to have big bank accounts than to save a few africans eh?
nuclear fusion would not enable people to be able to create nuclear weapons at home. the electricity they get would be the same it is now, not some new fangled radiation electricity. the technology would be there but then again how many terrorists have built nuclear reprocessing plants these days?
nuclear power shouldn't be resorted to, yes it is clean if it is maintianed properly but there is hardly a power station which would fit that category of "always been well maintained" it's not particularly cheap either. energy costs have infact risen than the supposed fall nuclear power was supposed to cause, at the very start people were talking about energy so effiecent it would be free. it never will be, don't believe the claims. it's hardly clean either. waste that lasts for longer than the earth will is hardly clean now is it? yeah we can store it deep enough for it not to be a problem for now. but what about in fifty years? would you be so happy with your house being on top of a site with radiation powerful enough to kill you in a matter of hours and it's half life was a few million years? i wouldn't be best pleased.
but you know in a few years it's all gonna be a good chuckle there ill be living off my wind power electricity (alright the coast is a bit closer now cos "some people" refuse to obey kyoto) and watching on my wind powered tv i'll see the american stock market crash, the price of oil soar, it's land flooded and a energy shortages. at that point i'll sit back and smile and sweetly say "i told you so".
ps can this topic be widened to car and SUV users who also pollute the atmosphere in even greater amounts?
Nuclear power isn't all that bad. Fission I am not a fan of.
On the other hand Nuclear Fusion power does not give off the same waste as fission. Fusion works the same way our sun does. And can, if we ever work all the kinks out, produce a major amount of energy. NIF: "the laser system is very powerful, equal to 1,000 times the electric generating power of the United States" Wowzers.. that is alot of power don't you think? no waste, self-sustaining once started, and no chance of meltdown.. as well as being stable. Sounds to me like Fusion will be the way to go.
As for the fusion... supposedly once we figure all this out people will be able to apply the concepts to make nuclear weapons at home, out house-hold materials... I ain't too sure about that.. but I have read an article in a science magazine about it 2 years ago.. the guy who wrote it was an Anti-Fusionist... so perhaps it has some BS in it.
actually nuclear weapons already use nuclear fusion, that's what the hydrogen bomb was all about. the big problem is not creating nuclear fusion we've been doing that since we made the hydrogen bomb the great problem is controlling it in a way that doesn't destroy cities but can be used for power.
it's not self sustaining as it will always require fuel i.e. hydrogen. and there is still a chance of meltdown. if the taurus method was used then if one of the magnets was to fail the plasma would then break out of the circle and destroy the reactor and depending on the severity of the failure could either cause the hydrogen to explode (a very big bang) or would create and uncontrolled nuclear reaction similar to a hydrogen bomb. the dangers are all still there.
ShunNakamura. you're quote regarding a laser system i don't quite understand. i know for a while lasers where tried to create the reaction and control the plasma to limited effect is that to which you are refering to? if so this wouldn't be powered by the reaction itself. otherwise i've not heard of a power generating system that uses lasers as lasers normaly require something to power it. it's the old energy in-energy out thing.
Cloud I mentioned NIF earlier. I will have to look up my old research paper, due to the fact that NIF has changed a bit since 2000(or was it 2001?).
NIF at that point was trying to find a affordable way to produce Fusion. All this plant needed was the "Laser system" and of course Hydrogen, but I believe at the time they were trying to make the process entirely round about. Something to the effect of producing Trtium and then breaking the tritium back down into it's components... so I guess it was technically a form of Fusion and Fission combined. As for a malfuntion- I remember the National Geographic said(I think it was them.. I guess I could go through their archives and look... wait.. I don't order it anymore so I don't think I can do that) that in the event of a malfuntion the plant would simply die... no explosion, no waste leakage, nothing of that sort... just shut down.
Basically how it originally sounded(NIF is much more then just energy research at the moment) NIF would produce enough power to power all of the US, with ONE power plant. NIF once started would save enough of its own energy to keep its power up thus ensuring it wouldn't shut down, ever.
However it looks like it's initial experiments have failed, they didn't produce as much power as they thought they would(still produced a lot though) thus cost effeciency is still really low, nor did they even succed in the continous factor.
And yes all NIF really is is a large laser facility that re-enacts the power producing effects that our sun does.
First: Pleeeeaaase... People have been telling us we wouldn't last another five years ever since 1776. You ain't the first, and you won't be the last.Quote:
but you know in a few years it's all gonna be a good chuckle there ill be living off my wind power electricity (alright the coast is a bit closer now cos "some people" refuse to obey kyoto) and watching on my wind powered tv i'll see the american stock market crash, the price of oil soar, it's land flooded and a energy shortages. at that point i'll sit back and smile and sweetly say "i told you so".
Second: Kyoto's only goal was to transfer American money to third-world despots, and its only effect on pollution would be to transfer American pollution to third-world countries--many of which don't have the controls nor the ability to enforce them that we have, thus making the problem even worse. Just another reason we need to get rid of the UN.
Wind and Solar power, first and foremost, require wind and sunlight to run. That limits the amount of places they can be placed, and in addition they take up huge amounts of land--that's land that used to belong to various ecosystems. Wind power is noisy as hell, so good luck trying to get anyone to live near it (which means it'll be placed further from populated areas, which again makes trouble with various ecosystems) and the windmills serve as very large and expensive veg-o-matics for lots and lots of birds, as we've discovered in California. Both of them are not only very expensive to set up, but very expensive to maintain as well.
