It's possible. But coal will eventually run out, too.

in 800 years-that's leaves plenty of time to work on alternatives.


and there is oil shale too-we have 3 times the Saudi's proven reserves locked up in oil shale, and congress is sitting on that too for some reason unknown to me:@@:

No SMW, I'm not trying to set you up, I'm trying to understand clearly why you fear Islamics as much as you do. You have alluded more than once to the fact that Islamics want, or will be, the downfall of this country, yet you never even hint as to how you think this might come about. Frankly, the notion that a ragtag band of nut-jobs could bring down this country seems to me to be unlikely in the extreme, and I cringe when someone uses this notion to support any action whatever.



Maybe I just want you to state your opinions clearly.



If you don't know the answer, why do you believe it will happen?

A ragtag handful of nut-jobs leveled buildings on 9/11/01, killing 3000 innocent people, Vile. Multiply those few by how ever many MILLIONS of other nut-jobs who believe American Infidels are the enemy and you have a potential problem.

Do I believe ALL Islamic people should be viewed as dangerous?

Of course not.

But I do believe we have a duty to our country to remain vigilant. If a band of renegade Baptists blew up the World Trade Center, I say we'd need to keep a close eye on their activities as well.

Interesting choice of words... 'unlikely in the extreme.' Wouldn't you say you felt that same way about someone flying a plane into the WTC prior to 2001?

I just don't believe we can afford the luxury of turning the other cheek in every instance.

in 800 years-that's leaves plenty of time to work on alternatives.

You're still thinking in finites. If we're going to survive, we have to drop our "use as much as you want, because tomorrow will never come" mentality.

Tomorrow is HERE, friend.

You're still thinking in finites. If we're going to survive, we have to drop our "use as much as you want, because tomorrow will never come" mentality.

Tomorrow is HERE, friend.
journeys of any length are made in steps, not a single leap. developing the resources that we already have is a step in the right direction.

If that's true, that is scary.

Still, I agree with Erst - our greatest problem is the abuse and misallocation of resources.

Can't guarantee the name thing is factual, Leper... like I said, I heard it from someone else. However, Wikipedia seems to back up the premise:

Projections
Professor Philip Jenkins of Penn State University estimates that by 2100, Muslims will compose about 25% of Europe's population. But Jenkins admits this figure does not take account of the large birthrates amongst Europe's immigrant Christians.[13] Additionally, this estimation depends more on the supposed inevitability of the increase of Muslim population in the West and one person's research on the future of Europeans. Therefore, while Jenkins' estimation should be considered in the process of predicting what it would be like to live in the West in the year 2100, it should also be raising doubts about the entire European population.

Europe's Muslim population (without Russia) has nearly tripled over the last 30 years, to about 23 million, and experts predict it will double again by 2020. In 2005, the EU-25 had an overall net gain from international migration of +1.8 million people. This accounts for almost 85% of Europe's total population growth in 2005.[14] Muslim birth rate in Europe is three times higher than the non-Muslim one.[9][15] By 2050, 1 in 5 Europeans will likely be Muslim.[16]

journeys of any length are made in steps, not a single leap. developing the resources that we already have is a step in the right direction.

We've developed the resources we have already to the point that gasoline prices are rising a dime a week with no end in sight. Your "use our finite resources till they're gone ('cause gosh, 800 years is a long time!), THEN worry about tomorrow" mentality is exactly what's gotten us where we are today.

Sorry, but you're still stepping backwards. It's time to move ahead into new, renewable fuel sources.

A ragtag handful of nut-jobs leveled buildings on 9/11/01, killing 3000 innocent people, Vile.

And the US is still here.


Multiply those few by how ever many MILLIONS of other nut-jobs who believe American Infidels are the enemy and you have a potential problem.

If there were millions of terrorists, you might be right.


I just don't believe we can afford the luxury of turning the other cheek in every instance.

Neither do I.

We've developed the resources we have already to the point that gasoline prices are rising a dime a week with no end in sight. Your "use our finite resources till they're gone ('cause gosh, 800 years is a long time!), THEN worry about tomorrow" mentality is exactly what's gotten us where we are today.

