October 30, 2008 at 8:00 am
Paul Thornett (10/30/2008)[/b Gun control, ...
Gun control, being able to hit what you are aiming at. In the United States, we are guaranteed the Right to Keep and Bear Arms by the Second Amendment to our Constitution.
Outlaw guns and only Outlaws will have guns.
I want my firearms to protect me, my family, and my property. I can not rely on the federal, state, or local governments to protect me when needed, only to respond (in some period of time) when something happens. Which, unfortunately, may not be soon enough.
October 30, 2008 at 8:06 am
Yikes, get back to energy. Ignore the politics for now. We all have opinions on the matter, and they are that, opinions.
I'm not convinced of global warming, but I do think we are reducing our stocks of oil around the world. Perhaps we'll find more and it's a non issue, but that doesn't seem to be the case.
CO2? Who knows. I don't think we really know enough about the issue, and I'd like to see continued studying of the impacts of more in the atmosphere. We don't want to find out in 20 years that it's harder and harder to breathe.
October 30, 2008 at 8:07 am
I believe the main thing it comes down to is economic feasibility. If "alternative" fuels and methods of electricity generation were reliable and profitable, you'd see them driving the marketplace. The reality is, they are used sparingly beacuse it only makes sense in certain circumstances to use them, so we relly primarily on what is affordable, oil, coal, and nuclear.
The technology is not mature enough for us to get completely off of oil. So we try to reduce our foreign dependence on oil, in part by mixing ethanol into our gasoline, and finding alternatives to petro-chemicals for making plastics and such. People complain that using corn for ethanol has driven up food prices, but corn is only a temporary measure untill general biomass ethanol enzymes and other means can be utilized to make ethanol even cheaper and from more various sources. (personally I'd like to see us get all the corn syrup out of our food, maybe that would help some)
Newwer technologies are available to burn even dirty Appalachian coal (as opposed to the more rare lowwer sulfer coal) more cleanly, it's a matter of getting the facilities built to utilize these technologies. Coal use isn't going to go away, we just need to be smarter about how we use it.
The biggest problem with our nuclear energy program in the U.S. is that most of the facilities here are 1970's technology, that are aging, require alot of maintenance, and have a waste problem. Newwer technology would allow for better utilization of nuclear fuel, and reduce waste by allowing reprocessing and repurposing of spent fuel.
To suppliment these, we are going to see a growing use of alternative generation methods such as solar, wind, hydroelectric, and other means, where they make sense.
October 30, 2008 at 8:09 am
Gun control, public health, capital punishment, corporate America - just 4 areas where you are so far behind most of the rest of the world.
Gun Control, as stated by another poster, means you have criminals with guns and law abiding citizens without a means to protect themselves when the need arises.
Public health - I agree it needs to be improved, but not by stealing money from hard working people.
capital punishment - Some people are poison to the world. Some crimes so hideous that this is an appropriate sentence. Why should a murderer be allowed to live out thier life in a cushy prison cell with cable tv, 3 square meals, exercise room, etc. when that victim does nto get the same chance?
corporate America - This is the backbone of the US Ecomony, you take down corporate america and the american economy collapses.
October 30, 2008 at 8:17 am
As for the U.S.'s economy being in shambles, I believe most of Europe and Asia are going through the same things, i.e. it is a global economic issue, not just an U.S. economic issue. Banks all over the world decided to get in on the subprime mortgage game, and now we are all in trouble. Shouldn't that mean that the world should work together to solve the issue?
How is the U.S. one of the 'most uncivilized countries in the world'? I guess I have a hard time understanding that. Because our Constitution gives people the right to bear arms? Is that the argument? I've never been a hunter or sportsman and never owned a firearm, but it isn't my right to tell a responsible adult that he or she cannot own a firearm.
Is all public healthcare problem free? From people I've spoken to from countries with 'free' public healthcare systems, I would say they are not all completely satisfied with the experience.
My point is that each country and area of the world has their own issues and making blanket statements like those above are, in my opinion, irresponsible.
I agree that the U.S. has their own set of MAJOR issues to contend with, and there will always be those who take advantage of the current laws and regulations to their own benefit and/or at the expense of others. Yes, some things DEFINITELY need to change, but I'd disagree with the implied answer that increased government oversight and influence over personal rights and freedoms is the way the solve these problems.
October 30, 2008 at 8:23 am
Good post.
If I may be somewhat country egoistic, I would not mind a warmer climate 🙂 and I find it good that the pollution also affects the countries that has huge pollution numbers the most, like usa and china. In Sweden where I live, we have I'd say roughly 3 month of warm summer and the rest is autumn/ spring / winter. Thou, a to warm climate also would affect us after a while by a lot, especially if those sulphur producing plants in the sea starts reaching the surface that I read some report would happen if the climate became a lot warmer (sorry can not remember the articles name or the heat / pollution needed for that catastrophe to happen).
I do however believe in green energy. And my country is one of the leading countries for technology on some of the areas. "We" want to be a country to look at for others to who how it can be done, but we, even if we do not pollute as much per person as usa by far we still have to high values ourselves and a lot to work at.
