Global Warming vs. Terrorism

okie wrote:

plainoldme, put me on record for loving oil companies. If all gas stations closed, talk about wreaking havoc! Not only would you not be able to get to work, but the food in the grocery stores would start disappearing pretty quickly.

I didn't have a car for six weeks, early in 2005, and I walked the 3.8 miles one way, twice a day.

0 Replies

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date Posted: 06/27/2006 9:56 AM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I heard John Kerry speak at Boston's legendary Fanueil Hall yesterday. What a magnificent man he is, and how I regret not having come to an event featuring him earlier. I was among the left wingers who held their noses while voting for Kerry, which shows how pervasive the poisonous effect of the right wing is on America.

Among the things Kerry said:

There is no way to drill ourselves out of this crisis.

Sure, there are people who say global warming still needs to be debated. Let me tell you what it takes to start a debate: one flat worlder in the room. There are too many members of Congress who are flat worlders.

There has been a national neglect of energy and climatic policy since the end of the CArter administration.

Bush's policy has been to feed the addiction to fossil fuels.

America is not addicted to fossil fuels because it wants to be; Washington is addicted to oil because powerful influences want it to be.

If you offend no one, you change nothing.

We must end the empire of oil. Here in Massachusetts, 150 years ago, no one could foresee a future that did not depend on whale oil.

In 1930, 10% of all homes had electricity and the power companies thought it too expensive to string wire in rural areas where houses were far apart. Congress subsidized the wiring of America and, by 1950, few home were dark. Congress needs to subsidize wind, solar and biomass.

He focused on three steps:

1.) a goal of reducing oil consumption by 2.5M barrels a day by 2015. This is a mandate because IT IS TOO LATE FOR VOLUNTARY MEASURES.

2.) Expand the use of renewable fuels. The cost of putting one pump that dispenses E-85, or whatever fuel might be developed, in every gas station in the country is the same as the budget for one week's presence in IRaq.

3.) Dedicate ourselves to serious climate change. The Bush Administration presents a "flagrant . . . dangerous disavowal of science."

0 Replies

Plain Ol Me is terribly confused about the Energy Crisis. First of all, let's place the blame where it belongs:

First of all- Can Plain Ol Me Guess who the people were who flatly turned down the proposal to put windmills off the coast of Cape Cod to generate electric power wihtout pollution?

Answer- Why the rich people who live on Cape Cod. They were led by the conscience of the Senate- TedKennedy.

Secondly, Does Plain Ol Me know that the alleged Global Warming has no borders?

Germany is in violation when it plans to open eight huge new coal fired power plants.

China and India, as developing Countries have no goal to meet. Their pollution alone will make the efforts of all countries moot.

The following countries, as of June 29, 2005 had not met their Kyoto goals-

France increased 6.9 percent instead of holding even as it promised

Italy- 8.3% Greece--28.2 % Ireland--40.3% The Netherlands- 13.2 %
Portugal- 59% Spain- 46.9%

MAYBE KERRY CAN GET THEM TO COOPERATE!!!

Thirdly, we have tons of oil offshore. But the Green go-goos won't let drilling take place--

http://news.cornell.edu/Chronicle/03/4.3.03/ACS-Cathles.html

U. S. reliance on foreign oil production could be reduced by chemically mapping the subsurface streams of hydrocarbons, amounting to TENS OF BILLIONS OF BARRELS, hidden well below the Gulf of Mexico, a Cornell geologist reports.

0 Replies

plainoldme wrote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date Posted: 06/27/2006 9:56 AM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I heard John Kerry speak at Boston's legendary Fanueil Hall yesterday. What a magnificent man he is, and how I regret not having come to an event featuring him earlier. I was among the left wingers who held their noses while voting for Kerry, which shows how pervasive the poisonous effect of the right wing is on America.

Among the things Kerry said:

There is no way to drill ourselves out of this crisis.

Sure, there are people who say global warming still needs to be debated. Let me tell you what it takes to start a debate: one flat worlder in the room. There are too many members of Congress who are flat worlders.

There has been a national neglect of energy and climatic policy since the end of the CArter administration.

Bush's policy has been to feed the addiction to fossil fuels.

America is not addicted to fossil fuels because it wants to be; Washington is addicted to oil because powerful influences want it to be.

If you offend no one, you change nothing.

We must end the empire of oil. Here in Massachusetts, 150 years ago, no one could foresee a future that did not depend on whale oil.

In 1930, 10% of all homes had electricity and the power companies thought it too expensive to string wire in rural areas where houses were far apart. Congress subsidized the wiring of America and, by 1950, few home were dark. Congress needs to subsidize wind, solar and biomass.