Sorry, but you're still stepping backwards. It's time to move ahead into new, renewable fuel sources.

Here's what I find amusing. People who believe in global warming are screaming louder than anyone about the high price of gasoline. What they don't seem to understand is, the higher the price, the less people will drive and the sooner they will start looking for alternative means of transportation... thereby greatly reducing the amount of carbon dioxide being generated.

$5 a gallon gas might be painful, but since 33% of U.S carbon dioxide emissions comes from the burning of gasoline in internal-combustion engines of cars and light trucks... it might also be a partial solution to global warming.

As the old saying goes, you can't have your cake and eat it too.

We've developed the resources we have already to the point that gasoline prices are rising a dime a week with no end in sight. Your "use our finite resources till they're gone ('cause gosh, 800 years is a long time!), THEN worry about tomorrow" mentality is exactly what's gotten us where we are today.

Sorry, but you're still stepping backwards. It's time to move ahead into new, renewable fuel sources.
if every kernel of corn in North America were converted into ethanol, it would still be a losing proposition-it's takes almost as much oil to raise it as it produces and there just isn't enough corn out there to make a dent.

Here's what I find amusing. People who believe in global warming are screaming louder than anyone about the high price of gasoline. What they don't seem to understand is, the higher the price, the less people will drive and the sooner they will start looking for alternative means of transportation... thereby greatly reducing the amount of carbon dioxide being generated.

$5 a gallon gas might be painful, but since 33% of U.S carbon dioxide emissions comes from the burning of gasoline in internal-combustion engines of cars and light trucks... it might also be a partial solution to global warming.

As the old saying goes, you can't have your cake and eat it too.

I don't know what basis you have for this fantasy, but I, as one of the staunchest defenders of global warming facts, have been quite vocal about raising gas prices via taxes, even in the face of increasing gas prices.....

And the US is still here.

Thanks to the vigilance of the current administration. Or maybe you believe it's just blind luck? Whatever you think about WHY the US is still here, you might want to consider why 9/11 happened in the first place. Was it because the very act was 'unthinkable' in our minds?

If there were millions of terrorists, you might be right.

There are approximately 1.2 BILLION people of Muslim faith in the world. What percentage of those do you believe could be considered radical? Less than 1%? For argument's sake, let's say a mere .1%? That's still 1.2 MILLION radical nut-jobs. Quite a few more than a handful.

Don't get me wrong... I don't believe it's PROBABLE that terrorists could pull off another 9/11 today. But is it POSSIBLE? Absolutely. When we start thinking we're immune, that's when America will be in real trouble.

I don't know what basis you have for this fantasy, but I, as one of the staunchest defenders of global warming facts, have been quite vocal about raising gas prices via taxes, even in the face of increasing gas prices.....

Which fantasy are you referring to, Leper? Afraid you lost me there.

Thanks to the vigilance of the current administration. Or maybe you believe it's just blind luck?

Unlike you, I don't think those are the only two possible explanations. As a matter of fact, I don't think either of those explanations is correct.


Whatever you think about WHY the US is still here, you might want to consider why 9/11 happened in the first place.

I think the US is still here because this nation will not be "brought down" by a terrorist attack that kills 3,000 or one that kills 300,000.


Was it because the very act was 'unthinkable' in our minds?

I think it happened because a terrorist organization set about to make it happen.


There are approximately 1.2 BILLION people of Muslim faith in the world.

The estimates range from 900 Million to 1.3 Billion.


What percentage of those do you believe could be considered radical? Less than 1%? For argument's sake, let's say a mere .1%? That's still 1.2 MILLION radical nut-jobs. Quite a few more than a handful.

I think your estimate is quite high.

Which fantasy are you referring to, Leper? Afraid you lost me there.

I could be wrong, but I believe he was referring to this statement:

"People who believe in global warming are screaming louder than anyone about the high price of gasoline. "

I could be wrong, but I believe he was referring to this statement:

"People who believe in global warming are screaming louder than anyone about the high price of gasoline. "

Maybe I shoulda just said FRANNIE, eh?

:lolhit:

journeys of any length are made in steps, not a single leap.

Tell that to the lemmings walking off the cliff.


developing the resources that we already have is a step in the right direction.