But this always follows the cash as everything else, once green energy becomes more profitable way more companies will become interested and the development towards green energy will increase. How to get green energy more profitable, I do not know, increase taxes on some energy sources mixed with the state supporting research maybe as well as other idés are available.
October 30, 2008 at 8:30 am
Ok, given your post and this article http://www.hydrogen.co.uk/h2_now/journal/articles/2_global_warming.htm the CO2 numbers look ok. You are still looking at a 30% increase in the last hundred years. Do you know what ALL of the consequences of that 30% increase is going to be? I don't think anyone does. Further, as the article supports your claim at the current levels, it also states that given current trends, the level by 2100 will around 800 ppm. Anybody know what that will do?
There are many smart people who know more about this than me and I suspect you. Many of those people say there is a problem. Some of them say there is not.
Just because something is measured in ppm, doesn’t mean it is insignificant. If the CO level in your house is above 40ppm, that is considered dangerous.
Even climate change aside, aren't there other little problems with burning oil and coal? I think I've heard that they tend to put out one or two pollutants (not counting CO2).
Ultimately, you are correct in that this is a self-limiting problem.
Oil and coal are both finite resources.
Maybe we should look for replacements now, instead of when the boom falls and there just isn't any more to go around.
October 30, 2008 at 8:32 am
If you are undecided on who to vote for go to the Thomas web site which is part of the Library of Congress web site and check out the legislation the two candidates have penned or associated themselves with. I'm not talking about volume since McCain has been in office longer than Obama. I'm talking about the content of what they spend their time creating laws about and spending your tax dollars on. Also, both candidates voting records can be compared.
I treat whatever they say on the campaign trail as a lie which leaves me no choice but to look at what they have actually done in order to discern the truth about which one will probably make a better president and who I will vote for to at least pretend to work for American citizens.
October 30, 2008 at 8:32 am
How did we get on gun control? No, I'm not asking for someone to point out the quote.
Of course, we have had some recent suggestions on this forum that bringing guns to work might be acceptable when it comes to deal with gnarly managers and developers...;)
The point: Maybe we can try to stick a little closer to topic? :w00t:
I'm going to repeat a suggestion from a few months back - maybe at some point we need an editorial on why the IT field attracts not only people with artistic leanings such as photographers and musicians, but why it attracts people with extremely strong political views?
___________________________________________________
“Politicians are like diapers. They both need changing regularly and for the same reason.”
October 30, 2008 at 8:34 am
I have to agree with cliffb above that a big part of the mess we are in is due to government.
In a normal market, high profits would result in more production of the profitable item and more producers entering the market resulting usually in lower prices. In the energy business, this does not seem to be working in the current situation.
My view is that we need multiple sources of energy.
1. Oil is necessary at least in the short run because our economy and infrastructure are built around that. Attempts to increase the supply and create new processing facilities have been stymied in Congress and the Courts. This drives up the cost of oil without adding to the supply. Also, it does not make sense to me to depend on sources outside of the US as we can see OPEC can and will adjust the supply to meet their needs and we do not have much say in the matter. Having sufficient local capacity makes it more difficult to them to do this and we can choose to buy or produce based on what makes most sense to us.
2. Renewable sources like wind and solar, have some merit but are not as cost effective but giving our ingenuity could change the equation. My main objection is that wind farms do impose a huge impact on the visual enviroment as Ted Kennedy knows since he did not want a wind farm visible from his property. Wind and Solar are dependent on large footprints and a good steady source of wind and sun. Usually this would require being located in more remote regions and to move this energy, would require new powerlines and related equipment. Currently large amounts of household energy are produced closer to the place where they are consumed making transmission cost and facilities less a problem. It seems to me that some groups that scream about putting a road through pristine forests might also have a problem with powerlines and other facitlities and it is probably the the least cost path might take them through such places.
3. Nuclear energy is also something that should be on the table. I am not sure why the hysteria around this since most of the Europe seems to be handling this without a "meltdown". Again, our technology and ingenuity when applied to this source of energy should make it safe and efficient. The technology for this has improved greatly (in other countries) over the years and I think it could replace a lot of the oil use going to home and business electricity uses.
4. Conservation should be part of the equation. Each of us can probably look around a find something that they do that wastes energy. However, there is one place IMHO that seems to be a big waste...that is the amount of time spent sitting in your car waiting at a light when there is no traffic from the other direction...or stoplight just ahead that turn red when the one you are at turns green. Here is a place where the inefficiency of government shows it true colors. With the thousands and thousands of roads and intersections, I would guess that efficiencies have been discovered in addressing this problem, but I doubt that the collective knowledge of these government agencies has not been shared in a comprehensive manner.
5. One last note on government. When the government is part of the solution, the solution is dictated by political considerations not rational. And the government has only one tool in its toolbox...the sledgehammer.
Thanks for ready my rant...
Bob
October 30, 2008 at 8:46 am
I would prefer that we leave politics to political forums.
If you think a corporation is making too much money buy some of their stock. Use their money to buy more wind turbines.
It is ironic that offshore Louisiana, home to a significant number of oil platforms, is one of the best locations in the country for wind farms.