Hydro-electric power is great stuff, but there are only so many places it can be set up--the vast majority of which are dammed already, because us greedy capitalists realize that since it's so easy to get it's real cheap--and it too requires a lot of dredging, building, road-building, etc., that ain't so hot for the environment.
If some way to make them actually work is worked out, than great--but in the meantime, we're not about to put ourselves on a starvation diet to satisfy the hysteria of environmental Chicken Littles who've been proven wrong already time after time.
kyoto's only goal was to stop greenhouse gases. you know that lovely stuff your car pumps out and your power station pumps out that causes rises in global temperature. yeah that stuff. do you know whta 5 degree rise in temperature would do to this planet? as soon as we hit 5 degrees there is no going back because it will become a climbing cycle. it's frankly a toss up between saving few tax payers bucks and the oil tycoon losing that $50 million bonus or a few million deaths. why is that such a huge choice to make? you hate to see your own people killed by muslims but killing a africans is not a dot on your conscience.
it's not something which is gonna starve tha fattest nation on earth. my country is managing it. overcame all that little hassle over it might make a few people who like thier view more than the planet. we are doing it, without the money of the richest nation on earth. and i see noone starving here. and america has plenty land thank you very much to do whatever the hell it wants with.
what is wrong with the richest and most powerful nation on the planet doing something for the earth for once?
Have you actually looked at Kyoto? The only thing it does for the manufacture of greenhouse gasses is moves them from the first world to the third. Same polution--probably more--at the expense of the US.
So please spare me about how we want to murder Africans. It's BS.
it does two things in fact. it promises to reduce c02 levels to 1990 levels. that's right a reduction not a move. it allows developing countries to continue with the industrial revolution which the western world had over a hundred years ago while cutting back on the co2 levels of the countries that can afford it. would you rather cripple african development?
what is wrong with expense to the us all of a sudden? you will not bloody starve. you're the fattest nation on earth with horrific food wastage anyway. this is going to cripple noone but inaction is going to cripple far more than a few coasts.
your absolute contempt for any action taken to spare live is beyond sickening.
Reduction in first-world countries......Quote:
it promises to reduce c02 levels to 1990 levels. that's right a reduction not a move.
Increase in third-world countries.Quote:
it allows developing countries to continue with the industrial revolution
In other words....
Funny how that works, ain't it?Quote:
The only thing it does for the manufacture of greenhouse gasses is moves them from the first world to the third. Same polution--probably more--at the expense of the US.
Don't we spend enough worrying about real threats?Quote:
The only thing it does for the manufacture of greenhouse gasses is moves them from the first world to the third. Same polution--probably more--at the expense of the US.
Would that "wastage" be our sending food to a sizable percentage of the nations in the world? I suppose if we let you folks cripple us, we'll won't be able to feed those people, so you can claim we're killing people to make a buck, instead of... oops.Quote:
you will not bloody starve. you're the fattest nation on earth with horrific food wastage anyway
No, my contempt is for people who will take any poorly-thought-out excuse to harm the US no matter the cost. People like you, in other words.Quote:
Your absolute contempt for any action taken to spare live is beyond sickening.
were all gonna die so why not go out guns blazin ps-dont argue with me coz its late and im not thinkin so either Acknowledge me or ignore me your choice ...night all
no it's a world wide reduction in co2 levels to 1990 levels, not just for first world countries.
it works like this. third world countries need to increase co2 levels right now as they are still having the industrial revolution and do not have the technology that we do to make the a clean process for them. so to make up for this we reduce our co2 levels by more than they increase their's thereby leaving us with a loss in co2 levels to the 1990 levels. this process is then continued and when the third world countries they too then drop co2 levels and everyone is happy. it's not an attack on america it's a fair way of not flooding and killing millions while letting developing countries develop. you may not like it because it sees your fat wallet go a little bit thinner and you may not be able to buy that new oversized tv. now that is a shame puts the great plight of little timmy the african boy who hasn't eaten for 8 days right in persepctive that does. never mind kyoto i've just realised how harsh this entire thing is for america.
and what "real threats" do you have which are more important than making this planet inhospitable?
america has horrific food wastage in both it's industry and homes. wasted food = wasted money = money that could have been spent not killing this planet off.
are you really in the mind set that kyoto will destroy your country? cripple you and put you on your knees?
this argument is not about harming the us it's about not destroying this planet which i guess will harm the us (which i'm all for when i realise how disregardent it is on matters such as this). so meh you're gonna be dameged what ever way you look at it i guess.
i live in a country that isn't the richest nation in the world and we are pulling it off nicely thank you very much. not on our knees with a crippled economy. noone has answered me why if scotland can manage it so effeciently why can't a nation as big, powerful and rich as america follow an example of a country as small as mine?
Exactly... Wind power is not all that powerful, and while it works EXTREMELY well for countries with lower power usage it woudl be much much more difficult(even with our "bigger" wallets) in a large extremely power hungry country such as the US... just about the only thing that can really satisfy the power thirst the US has are what we currently have(and even then it isn't great) or a form of nuclear power.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cloud No.9
I am personally for Nuclear Fusion... I don't care for pollution.. the lung damage that is possibly to be dealt from it is far from worth it. Not to mention any other effects pollution has.
Well with that i think these oil companies are rising the gas prices in america mainly due to the fact that they are about to abandon oil completely and they're tryin to make money before that happens.In america i think we have had a prosperious period.We might just hit antoher depression but i might be saying too much.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shadow Nexus
all i can say on that is We survived an ice age before.WE can do it again.The last Ice Age changed how animals lived and really climate has a big effect on evolution.Heck our ancestors who experienced the ice age can be traced back a thousand generations. so really We are more advance I think we can pull off.OR abandon our cradle we call earthand go into space.Set up colonies.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cloud No.9
side coment:you scare me you mad eit sound like its the end of all existence.