Unless those resources are finite and needed for other things besides burning.

IMO the United States will if ever be destroyed by one means and one people alone-the American people.

The nation is so geared to defending itself that an outside force doesnt exist to challenge it, the internal force is a very different matter.

Muslims in Europe. I would be very surprised if the majority of new named babies in Italy or France for that matter were given Muslim names, what about Germany, its Turkish population is the largest outside Turkey.

I believe Europe is indeed in danger of being overrun by Muslims, tho not yet.
Even here in this backwater, its no longer uncommon to see females with they're headscarfs on.
The Health Service is coming down with Muslim medics also.

Ive said before, I'll say again, Im against Muslim customs being accepted in Europe, it underminds Europes Christian character, it underminds its values and parity of esteem goes out the window as everyone is afraid of being labelled a bigot, something Muslims play on.

If that's true, that is scary.

Still, I agree with Erst - our greatest problem is the abuse and misallocation of resources.

I take it back, Leper... the story about the Italian babies is legitimate. However, the reference should have been MILAN, ITALY... not the whole country.

Muhammad takes Milan by storm (http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3550085,00.html)

Variants of Islamic prophet's name discovered to be most popular among baby names in Milan

What is the most popular name for children born in the Italian city of Milan? The city's municipality reported what some may find a strange turn of events on the subject: The names Mahmoud, Ahmad, and Hamid are currently the most popular names given to infants born in the economic capital of Italy.

The Saudi newspaper al-Watan reported that the reason for the names' newfound Italian popularity is due to the rising birthrate among the city's Muslim community.

According to al-Watan, the Milan Municipality did not overlook the figures, and directed the local media to report their concern for the issue, which is "worrying to Milan's society," in order to warn against the "growth of the religion of Islam and the Muslim community, which may change the cultural characteristics of the city."

Immediately following the name of the Islamic prophet in order of popularity is the name Omar, and next in line are some Italian names – Andrea, Alessandro, Davida, Marco, Alicia, and Sophia.

I take it back, Leper... the story about the Italian babies is legitimate. However, the reference should have been MILAN, ITALY... not the whole country.

Milan, the backbone of Italian Industry.
Half the domestic appliances in Europe are made there, very unlike the rest of Italy.

Paul, I see where your own country has issues with this subject as well. Any comments on this story?

Muslim anger at Opposition calls for school ban on hijab (http://www.independent.ie/national-news/muslim-anger-at-opposition-calls-for-school-ban-on-hijab-1394321.html)
Monday June 02 2008

MUSLIM girls should not be allowed to wear a headscarf in public schools, the two main opposition parties said last night.

Labour's Ruairi Quinn said immigrants who come to Ireland need to conform to the culture of this country.

"If people want to come into a western society that is Christian and secular, they need to conform to the rules and regulations of that country," the Labour spokesman on education and science told the Irish Independent.

His comments come amid mounting controversy over guidelines on the wearing of the hijab, commonly worn by Muslim girl in state schools.

His stance on the issue was backed by his Fine Gael counterpart Brian Hayes, who says it makes "absolute sense" that there is one uniform for everyone.

The Fine Gael education spokesman said the wearing of the hijab was not a fundamental requirement to be a Muslim, but more an example of modesty and cultural mores.

Recently, Nicholas Sweetman, principal of Gorey Community School, Co Wexford, called for official direction to bring an end to the practice of schools imposing divergent policies.

The Wexford controversy followed the Department of Education's refusal to offer advice to the school when a Muslim couple asked last September that their daughter be allowed to wear the headscarf in class.

Mr Quinn said immigrants should live by Irish laws and conform to Irish norms.

"Nobody is formally asking them to come here. In the interests of integration and assimilation, they should embrace our culture," he said.

He added: "Irish girls don't wear headscarves. A manifestation of religious beliefs in such a way is unacceptable and draws attention to those involved. I believe in a public school situation they should not wear a headscarf."

Mr Hayes said Ireland should not be going down the route of multiculturalism.

"It makes absolute sense that there would be one uniform for everyone. The wearing of the hijab is not about religiosity, it is more an example of modesty. It is not a fundamental requirement to be a Muslim," he said.

