wow... sorry for it being so LONG....
Taylor,
Wow... I can see that we view things differently.
I'll try to keep things quick and to the point
so as not to drag things out with grey text.
Currently, ethanol requires more energy
But no more than what it took to create the initial petrol deposits
What I mean by this is that oil's low price doesn't reflect the real costs of it's creation, use or effects. We're only counting the costs of petrol/gasoline production per se- not it's creation over millions of years or the costs imposed by it's use.
The conversion of sunlight into ethanol is pitiful in it's efficiency
sunlight > 1-5% plants > 2% yeast > 2% ethanol >
car engine 20-30%
what is a better idea is electrical production:
sunlight > solar cell 15% [ > transmission 80%] >
electric engine 50-99.99%
But that mean that the power companies would be cut out of the business.
(not like that's a bad idea... people producing their own power)
(Additionally, it requires massive amounts of corn to produce and always will (I don't remember the number, but it's an enormous amount of corn required ~ SNIP~ it was an unstable idea from the get-go.
I Agree and got some supporting info on that (above).
But while I don't believe it's the correct thing to do
I can see why its politically correct and expedient to use grain for ethanol vs food.
To boil it down it's all about PROFIT and keeping the same old system
running as long as we can vs changing and modernizing
Not sure I understood the comment about the government "invading for oil," but that's certainly not correct if that's what you were suggesting. I think it would be great if Iraq gave us oil for all the work we've put in over there (not to mention lives), but it's not happening (yet...?). The idea was brought up, but hasn't materialized.
The current Iraq invasion(s) are about oil -always have been.
The Elder Bush (91) war was also about oil as well.
Saddam's land grab for kuwait's oil fields would have allowed him to control 20+% of the worlds oil market. He could have used that to easily influence oil prices. Even then it was seen as as our clear national interests to NOT have that happen. I'm currently reading
The commanders by B woodward.
It paints a solid image of the reasoning and personalities of the elder Bush, Colin Powell, Dick Cheney and the reasons behind Panama & the 91 war.
I don't view it as slanted or political given the personal interviews and quotes.
While there was a true fear of a 2nd invasion of Saudi Arabia
and what that would have done to us...
kuwait was more than enough to commit our government to a full scale WWII style deployment.
Comparing gasoline reliance to heroin addiction is not a fair comparison.
Heroin is a problem that needs to be overcome for simple safety and life.
Oh, I believe it is.
The US economy relies upon oil to function... just like heroin addiction.
We'll fight and steal to get enough to feed our habit...
our nation gets sick if it can't get enough and feel great when it's cheap and available.
We got hooked because it was basically "free" and fun but now it's costing all of our cash.
when someone tells us that we're destroying our home/life via neglect
nobody wants to believe it because the thought it getting off the stuff is too frightening.... etc.
It's different to tell 8 billion people that their #1 source of energy for transportation needs to be cut off.
Make that 3 billion or so... I think that our american society uses the lions share
it's only going to get
prohibitally expensive with china and india's reformation. Demand will go sky high in the next decade.
People won't have a choice... reserves are finite.
reliance upon Petrol use will end... it may be a difficult time doing so, but it will end.
it'll be to our advantage to change now before while we still have the energy to do so
vs when we don't have a choice and our economy has ground to a halt.
Being in Iraq doesn't provide us with oil that we wouldn't be getting anyways. We went in for other reasons and that's just common knowledge
um, what do you mean? Iraq is producing oil...
I honestly believe the bush guys thought it would have gone smoother ..
like a corporate takeover might.
While we all know the stated motives for the invasion didn't pan out to be true at all.
not because they were honestly mistaken in the whitehouse
but because of
intentional deception.
(even though outspoken democrats are trying to make it look like we're there for oil somehow, after many of them approved of us going in from the get-go).
Taylor, We are there for oil... from the get go.
all the rest is political bs intended to obfuscate the issue.
As long as average global temperatures are falling (like they have been since 1998), it's going to be pretty tough for anyone to convince me that this earth is warming.
Well that's a very small sample of time
when you're dealing with something as bit as the planet earth.
the
general pattern is clear for the last 100 years in accordance with our population explosion.
Do I think the climate changes on earth in cycles? Sure. Do I think that certain areas warm while other areas cool? Sure. Do I think either is man's fault? Heck no LOL... They were warning us of an ice age in the 70's and 80's (which would be much more devastating than a few degrees of additional heat).
Well I think that any change by something like 10 degrees F would have a serious impact.
I mean on a planetary level our troposphere is really constant and nice
ridding the edge of ice and liquid water. But it's not difficult to see that if we can create chemicals that can burn a hold in the ozone layer in a few decades then we can certainly have an effect on the planet in other ways.
On a planetary level a few degrees is NOTHING -but to us it famine.
Your comments wouldn't be taken as "politically biased" if they weren't all straight out of the democrat talking points memos.
Hummm... I don't have anything like that in front of me.
I would like to see one, if you got it.
I'm trying to use reason and support it with links that aren't from any political site
to counter your opinions.
true there are things we agree upon...
but I can see that we differ on other things.
I am not copying this off of some brochure.
As Ann Coulter once said:
"God gave us the earth. We have dominion over the plants, the animals, the trees. God said 'Earth is yours. Take it. Rape it. It's yours.' "
Um I'm not sure what to make of this...
IF I was to take it seriously then I would have to reply that Ann isn't a religious authority
but a inflammatory political pundit for the extreme right.
I would personally like to please keep "God" and religious texts out of this if we could.