I'm tired of the "you can afford it, so hand it over" mentality. There's a reason people are rich, there's a reason countries are rich. People/countries should not be forced to give things up just because they can. Not only is there a public outcry to tax the working (and thus, higher class) people in this country, there's an international outcry to rob the richest countries.
In short, if you can't do something yourself, you might appreciate help. You might even expect it. But don't bitch about it when you don't get as much as you want, because nobody has to help you.
sasqutch - so america should roll it's fat ass around in it's wealth while the rest of the world starve? you lack any kind of compassion in the slightest you would happily watch millions die so you can line your wallet.
global warning is a far greater problem than the ice age because of the speed it is developing, before animals could survive as it was pregressional, evolve slightly and we got used to it as it wasn't a dramatci change. gloabal warming will not work as the ice age did, the ice age was a cyclic event which happens very slowly global warming will change this earth in less than 50 years. that is why it is such a huge problem and can not just be said to be "one of those things".
ShunNakamura - america may have a larger population and so more enegery demands but it also has more land space, more money and better technology and investment for such things. it would just need to be done on a bigger scale for a bigger nation.
i skimmed through this thread again and noticed someone claiming coal power releases more radiation than nuclear power. the burning of hyderocarbons produces 3 things energy, carbon and water. neither of which (carbon can become radioactive in various isotopes but such ones are rare)
what america is doing right now instead of walking past the begger on the street and not saying anything, he is now stopping and giving him a good quick kicks in the face, stealing his money and spitting on him for being a dirty old begger. find some charity in your god forsaken souls and country and stop suffering from short arms and deep pockets and do something for the good of mankind and this planet for once.
First of all cloud No.9 your immature get out of this discussion now is my advice.First of all how the hell are you gonna stereotype a country and its inhabitants?I'm not fat but im american and im not stupid.Argue over the enviroment not a "bash on americans because I'm british".I hate people like that and they are ignorant fools who really can't debate on it,but can show a lot of passion.I means thats like me blaming the UK because the industrial revolution started there.Please refrain from bashing a country because even though america does emit the most polution doesnt mean every part of the country is polluted or doesnt mean its our fault.All 1st world countries have to accept responsibility.If anything you need to be blaming OPEC.Do you know what they do?They inflate the market and get as much cash out of it as possible.Its very very expensive for a company that was in natural resources to start getting into alternative fuel.Why you ask? Because in America and in a lot of other countries people have this mentallity of getting something thats cheaper.When alternative fuels first start off its gonna be very expensive and next to no one will buy into it.Alternative fuels is too risky of a investment.Companies who do it as you can see how gas prices has risen well i think these oil companies are gonna use there extra cash to invest a little bit into alternative fuels. But right now investing in alternative fuels is very risky.Mainly because of how the World Market operates.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cloud No.9
I think that Clould No. 9 has a point. Being the richest country, America does have a responsibility to set an example. It'll be a test of the nation's character as to what kind of example it wants to present. It's seems a pretty lousy attitude to think that, 'well, everyone else is polluting, so why shouldn't we?'.
Part of the problem with environmental politics is that environmental policy is a long-term strategy, whereas governments never stay in power very long. A true environmental policy looks decades down the line, not just until the next election.
And with regards to renewables, they will run out. It may be in 50 years, it may be in 500. It's basic chemistry - hydrocarbons take millenea to form - we're burning them at a far raster rate that that at which they form. But when they do, it'll be the country that has cut its dependance on them that's going to have the upper hand.
And with regards to the ozone and the greenhouse effect, yes, they are different. And as for the ozone layer hole, why do you think it formed after the use of CFCs were introduced? And now that they're banned's its reducing in size, but it'll take years to close - estimate in 2050.
The thing about CFCs, is that even at low concentrations, they can have drastic effects. They don't get degraded (they act as catalysts) when they disrupt the ozone/oxygen cycle, so they just hang around, causing havoc in the stratosphere.
And on top of that, it has 6000-7000 times the capacity to cause global warming than carbon dioxide.
Here's a graph of the size of the ozone hole, spanning the years from 1979-2003
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi..._hole_area.jpg
The people who want to believe that we are not having an adverse effect on the environment remind me of cancer patients who've noticed a lump, but are too scared to go see the doctor. Sure, reducing our dependance on pollutiong technologies may hurt a bit. But surely avoiding the potential consequences of pollution is worth the cost? To me, it seems irresponsible, and really just plain stupid.
So we should think, "Well, we're one of the highest manufacturing countries, but we should have the lowest pollution, thus lowering our profits, losing jobs, and worsening the economy, while other countries pollute all they want?" Of pollution was so big of an issue, why are some countries allowed to pollute while others aren't?Quote:
Originally Posted by Skogs
The purpose of the Kyoto treaty wasn't to reduce pollution, it was to reduce manufacturing, especially in America.
I'm siding with Sas on this one.The economy in the USA is next to crap the only job in a lot of rural towns is walmart or some factory.Farmers go through a cycle of debt.There are homeless people some of whom who has a PHD and jsut can't get a job in urban areas.REally to find a job besides a fast food resturant is literally a true bless in USA right now.To tell us to lower manufacturing while other countries can pollute all they want is kinda dumb.Now if it involved all industrial countries then i'm for it.No one hasnt even mentioned how polluted China is. I mean heck most of there rivers dont even go out into the ocean they are either dried up or some color it shouldn't be.There is toxic dust storms in its capital.But hey lets all bash USA for all the world's problem with the enviroment.