But Fine Gael and Labour's position on the controversy sparked an angry reaction.

Islamic Society of Ireland spokesperson Summayah Kenna branded the comments by Mr Hayes and Mr Quinn as "baffling", adding the hijab was a religious obligation.

She said she was "shocked" by Mr Hayes' assertion that it was otherwise, and urged him to check up on his information.

more...

Paul, I see where your own country has issues with this subject as well. Any comments on this story?

Well, racial tensions are on the increase in Ireland thats for sure.
Tho this is split between East Europeans and Muslim radicals.

As regards East Europeans, its the workplace. They can afford to come here and undercut local pay agreements, making it difficult for locals to find a job unless they're willing to take a reduction on what they would normally have expected to recieve.

Muslims, seem to be taken by the hand and giving special treatment compared to locals, Muslims are seen as always demanding this and demanding that, and getten it. Its the PC thing to do.

Local people feel like they are being treated as second class in their own country.

I could be wrong, but I believe he was referring to this statement:

"People who believe in global warming are screaming louder than anyone about the high price of gasoline. "

Indeed.

Paul,

It has historically been easy for Europeans to critisize the racial problems in the United States because their populations were pretty uniracial. Italy had Italians, Germany, Germans, Ireland, Irish, etc. Now that their populations are more mixed they are beginning to experience the same racial tensions.

America was easy, it was simply black and white.

Your right of course. One of the problems in Ireland is our guilt syndrome.

Irish people have suffered prejudice and emigration more than any other European country, yet we are turning into what we always hated, bigots.

Sad but true I think :(

Well, racial tensions are on the increase in Ireland thats for sure.
Tho this is split between East Europeans and Muslim radicals.

As regards East Europeans, its the workplace. They can afford to come here and undercut local pay agreements, making it difficult for locals to find a job unless they're willing to take a reduction on what they would normally have expected to recieve.

Muslims, seem to be taken by the hand and giving special treatment compared to locals, Muslims are seen as always demanding this and demanding that, and getten it. Its the PC thing to do.

Local people feel like they are being treated as second class in their own country.
you think it's bad now? wait until you have to press 1 for English.

you think it's bad now? wait until you have to press 1 for English.
Its OK.

Its not our native tongue anyway :)

Its OK.

Its not our native tongue anyway :)
we can tell:lolhit:

I don't think it really matters what country is involved... citizens have the right to expect immigrants to assimilate into their society, not demand that society change to meet their special requirements. (note on the 'press one for English' situation -- most of that is due to companies being eager to market to the hispanic population and very little to do with govt regulations requiring such service.)

Read someplace yesterday that new apartment buildings are being designed and constructed specifically for Muslim tenants. Most important feature? Toilets must NOT face mecca.

WTH?

Read someplace yesterday that new apartment buildings are being designed and constructed specifically for Muslim tenants. Most important feature? Toilets must NOT face mecca.

WTH?

Don't take this the wrong way SMW, but that sounds completely bogus.

Don't take this the wrong way SMW, but that sounds completely bogus.

You mean you disagree that even Toilets must Keep face.
Sheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeesh

Don't take this the wrong way SMW, but that sounds completely bogus.

Oh, ye of little faith. ;)

MUSLIM-FRIENDLY FLATS OPENED

11:26 - 03 June 2008

New flats for elderly people have opened in Bristol - with toilets that do not face Mecca.

The Muslim-friendly Very Sheltered Housing (VSH) scheme in Lincoln Street, Lawrence Hill, also includes beds that allow a tenant's feet to point in the right direction.

Lincoln Gardens cost more than £6 million, has 55 bedrooms and was put up by the city council and the Guinness Trust on the site of the former Wainbrook elderly persons' home.

It includes 19 flats suitable for "tenants from the Muslim community" following local consultation.

A council spokesman said: "The toilets in these flats are orientated so that the user doesn't face Mecca."

more... (http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/displayNode.jsp?nodeId=144913&command=displayContent&sourceNode=231190&home=yes&more_nodeId1=144922&contentPK=20777589)

If they don't like the country there from the should stay and make changes instead of making changes elsewhere.

