Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 142
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted

According to a Russian geological theory, oil and gas are actually byproducts of a thriving subterrenean ecosystem of thermophilic organisms, the "deep hot biosphere". Under this theory, we will NEVER run out of oil and gas. At most, we will max out when our total annual consumption equals their total annual production. Although I suppose if the Earth's core cooled significantly the thermophiles would all die off.

 

Personally I think its kind of a wacky theory (Russian pseudoscience just like Lysenko) but I wonder if Bush and Cheney don't have pet scientists telling them to believe it?

Posted

Gas prices are really elastic, but there is a breaking point. In the 70s the US got to the breaking point and the result was that Detriot wasn't able to build a reliable and fuel efficient car. We ended up with major economic problems and bought Japanese cars.

Posted

Instead of eliminating incentives to buy hybrids, Bush and cronies should be increasing them. This is the single most effective thing that Americans can do to reduce pollution and lessen the dependence on foreign oil.

Posted
To claim it is one thing, to quantify it is another thing.

 

over half of our footprint results from transport of goods and people. Il one eats mostly locally produced unprocessed food with moderate amounts of protein, and drive a car with twice the mileage of a guzzler, it clearly makes a huge difference (and we won't compare the lighting and heating of a moderate home versus that of a suburban fake castle)

 

http://www.climatechange.gc.ca/onetonne/english/

 

Take the One Tonne Challenge... but if you reduce your emissions from, say, 148 tonnes to 147,

 

did you read the page? one ton would decrease the GHG production of the average canadian by 20%

 

do you still have an emissions level 147 times that of someone in Indonesia?

 

that is a good question which pokes holes in the logic of claiming that people concerned by overpopulation and resource allocation in the 70's where just a bunch of criminal alarmists.

Posted
Personally I think its kind of a wacky theory (Russian pseudoscience just like Lysenko) but I wonder if Bush and Cheney don't have pet scientists telling them to believe it?

 

what they have is advisers telling them that production may have peaked and we better control what is left of it.

 

http://www.energybulletin.net/4428.html

Posted
Sure biodiesel is clean, but there is a limit to how much waste vegetable oil can be produced by MacDonalds and Burger King.

 

There may be a limit, but we're nowhere near it.

 

europe_vs_us.jpg

Posted

killing fat people seems so drastic and (dare I say it?) 'Republican.'

 

It would be much more humane to keep them in pens (not that they would run very far) and periodically harvest the fat via liposuction.

Posted
killing fat people seems so drastic and (dare I say it?) 'Republican.'

 

It would be much more humane to keep them in pens (not that they would run very far) and periodically harvest the fat via liposuction.

 

yelrotflmao.gifyelrotflmao.gifyelrotflmao.gif ---this is mean....must stop laughing--- yelrotflmao.gifyelrotflmao.gifyelrotflmao.gifyellaf.gifyellaf.gif

Posted
killing fat people seems so drastic and (dare I say it?) 'Republican.'

 

It would be much more humane to keep them in pens (not that they would run very far) and periodically harvest the fat via liposuction.

 

I hear it makes good lamp oil. thumbs_up.gif

Posted
To claim that all environmentalists are catastrophists is as absurd as claiming all religious persons believe in imminent armageddon. Whether the ecosystem is teetering on the brink of collapse, or whether it is being degraded in a gradual but relentless fashion, it surely is under assault. Many species have been lost in my lifetime and many more will be lost.

 

When we talk about "ecosystem collapse" there can be multiple meanings. The most extreme meaning I could ascribe to it is that our environment would no longer be able to support any of the humans who live in it. In other words, human extinction. Well, that's pretty absurd, most would agree. But if you change the definition to "no longer able to support all of the humans who live in it", then we have reached that point ready. There are populations in parts of the world who are suffering greatly from environmental degradation.

 

Food for thought:

 

Unless you are ready to assign human presence here on Earth to the existence of a God, then you must grant that humans are a part of this nature here, and our every action is part of a natural evolution. To an atheist or agnostic, we cannot be apart from nature.

 

Somewhat separately:

 

I am coming to the conclusion - completely apart from the global warming debate - that some type of modest, non market based carrot and stick approach (emphasis on carrot) to energy consumption should be adopted here in the US. I would say that a childless Seattle couple living in a 2500+ square foot house is at least as gluttonous as the lone SUV driver. I would also question giving additional, per-child tax credits to couples with more than two or three kids.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...