Well thanks for the agreement, but I would definitely have to disagree with the first part of that post. In America, there is no excuse for somebody to stay poor and jobless, not one.Quote:
Originally Posted by lordblazer
Other'n that, in reference to the fact that Kyoto would have only hurt the U.S. economy and more people would lose jobs, there is no reason that stricter guidelines should be placed on the United States industry than on any other.
It would hurt the USA more than any other country but the USA also pollutes more than any other country but leaps and bounds. The guide lines are the same. It just ends up hurting more because the USA got out of control.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasquatch
i'm sorry but how would renenewable energy casue jobs loses? wind tubines, tidal power generators, solar panels, wave power generators, dams, they all build and run themselves? renewable energy is a new industry to replace one that has to die anyway and renewable energy possibly requires more people. kyoto doesn't encourage less manufacturing it encourages cleaner manufacturing and to make it cleaner you need technology and someone to build that so there#s some more jobs for you there.
lordblazer personal snide comments are not allowed on this forum so politely do stop it, it's not the first time you are guilty of this. i'm not stereotyping american by calling it fat. it is. highest rate of obesity in the world. compared to all other countries throughout the globe america is fat.
as the world's only super power is not right that it should have an obligation to do more than scotland, or even ethiopia to protect this earth?
actually sas i was with you even in the first statement.I was stating the problems we have in america right now.Which i meant if USA was to slow down manufatctoring we might go into a minor depression.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasquatch
and Cloud yes im saying as america is the world's only remaing super power we shouldn't have to do double the work the UK has to do in protecting the enviroment.I mean we are already doing a lot right now.AOver a dozen comapnies has invested in alternative energy sources and even a few big energy companies has done this. OGE has been investing in windmill and solar power for quite a long time(OGE is a local energy company in my area).People are dooing we like your country is are busting there butts over this.And your asking for us to just cut a lot of things.These cuts will screw up our economy.I'm sorry but im 17 about ot turn 18 and im not getting screwed over byt he economy before i even had a chance at the markets.
i'm sory but i'm still missing how creating a new exportable and lasting industry which would create thousands of jobs is in anyway bad for the economy or the people.
CLoud 9 we arent saying its bad but to adrubtly leave the natural gas industry.It'll put the economy into a ressession and your saying that America should be the guys doing this...I think all industrial countries should in my opinion and the fact that a lot of people and companies are investing in ways in america to find that lasting industry and resources before we use up all the oil.But to sit here and tell us we should just stop right now and have the country go into debt is unacceptable. I mean you can't sit here and tell me i don't know what its like to starve.Oh I know what its liek my mom knows what its like and my grandparents growing up during hte depression definately knows what its like.Its horrible and thats whats gonna happen to a lot of people who will lose there jobs if we halved our manufacturing.Though it would be tempt.How can you sit ther eand tell a whole population that they have to lose ther ejob and sit there and watch there kids starve and do nothing about it?Though in a way i kinda doubt a depression will hit but it will affect our market in a big way if we just halved it now.Now if we made efforts internationally meaning that all industrial nations will do the same then it'll be more fair.But to put the weaight of the world on one country is stupid and very very selfish.
i don't suggest a total end to oil power immediately. that would be ridiculous. a gradual change starting from NOW. is what I want. no country can afford to immediately shut down it's power plants. you build up (as effeciently as possibe) your new renewable plants and at the same pace start closing the old power plants. people can then walk from the coal plant to the wind or tidal plant. as well as creating new jobs on the way by creating the actual new plants. it needs to be a gradual change. but it needs to be change started now and be a true commitment with a real goal and under real check not "well we cut co2 by 1% lets stop all this hassle"
manufacturing doesn't need to be slowed down at all. it just needs to be made more effiecent and cleaner. effeciency is what every company seeks anyway so this shouldn't be a hard thing to do.
oh now i see were your going at cloud no.9 sorry about this whole debate against you lol i thought you meant a immediate shutdown of oil power lol my mistake.
oh no. i just want a a fast effecient change. stopping all the oil usage right now would leave you with nothing left to build the renewable stuff with. but i think ignoring kyoto and not improving at a rate whcih will truly make a difference and without a clear defined aim is purely not good enough. what i would like right now is for the us government to sign kyoto and to promise to start cutting co2 and oil usage by using renewable energy sources.
continuing the debate though SUVs.... what's the point? the cost more short term and long term, and are hugely polluting shouldn't there be some kind of legislation to start cutting back on their production and/or sale? for example by making them more expenise to buy and keep.
(ps just to clear up i don't mean to take them all off the road right now and burn them, it would be starting with all new cars and possibly by linking road tax or whatever americans have to fuel effeciency and emmissions) (you would exclude business from this to a certain degree)
What do you think is already happening? Power plants that use natural renewable resources are already being developed and built. All the oil/coal/etc. companies know that the nonrenewable resources will run out, someday, and they'll be left with nothing. So they'll have to transfer over, eventually, to nuclear, wind, solar, hydroelectric, etc. etc.
On to SUVs, and vehicles in general. See, another wonderful thing about Capitalism. Gas costs money, right? People know this. So, logically, fuel efficiency is one of the things people will look for when buying a vehicle. Hence, the better a vehicle's gas mileage is, the more people will buy it, and the more money the company will make. It will bring itself up.