Here's what I find amusing. People who believe in global warming are screaming louder than anyone about the high price of gasoline.

I invite you to prove that I am "screaming louder than anyone about the high price of gasoline." When you find that you are unable to do that, I'll accept your apology.

:rolleyes:

I invite you to prove that I am "screaming louder than anyone about the high price of gasoline." When you find that you are unable to do that, I'll accept your apology.

:rolleyes:

Exhibit A:

Let's face it, our oil troubles affect the cost everything, and I see no end to that problem. Unless and until we develop renewable energy sources on a national level, the cost of food, clothing, transportation, housing, and anything else you can name will only increase. As a result, more and more people will find themselves visiting the local food bank just to put a meal in their kids' bellies.

Just for the record, Frannie... how many miles do you drive or fly in an average week?

http://i156.photobucket.com/albums/t33/texrose752/chicken01.gif

Exhibit A:

The fact that you are unable to discern the difference between a simple FACTUAL comment about our reliance on a fast diminishing fossil fuel and me "screaming louder than anyone about the high price of gasoline," is no surprise. Tell me, does it hurt your brain to torture facts and logic in such obtuse ways, or do you just like the pain it puts on your tiny organ?

Just for the record, Frannie... how many miles do you drive or fly in an average week?

Well, let's see... my last trip to Dallas was April 7-19 (I didn't drive at all when I was there). Since then, I've been working from home. I limit my errand running to once a week and plan my route in one big circle, no backtracking. I estimate I drive 40-60 miles a week.

How about you? :rolleyes:

Allow me to scream louder than anyone else here-please.
$2:60 a litre.

$20 gets me 70 miles in a diesel car, $40 a day, its fucken nuts :(

The fact that you are unable to discern the difference between a simple FACTUAL comment about our reliance on a fast diminishing fossil fuel and me "screaming louder than anyone about the high price of gasoline," is no surprise. Tell me, does it hurt your brain to torture facts and logic in such obtuse ways, or do you just like the pain it puts on your tiny organ?



Well, let's see... my last trip to Dallas was April 7-19 (I didn't drive at all when I was there). Since then, I've been working from home. I limit my errand running to once a week and plan my route in one big circle, no backtracking. I estimate I drive 40-60 miles a week.

How about you? :rolleyes:

Good for you! I drive approximately 10 miles a week, since I ride a commuter train to work and the station is a mile & a half from my home.

I suppose it was more the As a result, more and more people will find themselves visiting the local food bank just to put a meal in their kids' bellies. exaggeration you posted that led to my comments about 'screaming louder than anyone.' Led me to think you're more concerned about the COST of fuel than saving the earth.

Expensive gasoline leads to less driving and emphasis on designing more fuel-efficient vehicles. Which is more important to you... cheap eggs or a cleaner environment?

Unfortunately, the days of having it both ways seem to be over.

SMW: How much is a train fare downtown in the morning rush hour ?

Allow me to scream louder than anyone else here-please.
$2:60 a litre.

$20 gets me 70 miles in a diesel car, $40 a day, its fucken nuts :(

Your figures made me curious about the land mass differences between Texas and Ireland and I tried to look up some facts. Gave up before I found specifics, but not before I happened onto this site so thought I'd share it with you! See, we're not all backwoods hicks... some of us are Irish!

http://www.irishtexans.com/trips/index.html

Your figures made me curious about the land mass differences between Texas and Ireland and I tried to look up some facts. Gave up before I found specifics, but not before I happened onto this site so thought I'd share it with you! See, we're not all backwoods hicks... some of us are Irish!

http://www.irishtexans.com/trips/index.html

Strange, if I were to drive 400 miles in any one direction-Id drown.

'From Irish Kings to the IRA' unbelievable. :D

SMW: How much is a train fare downtown in the morning rush hour ?

I buy a monthly pass for $50, Paul. If I live to be the ripe old age of 65 (sorry, Frogger) that cost will go down to $25.

Single ride tickets sell for $1.50 and are good for ninety minutes on buses or trains. Day passes are $3.00.