He focused on three steps:

1.) a goal of reducing oil consumption by 2.5M barrels a day by 2015. This is a mandate because IT IS TOO LATE FOR VOLUNTARY MEASURES.

2.) Expand the use of renewable fuels. The cost of putting one pump that dispenses E-85, or whatever fuel might be developed, in every gas station in the country is the same as the budget for one week's presence in IRaq.

3.) Dedicate ourselves to serious climate change. The Bush Administration presents a "flagrant . . . dangerous disavowal of science."

Count me in!!!! Democracy in action, With or without the government.

0 Replies

Why did the author of this thread chose to stack global warming against terrorism? Apples and oranges?

0 Replies

Are you unable to respond to the evidence which shows that the undertaker, Sen. Kerry is full of hot air, Plain Ol Me? I will give you another shot at it--

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Plain Ol Me is terribly confused about the Energy Crisis. First of all, let's place the blame where it belongs:

First of all- Can Plain Ol Me Guess who the people were who flatly turned down the proposal to put windmills off the coast of Cape Cod to generate electric power wihtout pollution?

Answer- Why the rich people who live on Cape Cod. They were led by the conscience of the Senate- TedKennedy.

Secondly, Does Plain Ol Me know that the alleged Global Warming has no borders?

Germany is in violation when it plans to open eight huge new coal fired power plants.

China and India, as developing Countries have no goal to meet. Their pollution alone will make the efforts of all countries moot.

The following countries, as of June 29, 2005 had not met their Kyoto goals-

France increased 6.9 percent instead of holding even as it promised

Italy- 8.3% Greece--28.2 % Ireland--40.3% The Netherlands- 13.2 %
Portugal- 59% Spain- 46.9%

MAYBE KERRY CAN GET THEM TO COOPERATE!!!

Thirdly, we have tons of oil offshore. But the Green go-goos won't let drilling take place--

http://news.cornell.edu/Chronicle/03/4.3.03/ACS-Cathles.html

U. S. reliance on foreign oil production could be reduced by chemically mapping the subsurface streams of hydrocarbons, amounting to TENS OF BILLIONS OF BARRELS, hidden well below the Gulf of Mexico, a Cornell geologist reports.

I know it is difficult for you to debate, Plain Ol Me, but maybe you can getg someone to help you!!!!

0 Replies

Sen. Kerry is a magnificent man, and would have been a magnificent president. But the Republicans are great at swift-boating opponents and critics.

A CA engineer added a larger battery and an electric cord to his Toyota Prius and is getting up to 98 mpg.

It is almost amusing, were it not so tragic, that the Republicans gave billions to the oil companies to develop alternative energy sources. Talk about putting the fox in the hen house!

0 Replies

I'm all for developing alternative sources of energy,from nuke power to hydrogen cells to sugar cane and corn.

BUT,until those alternative fuels are developed AND made cost effective,we must continue to find and develop our own fossil fuel sources.
That means using shale oil,coal,and exploiting our own known oil resources,and finding more.

I dont understand why those on the left cant understand that.
Is it to difficult,or are they being dense on purpose?

0 Replies

Mysteryman, the problem with all that drilling, etc., is that the benefits are many years from fruition. However, battery technology and just plain conservation are available now. If we only insisted on much greater mpg from autos, we would soon realize terrific reductions in imported oil.

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

Mysteryman, the problem with all that drilling, etc., is that the benefits are many years from fruition. However, battery technology and just plain conservation are available now. If we only insisted on much greater mpg from autos, we would soon realize terrific reductions in imported oil.

I agree.
However,let me give you an analogy.

Imagine a bathtub full of water.
You must use that water for everything,from cooking to drinking to cleaning.

Now,no matter how much you conserve,no matter how careful you are with that water,unless you refill the bathtub you will eventually run out.

The way I see it,finding an alternative way to do things without using the water is great,but until you do,you still need to find and use more water.

It seems that many on the left dont want to refill the bathtub,but that they would prefer it goes dry.
Thats fine,but until alternative means are found and developed,you still have to keep the tub full.

0 Replies

I think that you have set up a strawman. I don't know of any on the left who are opposed to drilling, etc. Many are, however, opposed to drilling in places that where it would result in grave damage to the ecosystem, etc.

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

I think that you have set up a strawman. I don't know of any on the left who are opposed to drilling, etc. Many are, however, opposed to drilling in places that where it would result in grave damage to the ecosystem, etc.

Places such as...?

0 Replies

Kerry was speaking to a friendly audience in Boston, and spouting the same old half-baked nonsense that got him defeated in the last election.

Everyone here (and in Boston) is perfectly free to practice voluntary energy conservation as he or she wishes. Rising prices will inevitably eklicit new behaviors and new competing technologies. That is the traditional way we have developed new strategies and economic opportunity in America, and it has worked far better than the government-directed models so favored in the now stagnant economies of Europe.

What Kerry means by "conservation" is government mandated and controlled restrictions on the use of energy. This is a prescription for economic disaster. Imagine, if you will, the brueaucratic brothers and sisters of those who uinhabit FEMA and the Immigration Service, designing automobiles and supervising the development of new energy technologies!

0 Replies

M, I think that drilling off the Carolinas could be a disaster. Fishing there is huge, as well as tourism at the shore and in the water.

There could be tremendous damage were we to wait for market forces to cause change. For instance, should there be such turmoil in the Middle East that the price of gas goes to $6, we would probably have an economic meltdown.

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

M, I think that drilling off the Carolinas could be a disaster. Fishing there is huge, as well as tourism at the shore and in the water.

There could be tremendous damage were we to wait for market forces to cause change. For instance, should there be such turmoil in the Middle East that the price of gas goes to $6, we would probably have an economic meltdown.

And fishing in the gulf,around some of the oil wells,is extremely good.
The wells keep the water warm,and the fish thrive there.

0 Replies

How can the wells keep the water warm?

Drilling in ANWAR may result in terrible damage to the ecosystem. Moreover, the oil there, were it to provide all our needs, would last only two weeks.

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

How can the wells keep the water warm?

Drilling in ANWAR may result in terrible damage to the ecosystem. Moreover, the oil there, were it to provide all our needs, would last only two weeks.

So you think we should not do something because of what MIGHT happen?

Lets examine that for a minute.
We shouldnt have gone to war in WW2 because we MIGHT lose some people.

We shouldnt have designed and built airplanes because they MIGHT crash.

You cannot live your life afraid of what MIGHT happen,thats living your life afraid.

And even if the oil in ANWAR only did provide 2 weeks (a figure that many people dispute,BTW), thats 2 weeks that we dont have to buy foreign oil.
The less foreign oil we have to buy,the better off we are.

We have the oil shale in Utah,Wyoming and Colorado that can provide millions of barrels of oil,we have oil reserves in the Gulf that are not being exploited,etc.

So,to go back to my analogy,we still need to keep the bathtub full somehow,while we find alternative fuels.

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

Advocate wrote:
How can the wells keep the water warm?

Drilling in ANWAR may result in terrible damage to the ecosystem. Moreover, the oil there, were it to provide all our needs, would last only two weeks.

So you think we should not do something because of what MIGHT happen?

Lets examine that for a minute.
We shouldnt have gone to war in WW2 because we MIGHT lose some people.

We shouldnt have designed and built airplanes because they MIGHT crash.

You cannot live your life afraid of what MIGHT happen,thats living your life afraid.

And even if the oil in ANWAR only did provide 2 weeks (a figure that many people dispute,BTW), thats 2 weeks that we dont have to buy foreign oil.
The less foreign oil we have to buy,the better off we are.

We have the oil shale in Utah,Wyoming and Colorado that can provide millions of barrels of oil,we have oil reserves in the Gulf that are not being exploited,etc.

So,to go back to my analogy,we still need to keep the bathtub full somehow,while we find alternative fuels.

Why drill at all, when you can use alternative methods, such as corn and ethanol? Just an alternative!

0 Replies

teenyboone wrote:

mysteryman wrote:
Advocate wrote:
How can the wells keep the water warm?

Drilling in ANWAR may result in terrible damage to the ecosystem. Moreover, the oil there, were it to provide all our needs, would last only two weeks.

So you think we should not do something because of what MIGHT happen?

Lets examine that for a minute.
We shouldnt have gone to war in WW2 because we MIGHT lose some people.

We shouldnt have designed and built airplanes because they MIGHT crash.

You cannot live your life afraid of what MIGHT happen,thats living your life afraid.

And even if the oil in ANWAR only did provide 2 weeks (a figure that many people dispute,BTW), thats 2 weeks that we dont have to buy foreign oil.
The less foreign oil we have to buy,the better off we are.

We have the oil shale in Utah,Wyoming and Colorado that can provide millions of barrels of oil,we have oil reserves in the Gulf that are not being exploited,etc.

So,to go back to my analogy,we still need to keep the bathtub full somehow,while we find alternative fuels.

Why drill at all, when you can use alternative methods, such as corn and ethanol? Just an alternative!

I agree,those are alternatives,and good ones.
But,neither of them is produced in sufficient quantities right now to replace oil as a fuel source.
So,until they are,how are you gonna fill the bathtub?

0 Replies

We should apply a cost/benefit test to everything. Thus, two weeks of oil may not be worth the risk of terrible damage to the ecosystem. If it were, say, two years of oil, there would be little opposition to drilling.

0 Replies

Global Warming vs. Terrorism

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know