Kyoto would require an immediate decrease in manufacturing to cause the immediate decrease in pollution. It also would place much stricter regulations on the U.S. than any other country--that's what it's designed for, to weaken the U.S. And, again, I don't buy in to "Well America can afford it, we should screw them over."
kyoto would not cause an immediate drop in manufacturing. it would ask for an immediate drop in polluttion levels. this can be done by making the process more effecient or cleaner. don't need to cut anything down for that just need to spend a little extra money here and there. but production levels could remain the same and in fact if you increase effeciency could increase.
Some hopeful news on the SUV front:
This past year General Motors lost over a billion dollars in sales because people began to grow wary of spending in excess of $100 dollars to fill their car up, which is very similar to what was happening in the 1970's when gas prices spiked. Due to this, there is a renewed movement to raise fuel efficiency levels and basically make it a written law for gas-guzzling vehicles such as SUV's to either ship up, or stop being produced.
If this law does get based, and it has a lot of backing from both sides, Dems and Reps, it would lead to a increased production in Hybrid cars as companies would have to start producing cars, trucks and SUVs which can get more miles to the gallon.
My hope would also be that raising fuel efficiency makes it more obvious to the general public and to law makers that we have to really put plans in motion to end our dependence on oil. If we started now and really made it a mjaor issue, studies indicate that by 2015 we could cut our dependency by 50% in the USA, yet there needs to be some sort of motivation to start this process and maybe, just maybe, something like this would be the key.
Take care all.
(What do you know, people are getting tired of paying too much for gas and are demanding vehicles with better fuel effeciency. I thought I called this somewhere...)
I saw something on the History Channel the other day (yes, I watch it, it's great) that mentioned hybrid vehicles, and I think BMW has a car that can switch between gasoline and Hydrogen. However, Hydrogen is still mainly acquired from natural gas, which wouldn't really help much because we'd still be producing the Carbon as a by-product of the Hydrogen.
It's too bad we just can't walk everywhere. We'd all certainly be in better shape.
Take care all.
About carbon as a by product of Hydrogen. That is not always true. The reason they say it is a by product is because to get the hydrogen it requires an immense amount of energy and most power plants still use coal or some sort of fossil fuel. It we used nuclear power that would not be the problem. Although I wonder what will happen when we run out of Nuclear energy. I am just guessing on the Nuclear energy running out. I really don't know how the uranium and plutonium are created. The quest for power may never be over.
hydrogen can be easily made from sea water. nuclear energy potentially has an empty date. but not for a long long time. a few hundred thousand years if we continue to mine and create it at the current rate.
Captain--
So, basically, the auto makers aren't selling so many SUVs and general 'gas-guzzlers', and in response they're working on making cars that use less gas....
So why pass a law to force automakers to do what they're already doing? This here is the beauty of capitalism--the market responds to the consumers' demands.
Hydrogen is easy to make--run electricity through water (sea water works better because the dissolved salt helps it conduct better, but it's not necessary--and it seperates the water into O2 and Hydrogen.
And nuclear power probably won't last forever--by the time it's run out, though, we'll have something else. Remember, back in 1900 everyone used horses, and there's absolutely no problem now with a shortage of workhorses. Why should we assume that science stopped at the car? By 2100, the internal combustion will probably be as obsolete as the horse and buggy. Not because the government said to make it so, not because it's good for the environment, but for the simple reason that whoever creates a viable alternative is going to be filthy rich.
you of all people should know there is always someone out there whose gonna push it and make a bunch of SUVs when the gas prices lowers a little bit.So why not make a law of it. it may seem like a waste but its a step.Quote:
So why pass a law to force automakers to do what they're already doing? This here is the beauty of capitalism--the market responds to the consumers' demands.
Nuclear power is too dangerous to be used day by day in your car, or trucks cuz' it's too much instable. i guess the best renewable fuel is Hydrogen cuz' it isn't dangerous and some people say that it's even better than oil.
Kyoto doesn't "encourage" anything. It's purpose is to force people to do things--for a possible .04 Celsius reduction in world temperature, according to a theory that may or may not have any truth to it at all.Quote:
kyoto doesn't encourage less manufacturing it encourages cleaner manufacturing and to make it cleaner you need technology and someone to build that so there#s some more jobs for you there.
Wrong. Not just wrong, but offensively, extravagantly--even snidely--wrong. Americans are the most generous people ion the world, and we will and do gladly help anyone and everyone in the world--even people we shouldn't be helping. What we don't intend to do, however, is to give up our job, smear mud on our clothes, and sit in the gutter with the beggar to show how compassionate we are.Quote:
what america is doing right now instead of walking past the begger on the street and not saying anything, he is now stopping and giving him a good quick kicks in the face, stealing his money and spitting on him for being a dirty old begger.
It didn't. The ozone "hole" (a lower concentration in certain areas--there's no area of the world that just doesn't have any ozone over it) has always been present over Antarctica at certain times of the year, and there's no reason to believe that man-made CFCs (because volcanic explosions put out hundreds of times the CFC's we've ever made, per eruption), which are four to eight times heavier than air, are responsible for this. On the other hand, the banning of CFC's has limited refrigeration capabilities, meaning that more food rots before someone can eat it. While this doesn't bother folks in countries that have plenty to spare, the CFC ban caused a lot of deaths in nations that can't afford the food they're eating, much less to replace it.Quote:
And with regards to the ozone and the greenhouse effect, yes, they are different. And as for the ozone layer hole, why do you think it formed after the use of CFCs were introduced?
Interesting graph, but where'd it come from? Who produced it, and is there a legible copy out there somewhere?Quote:
Here's a graph of the size of the ozone hole, spanning the years from 1979-2003
Please tell me this is some sick joke, or a sarcastic remark. Just in this thread, your quotes include...Quote:
lordblazer personal snide comments are not allowed on this forum so politely do stop it, it's not the first time you are guilty of this.
