I read a good quote yesterday, and thought I would share:
“The stone age didn’t end because they ran out of stones”
And the age of oil will end for what reason?
Al Gore and the envirowackos getting their way? :shock:
Because the powers that be will find ways to make more money other ways. 
Plus “god is going to bring to ruin, those ruining the earth” with their non-environmentally concious ways! Revelation 11:18 (it IS sunday)
What if everyone did whatever they wanted to?? Would you like your neighbor burning who knows what to heat his house, with the smoke blowing into your window. Or how about dumping his used motor oil on the street? Where EXACTLY do you draw the line?
Los Angeles air pollution was horrible in the 70’s before they enacted automobile emmision controls. What do thing it would be like today without controls?
Why are these questions relevant? The envirowackos I speak of want to do away with ALL forms of “dirty” energy usage, regardless of the economic consequences of their disasterous alternatives.
I’m not opposed to emisions control. I’m opposed to enacting misguided liberal energy policies that would cripple the economy while doing little to actually help the environment. We as a nation should very vigorously pursue economically feasibly, clean alternative energies to replace fuels like oil. We shouldn’t kid ourselves into thinking that our current “green” technologies of solar, wind, hydrogen cell, etc. can feasibly eliminate oil within 15 years (like Al Gore promotes).
While the third world countries do whatever they like, air pollution knows no boundries.
Frankly, there are just too many people in this world today. My english teacher said that to me in my english class in 1968. I wonder what he thinks of today’s world population. No matter who does what, what fuels we save, what fuels we use, what food we eat, or what we drink, there will always be a need for more. Except home inspectors.
On what do you base that massive presumption?
What century are you referring to? I’ve heard of stories of the valley being so smoke filled with indian campfires it would make your eyes water.
We’re going to need oil, coal, gas, wind, water, sun, biofuels and nuclear energy sources plus congressional release of funds for energy R&D, along with some behavioral changes form the American public if we’re going to start developing energy security.
Especially with the huge economic growth of China and India, world demand for oil is rising. Supply is shrinking. This condition won’t change, but will accelerate.
We import 13.5 billion barrels of oil a day. That’s 2/3 of our national consumption. The U.S. has less than 2.5% of world known oil reserves. 2/3 of the world’s known reserves are in non-democratic countries, some of which are hostile toward us.
Prudent people don’t depend on their enemies for survival. Energy security is within our reach at a reasonable cost, but attaining it will take work and will require acting with intention, sustained focus and resolve by the new administration, by the legislature and by the American public. That doesn’t happen very often, but it has happened in the past and needs to happen now.
Energy legislation enacted and energy policies implemented 35 years ago made a big difference. Over the last 35 years, materials and energy technology have changed significantly but U.S. energy policies haven’t kept pace.
The latest comprehensive energy report by a very creditable group is the ENERGY FUTURE report by the American Physics Society. Their research and editorial groups have top-notch credentials and they make good, detailed recommendations.
Finger-pointing and bad-mouthing isn’t going to work as a substitute for taking the time to find out about this problem and to do what you can, if anything, to help move the U.S. away from reliance on foreign energy sources.
Left alone, the energy situation is only going to get worse.
Think energy efficiency.
Statistics and information for this post are from the report mentioned above.
Exactly. We’d go through all of this trouble to eliminate our emissions just to have China and the rest of the Third World countries continue to smog away. Heck, they’d probably pick up a substantial amount of our share due to manufacturers outscourcing like crazy to their cheap, dirty fuel sweatshops. Talk about futility. :twisted:
I repeat.
Alberta has enough oil to last 100 years for the entire world at current consumption rates.
"Alberta has enough oil to last 100 years for the entire world at current consumption rates."
And Canadian environmental wak-jobs ( yes we have them up here too, only ours wear parkas) are working around the clock trying to stop the development of the ‘Tar sands’.
I understand George.
If the idiotic pseudo science green lobby can be killed off by discrediting them during this impending financial crisis there will be no more empty talk of oil or energy shortages.
These green scientists have been in bailout mode for decades as they swill at the public trough for their funding to self propagate the need for their “services”. They are like any other entity that relys on governemtn for their funding. There is never enough.
The absolute insanity of carbon dioxide limitations IS what is driving the government manufactured oil shortages, period.
We have so much energy available to us that it is stupid to even talk about energy shortages.
It’s unbelievable that we continue to cede real power to the fools that want to limit growth and control the world in the name of preventing global warming.
I just read an article about energy auditors.
An observation in it stated that people don’t take responsibility themselves. It’s something others should do.
When allotted a limited supply of electricity (depending on your rank in the company), everyone used all their allotment and did not switch to available gas for cooking till the lights went out…
Workers don’t conserve their employers energy by turning off lights or turning off the heat/ac but raise hell at home…
Another poll I read was about if you let your kids jump on a hotel bed.
Most allow their kids to jump on a hotel bed but never on a bed at home.
Careful who you listen to.
Your point is?:roll:
Well said Kenton, I can’t agree more with the philosophy, that the direction has to move forward toward a cleaner world.
I am also in agreement with Kent, that the world is much bigger than we alone can handle, or be responsible for, when it comes to environmental policing.
We can certainly take a lead, however, and do our part, along with keeping our economy strong, and not destroying industries as we make those changes.
I also believe that a lot of so-called "environmentally conscious " people are deluding themselves into thinking that they are soothing their conscience by “proper recycling”…
why do I say this? A couple weeks ago, I watched a 60-Minutes segment where they followed a container of “Properly recycled US computer parts”, all the way from the collection points in somewhere California, across the shipping lanes to the various stops along the way, and ultimately ending up in backwoods China country, where they have a huge industry proceeding to strip parts for gold, and other precious metals, and then openly burning the rest of the junk. Sky’s filling with toxic smoke, water heavy with poisonous heavy metals, etc. and all with no protections for the environment…
Cancer rates were sky high for residents living nearby.
It was one of the worst secrets of the Chinese government, and nothing being done (and they couldn’t give a damn either) about the environment.
So you are advocating that we copy the Chinese in this matter? Why waste money on sewage treatment and underground drainage when open sewers work just fine there?
We should be setting an example for the rest of the world.
I’m sure that there are plenty of countries with lax environmental controls and easy immigration standards if that is what you want.
We already are the example for the rest of the world.
Our prosperity has allowed us to clean up most of the problems we had.
We are now in the area of diminishing returns for the amount needed for additional cleanup. It makes little economic sense to go after the remaining small percentage of our original problems when much of the rest of th world has a long long way to go to match our sucess in the area of environmental clean up.
Maybe they should worry about having them catch up to us before we add ever more restrictive policies here and severly constricting our economy and subsequently the rest of the world’s.