The new platforms will become artificial reefs. Bird carcasses will improve fishing further. Cajuns have a recipe for a meal called Debris. We don't waste anything here.
The head of the Sierra Club in South Louisiana is leading an initiative looking into developing the wind farm. Did I mention that he owns the local Cadillac dealership?
What a country!
October 30, 2008 at 8:57 am
We used to be "Americans" - now we are "Republicans" and "Democrats". When I hear people say things like "I dont think the Democrats/Republicans can/will..." I just shiver to think we have deteriorated to the point where we are no longer even Americans. We dont think about "us" as a whole - we think about those who "think like I do".
As Americans we seem to have completely lost any common sense thinking - odd too, as that was the foundation of this country - good old common sense. For example, we are now either "for the war" or "against the war" and yet either way we are spending 10 Billion dollars a month on this adventure. TEN BILLION. Imagine what that might be doing right now for all the people losing homes, healthcare, life savings, etc. - let alone energy research!
Steve has a great, but flawed concept in saying he wishes that our pursuit of energy was like the space-race in the 1960's. I lived through that time and my Dad worked in that endevour. The problem Steve is that in those days we were still all Americans, where today, we are not. We are [political party] first and foremost, and then Americans afterwards. In the 1960's we united as Americans to achieve a landing on the Moon - we didnt bicker about Republican ideas and Democrat ideas - there was no time or stomach for that with such an important thing to achieve.
Now, we have one candidate chanting the mantra "drill baby drill" when we already know we cannot drill our way out of our current energy mess. His supporters cheer this message! That is astounding to me - and yet indicative of what we have become, and more, how we are sewing the seeds of our own doom.
Simply put, we have lost common sense, almost totally. We will leave the coming generations with immense debt, a very dangerous world, and a lifestyle far from that our parents, let alone ourselves, were able to enjoy. Its a pretty sad picture when you consider that we had the potential to do and be so much more - but we chose self-indulgence, and political party over the fact that we all are, first and foremost, fellow countrymen and women.
October 30, 2008 at 9:00 am
So far the consequences have been pretty darn good. We currently live in the most affluent country in human history. Oil, gas, and coal is supporting technology that enables you to live beyond the wildest imaginations of tyrants and kings in earlier eras.
the fact remains that 800 ppm is 0.08% of the atmosphere. In the history of the planet the CO2 concentration has been orders of magnitude higher. In fact the concentration would have to reach 15% to kill most animals! Carbon Monoxide CO is a totally different chemical and it is not the by product of biological respiration but rather from the incomplete burning of fuel. You point is a nonsequitor.
The planet belches more pollutants into the atmosphere in one day than humans do in a year. The SOx and NOx generated from burning have been reduced greatly by technology like scrubbers and catalytic converters so we can burn in a environmentally friendly manner.
All resources are finite, but nobody knows how much coal, gas and oil exists. They have been talking about running out of oil since the beginning of the oil industry and today we have more proven oil reserves than at any time in history. Human ingenuity made that happen and it will be human ingenuity that discovers the next energy production technology. Green is a meaningless terms since most "green" ideas have be rather anti green. Ethanol is a prime example of the disaster good intension can cause in the name of "green".
Look for any replacement you want and compete in the marketplace to determine the best solution, but do not use force and coercion to impose your favored idea on the rest of us.
October 30, 2008 at 9:16 am
A flawed concept, perhaps, maybe even probably. I wish we could band together and better use our resources.
In studying economics, one thing I've learned, or think I have, is that markets aren't efficient. There comes a point where you have something grow large, like the oil industry, that then can exert disproportionate influence on the ability of the market to correct. There is a certain amount of resistance to change that has to be overcome. Government helped foster other industries, is it a problem to foster renewable energy generation? I think it's worth a debate, not an edict.
Is ethanol a bad idea? I'm not sure it is. Just like I'm not sure of global warming. Perhaps the way it's been pushed isn't great, again, I'm not sure, but we should be investigating it. We should find ways to advance and be more efficient. I hope we never run out of oil, and it's definitely a part of moving forward to get there from here, but I don't believe it's a long term solution. Hopefully I'm wrong that we don't have a problem here.
October 30, 2008 at 9:18 am
Yes, oil has given us many things. No denying that. Can't live without it.That doesn't mean that we should just keep doing what we are doing with no regard to the future.
Well, the point I was trying to make by mentioning CO, was that it isn't the percentage of the atmosphere that was important. A very small amount of something can have dangerous consequences, or, in the case of CO2, unknown consequences. That's the problem. The are unknown. They can be guessed at.
Yes, the planet puts crap in the air too. We just add to that. The cleaning capabilities of the scrubbers are certainly getting better. If they are being used. Do China and Inda have these mechanisms on all of there coal fired plants?
I almost thought you were going to agree with me on the finite resources argument. Oh well. Please note that I am not bringing Ethanol to the table, you are. Here at lease we agree. It currently takes to much food and water to produce economically. Then, of course, the underlying problem still exists that you are burning something to go but a bottle of Worcester sauce sauce at the grocery store.
Sorry, didn't know I was using
force and coercion to impose your favored idea on the rest of us.
Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 53 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply