1
   

The US suggests ruinous alternative energy sources!

 
 
Vishes
 
Reply Thu 22 May, 2008 07:51 am
Hey everyone! I think you have heard a hundred times already that Washington is calling the rest of the world to cut greenhouse gas emissions in order to avoid global warming that is allegedly originating mainly from such human activities as oil and gas refining. Instead of dearer petrol, the US suggests using biofuel that is said to be much cleaner and friendly to the environments.
Well, is it so indeed? Perhaps not. Nowadays more and more scientists and environmentalists begin to agree that the negative effect of using more biofuel greatly surpasses all possible advantages. This is first of all greater deforestation which is required to grow more oil seed rape, and using more chemical fertilizers which leads to soil salination and river contamination, as well as freshwater disposal overrun for irrigation.
Secondly, there is threat of starvation as less food is produced, which will enevitably cause a price hike for all food commodities.
So why does the US enforces using more alternative energy sources especially biofuel? So far as oil cost is increasing steadily, Washington does not want oil and gas suppliers to become strong enough and become able to stand against Amerira itself.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 491 • Replies: 3
No top replies

 
Ragman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 May, 2008 11:25 am
Out of curiosity why do you feel Biofuel is "ruinous"? I see it as a source that has a larger carbon footprint than was advertised, but not quite ruinous.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 May, 2008 12:47 pm
You would think the oil companies would hire people that can write coherently to make these nonsensical claims.
0 Replies
 
hanno
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 May, 2008 02:48 pm
I miss TinyGiraffe - he/she was like a non-evil version of me on this topic. Anyway, the world will reach max-human-population relative to food supply sooner or later - some folk don't know any better - I say, let it happen while there's still some rain forest to speak of (will they cut it all to make ethanol/food? They're cutting it now, we get more economic power and sorer consciences from ethanol, maybe we can step in, if not, there's nothing to moralize over anyway). It's like, to consolidate dignity relative to population - but dignity ain't how a lot of folk get off anymore, seems like it's fashionable to say how bad we stepped in it...

More importantly, are we to turn ourselves in such that what we drive is everyone's business? That's fine because driving is evil, but everything we do ties back to food somehow...
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » The US suggests ruinous alternative energy sources!
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/05/2025 at 03:42:30