"that is when global warming will be important. when america suffers from it. who cares if africans die? they don't vote and don't pay for campaigns."
"i have two hopes in this, that either america in.... or come 50 years it suffers immensly for it's crimes against this planet"
"it comes down to a very small gorup of people owning most of america and not caring how many people die for their swiss bank account."
" of course greedy american doesn't care about that. nope better to have big bank accounts than to save a few africans eh?"
"but you know in a few years it's all gonna be a good chuckle there ill be living off my wind power electricity (alright the coast is a bit closer now cos "some people" refuse to obey kyoto) and watching on my wind powered tv i'll see the american stock market crash, the price of oil soar, it's land flooded and a energy shortages. at that point i'll sit back and smile and sweetly say "i told you so"."
" you hate to see your own people killed by muslims but killing a africans is not a dot on your conscience."
"your absolute contempt for any action taken to spare live is beyond sickening."
" you lack any kind of compassion in the slightest you would happily watch millions die so you can line your wallet."
How you manage to remain unbanned for your flaming and undisguisable hatred of your betters is completely beyond me, but the hypocrisy and utter gall you exhibit make me want to projectile-vomit. Shut up, sir.
Hydrogen will probably be our best bet, although there's still the possibility of fusion. But think about the biggest problems facing us in about 1905... So far as I know, horse manure isn't a major problem anymore, and I doubt someone back then would have assumed the same. To assume that science is going to stand still and no long solve the problems in our lives is simply insane.
Then the cars won't sell. And it's a step, perhaps, but not in the right direction. Do you actually want the government deciding what kind of car you can drive? I'd assume you don't want them deciding what you watch on TV, what you eat, or where you go on the internet, but a personal decision regarding thousands of dollars of your money is a decision for someone else to force you to make?Quote:
you of all people should know there is always someone out there whose gonna push it and make a bunch of SUVs when the gas prices lowers a little bit.So why not make a law of it. it may seem like a waste but its a step.
redneck please don't turn this thread into a "i want you banned thread" because of all things it won't work.
most of the quotes you gave there are sarcasm, irony and sardonism. i wasn't saying africans deserved to die because they didn't vote. it was intended to be a little bit sarcastic. and most of the time "you" refers more to america and it's government than an actual specific person.
and what is wrong with forcing a very rich nation to do something to help the planet.
so does gladly helping african countries mean charging them huge interest on loans? some of which can hardly afford to pay the interest of let alone the loan itself.
and i seriously doubt your idea that volcanic eruptions give off more cfc's than man. someone else said this to me regarding co2 and i found it to be false i would also believe the same about cfc emmisions.
and any countries that can't afford food (maybe from interest charged from loans) (or from famine caused by rising temperature) aren't going to be buying fridges now are they? because the one thing i would want before i buy a fridge would be food to put in it and maybe a nice electrical socket and power to use it.
and i wouldn't mind the government telling people they can't buy hugel ineffeicent vehicles that release huge amounts of co2 and other gases as well as using up a lots anf lots of fuel. and on top of that the ride height of such vehicles is dangerous for both pedestrians and other road users.
First--did I say I want you banned? (I can save you some time scanning--the answer is "no')Quote:
redneck please don't turn this thread into a "i want you banned thread" because of all things it won't work.
Second, it obviously won't work. And I still say it's a mystery how you get away with that.
Because "I hope your nation suffers epidemic death and calamity is sooo ironic....Quote:
most of the quotes you gave there are sarcasm, irony and sardonism
Same thing that's wrong with forcing a very poor nation to do something to help the planet. Forcing people to do things is bad. You do it when it's absolutely necessary, but you don't do it because of some Chicken-Little conspiracy. And you especially don't do it because you hate the people you're planning to force.Quote:
and what is wrong with forcing a very rich nation to do something to help the planet.
You mean when we hand out huge amounts of money to a country, we actually expect them to pay some of it back? And I do mean some, because a significant chunk of the foreign aid that goes to them is pretty much no-strings-attached--and that's not counting the billions of dollars of debt that are simply forgiven.Quote:
so does gladly helping african countries mean charging them huge interest on loans?
Show me a nation where the people are starving where:
A. People are allowed to own their own property.
B. People can elect their own leaders.
C. People are allowed to do business.
D. Corruption doesn't run the government.
The problem isn't that they don't have the resources, the problem is that they don't have the capitalism. And when we give 'em that, you whine about it too.
Or in other words, your claim that we're murdering African people by expecting them to pay what they owe doesn't have a shred of truth to it. Please stop.
Doubt all you want. Or look it up--I don't give a dry fart in a high wind one way or the other.Quote:
and i seriously doubt your idea that volcanic eruptions give off more cfc's than man.
Because of course we don't store food in refridgerated warehouses, or use refridgerated trucks to haul them so they don't spoil, or anything like that--bad for the environment, you know.Quote:
and any countries that can't afford food (maybe from interest charged from loans) (or from famine caused by rising temperature) aren't going to be buying fridges now are they?
Has it occured to you that if these vehicles were anywhere near as awful as you seem to think they are, nobody would buy them anyway?Quote:
and i wouldn't mind the government telling people they can't buy hugel ineffeicent vehicles that release huge amounts of co2 and other gases as well as using up a lots anf lots of fuel.
Yea, because obviously all Americans make their car purchasing decisions based on practicality.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Redneck
before you read this post remember to keep track of how long it takes for you to read.
you believe the entire developed world is against america? japan? france? uk? germany? spain? italy? even the so called new europe? because these people signed up to kyoto? is america really that paranoid that it believes these countries are set against them and not busy tring to protect the enviroment?
capatilism doesn't give you a vote in your government neither does it prevent curroption in government. so if you want a suffering capatalist country then most of africa fits nicely.
capatalism is not a cure for the world's problems. neither is democracy. these people don't care ho runns their country. they care about whether they will be able to eat today. 30,000 people a day of starvation on this earth. take a while and think about that. that sin't counting aids or disease. that is death from hunger and malnutrition. a horrible agonising death simply caused by not being able to put food to mouth. this isn't about who runs these countries. this about giving these people enough resources to be able to feed themselves.
dropping the debt on these african countries would be a start. 11 million people a year. at what time do we stop putting a price and profit on this? the africa commission says that $75 billion is needed to start saving africa. this is not a huge amount of money. i'll put 75 billion dollars into a global scale for you. if every rich country citizen bought half a stick of chewing gum everyday for year. that's $75 billion.
drop the trade taxes on africa. this would increase africa's income by 25 billion dollars. that's a third of the above.
the debt is unpayable. it is starvation to continue it. tanzania is a prime example "in many severely indebted low income countries debt service is more than 100 per cent of government revenue and export earnings. Total debt in Tanzania, for example, is 700 per cent of government revenue, surpassing by far the sustainable level of 280 per cent."
we'll continue with tanzania. 30% new aid is used to pay old debts. more money is spent on debt per person than is spent on health and education combined. 40% of export earning go on debt.
tanzania is a country where people are starving to death. count to 3 in your head. every time you do that an african has died purely of not being able to eat.
these debts are not re-payable it is idiocicy and frankly genocide to think and act otherwise. more people will die this year in africa of starvation than jews the nazis slaughtered. and for what? this amount of money is only to starve africa. our government throws away that amount of money happily. why not for once end the death of millions?
half hearted debt relief is not an answer out of the 42 poorest nations in the world (33 are african) 6 have received debt releif. debt there reduced by less than 10%. but there was no real change in debt burdens or obligations.
we could just say to these nations that the entire debt is wiped. that we will not step back and watch millions die. and charge them for the priveledge.
and the debt has been paid. profit has been made. nigeria borrowed $5 billion and has now paid 16 billion and still owes 36 billion. do we see a cycle there? a possible escape?
African nations pay $1.51 on debt service for every $1 received in foreign aid.
and if you want injustice in this world. iraq owes $400 billion. the us is pushing to have it written of. anyone want to have a guess how much africa owes? 10 times as much? 100 times as much? a thousand times as much? no actually all of sub-saharan africa owes less than africa. 300 billion dollars. but the us pushes for one country.
it is not an unacheivable goal. the first step is abolish debt to these countries. the second is to rebuild these countries. help these countries help themselves. give them tools, seeds, animals, generators, water pumps.
still counting those seconds? good cos i'm not finished.
154 000 deaths occour due to global warming a year.
redneck you do the pleasure that i have done you many a time and provide me with any kind of evidence that cfc emmissions are greater from volcanoes than they from human use. i provided you with the links you asked for please return this.
why would anyone in america who owns an suv know the cost of his emissions of ineffeciency or emmissions if he does not know the price of life.
okay now divide the maount of second required to read this post and divide it by 3. you just witnessed that many africans die.
now tell me again why we cannot afford to save those people.
Check A. and C. again.Quote:
capatilism doesn't give you a vote in your government neither does it prevent curroption in government. so if you want a suffering capatalist country then most of africa fits nicely.
Yes, actually, it is. That's why we're not starving in the capitalist countries. Wierd, ain't it?Quote:
capatalism is not a cure for the world's problems. neither is democracy.
The people who want the money say they need $75 billion. Now, that's an unimpeachable source.... Not to mention more than half that amount has already been forgiven--forgiven, as in "well, you can't pay it, so don't bother".Quote:
the africa commission says that $75 billion is needed to start saving africa.
Has it occured to you that not every "rich country citizen" gives huge amounts of money to other countries?Quote:
i'll put 75 billion dollars into a global scale for you. if every rich country citizen bought half a stick of chewing gum everyday for year. that's $75 billion.
First, how about doing me the favor that I'm supposed to be returning, and provide me with some kind of evidence of your claims? When you accuse people of genocide, it's good to have at least something resembling evidence....Quote:
redneck you do the pleasure that i have done you many a time and provide me with any kind of evidence that cfc emmissions are greater from volcanoes than they from human use.
Second, the eruptions of Mt. Pinatubo in the Philippines and Mt. Hudson in Chile caused a 15-20% loss of ozone in the high stratosphere and 50% over the Antarctic. And here's one with pictures. One eruption, 20% loss.
Uh... when?Quote:
i provided you with the links you asked for please return this.
Because us eeeeeevil greedy capitalists don't care about money.Quote:
Yea, because obviously all Americans make their car purchasing decisions based on practicality.
Maybe not for food, but for happiness? I would say so.Quote:
Yes, actually, it is. That's why we're not starving in the capitalist countries. Wierd, ain't it?
Eruptions like that don't happen everyday. I don't know if this is true or not, but it would seem likely that in between the time that eruptions like that occur, the ozone could repait itself. When humans cause this it can't repair because it doesn't ever stop. Again, I don't know if that is true, it just seems logical.Quote:
Second, the eruptions of Mt. Pinatubo in the Philippines and Mt. Hudson in Chile caused a 15-20% loss of ozone in the high stratosphere and 50% over the Antarctic. And here's one with pictures. One eruption, 20% loss.
If only all those starving people knew that they would be so desperately unhappy moving to a land of opportunity--hell, they'd never leave Cuba!!Quote:
Maybe not [starving] for food, but for happiness? I would say so.
Crude, I know, but come on--a statement like that just begs to be made fun of...
While eruptions the size of Pinatubo or Krakatoa or Mt. St. Helens don't happen every day, volcanic eruption are quite common--and many volcanoes that don't erupt still fire tons of gasses and smoke into the air every day. What humans cause is a tiny fraction of this amount...Quote:
Eruptions like that don't happen everyday. I don't know if this is true or not, but it would seem likely that in between the time that eruptions like that occur, the ozone could repait itself. When humans cause this it can't repair because it doesn't ever stop. Again, I don't know if that is true, it just seems logical.
And what humans cause is 4 to 8 times heavier than air. It doesn't go into the stratosphere where the Ozone layer is, it goes to the ground, where various bacteria eat it.
You seem to have misunderstood my statement. Materialism more often than not (and some would argue always, but I won't go that far) brings missery. Capitalism promotes materialism. Therefore, people in a capitalistic society are more prone to be unhappy. This would explain why so many people aren't very "happy" in this country. Maybe not miserable, but happy? Most certainly not.Quote:
If only all those starving people knew that they would be so desperately unhappy moving to a land of opportunity--hell, they'd never leave Cuba!!
Crude, I know, but come on--a statement like that just begs to be made fun of...
Because you know, the less you have, the happier you are. All those people in those poor African countries? Oh, they're high on life.Quote:
Originally Posted by nik0tine
It doesn't have to lead to materialism at all. Sure I could see how all our ads promote buying things, but until the day the ad for xbox 360 or some other product includes a loaded gun pointed at my head, I don't have to buy anything. The thing is that people begin to buy stuff that they don't need and will use only once before it is junked. That isn't capitalism's fault. It's that people don't cultivate an active and satisfying life that doesn't revolve around buying stuff and going to amusement parks. Hell go for a hike. It's fun, and it isn't materialistic. Failure to get a life is your fault, not some impersonal "-ism".Quote:
Originally Posted by nik0tine
you want a captalist country where the people are starving? i'll give you a few since africa lacks socialist or communist governments.
nigeria, ethiopa, uganda, tanzania, sudan, malawi, vietnam (socialists but still capatlist like scotland) cambodia.
considering 33 of the 41 world's poorest natiosn are in africa and not a single one are communist then i could have went on for a long time.
the problem with cfc's is.......... volcanoes happen on and off. so it happens and then the ozone layer reapirs itself over time. but if you keep pumping out high levels of the stuff the poor little atmosphere never gets a break. because other wise after toba we would have been further upcreek than we already were.
and actually..... the africa commission isn's made of african countries and so it wants heehaw money from the west. it was anice little group set up bye people who wanted to find out the best way to help africa which didn't involve killing it off.
i don't expect every country citizen to give "huge amounts of money" to charity. we are basicly talking about 10p in every £100. not a huge amount to save millions of lives. god you could even tax that amount and noone would give a damn. but mister bank man likes collecting more than he is due regardless of who dies for his new car and pool.
and i have provided you with links everytime you have asked for them.
i think the deaths of millions does not need alink unless you want to tell me hat you belive they all live happily in nice big houses and have plenty to eat and a pool. look at africa and tell me tghat you don't see genocide. starving people is genocide. it was genocide in warsaw and it is genocide now.
Ack... Almost finished and the #$!^@#$%@# browser pulls this 'illegal operation' crap, and the post is gone... lemme try again...
Malawi--currently removing price controls and privatizing their state-run enterprises. Price controls and state-run enterprises are not capitalism.Quote:
you want a captalist country where the people are starving? i'll give you a few since africa lacks socialist or communist governments.
nigeria, ethiopa, uganda, tanzania, sudan, malawi, vietnam (socialists but still capatlist like scotland) cambodia.
Nigeria--hobbled by corruption and poor macroeconomic management. A government-managed economy is, again, not capitalism.
Tanzania--currently dismantling socialist economic controls. Its industry is also suffering from years of mismanagement of the state-run electric company.
Uganda--suffering from erratic economic management.
Vietnam--the government runs most industries, including banking. That's not capitalism. Were you really trying to tell us that Vietnam is capitalist? Tell it to the Boat People.
Ethiopia--currently trying to cut down on government regulation and privatize state-run enterprises.
,a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Sudan">Sudan--It's government is currently spending every dime it gets trying to eradicate a sizable percentage of its population.
In other words, try again.
And the ones that are still erupting? You don't need a 'letup' when you deal hundreds of times what humanity can produce in one blow.Quote:
the problem with cfc's is.......... volcanoes happen on and off.
"There are 17 members of the Commission. All are working in an independent capacity. Most of the Commissioners are from Africa and all are active and influential in the differing spheres of work and expertise." People from ,a href="http://www.commissionforafrica.org/english/about/story.html">African countries. Unless you meant a different Africa Comission?Quote:
and actually..... the africa commission isn's made of african countries and so it wants heehaw money from the west.
First--when?Quote:
and i have provided you with links everytime you have asked for them.
Second--I'm asking for one now.
Because if they don't it must be America's fault. You make extravagant claims, accuse people of genocide, and don't believe you need to provide any evidence?Quote:
i think the deaths of millions does not need alink unless you want to tell me hat you belive they all live happily in nice big houses and have plenty to eat and a pool.
Would you please give it a rest on the Nazi references. Nobody's buying it.Quote:
it was genocide in warsaw and it is genocide now.