Oh yeah, and trains run on an honor system... tickets are only checked randomly by transit officers. However, the fine for not having a valid ticket is pretty steep -- $100 if you're caught. I rode ticketless one day when the machines were down and I was a nervous wreck. Most people follow the rules.

I buy a monthly pass for $50, Paul. If I live to be the ripe old age of 65 (sorry, Frogger) that cost will go down to $25.

Single ride tickets sell for $1.50 and are good for ninety minutes on buses or trains. Day passes are $3.00.

Oh yeah, and trains run on an honor system... tickets are only checked randomly by transit officers. However, the fine for not having a valid ticket is pretty steep -- $100 if you're caught. I rode ticketless one day when the machines were down and I was a nervous wreck. Most people follow the rules.

Thats a pretty good service down there, and cheap.
For those prices, is it subsidised by the city, or state ?

Thats a pretty good service down there, and cheap.
For those prices, is it subsidised by the city, or state ?

Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) is funded primarily by a 1 cent sales tax levied way back in 1984. Included are 13 separate cities in the North Texas area. Needless to say, there have been numerous fare hikes to keep up with the cost of running the trains (which are electric, BTW). Still have our share of smelly ole buses, too... but most of their routes begin and end at rail stations.

Good for you! I drive approximately 10 miles a week, since I ride a commuter train to work and the station is a mile & a half from my home.

Good for you, too!

I suppose it was more the As a result, more and more people will find themselves visiting the local food bank just to put a meal in their kids' bellies. exaggeration you posted that led to my comments about 'screaming louder than anyone.' Led me to think you're more concerned about the COST of fuel than saving the earth.

It's no exaggeration. Food banks across the country are experiencing unprecedented demands on their resources due to our weakening economy and rising gas prices.

High Gas Prices Hit Food Banks Hard (http://www.katc.com/Global/story.asp?S=8420617&nav=menu209_1)

The U.S. economy and gas prices, in particular, will no doubt be a theme in the fall election. And those soaring fuel costs are driving thousands of families nationwide and right here in Acadiana [LA] to do something they never had to do before, ask for help from their local food bank.

Empty shelves and empty food boxes are becoming a common thing among food banks through out the country and I.C.O.N. Food Bank in Opelousas is seeing the affects.

" There are constantly new faces. Families that we would have never seen before are calling to see how do I qualify," say Volunteer Director, Dana Reed.

Families who've never needed assistance before are having to reach out. Record high gas prices have people running on "E". It's a domino effect that results in higher shipping costs,which then leads to higher grocery costs, so people are turning to food banks.

It's putting a strain on us. I've had to learn how to deal with turning people away and it's difficult," says Reed.

But food banks are suffering as well. Since last year there has been an 80% increase in the number of people needing assistance.

Expensive gasoline leads to less driving and emphasis on designing more fuel-efficient vehicles. Which is more important to you... cheap eggs or a cleaner environment?

I think you know the answer, particularly when I don't have to buy eggs and don't commute to a distant job five days a week. I do worry, however, about others who do.

Unfortunately, the days of having it both ways seem to be over.

I agree. That's why we MUST develop alternative renewable energy sources. Our reliance on fossil fuels has put our nation (and the world) in an untenable situation and it will only get worse the longer we avoid the hard facts.

Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) is funded primarily by a 1 cent sales tax levied way back in 1984. Included are 13 separate cities in the North Texas area. Needless to say, there have been numerous fare hikes to keep up with the cost of running the trains (which are electric, BTW). Still have our share of smelly ole buses, too... but most of their routes begin and end at rail stations.

Had a quick look at it on the net, very impressive. Im begining to see why Texas is so attractive a place to live.

Good for you, too!

It's no exaggeration. Food banks across the country are experiencing unprecedented demands on their resources due to our weakening economy and rising gas prices.

I think you know the answer, particularly when I don't have to buy eggs and don't commute to a distant job five days a week. I do worry, however, about others who do.

I agree. That's why we MUST develop alternative renewable energy sources. Our reliance on fossil fuels has put our nation (and the world) in an untenable situation and it will only get worse the longer we avoid the hard facts.

I'm not sure who you believe is avoiding the hard facts, but I think there are certainly lots of people working on a solution to the problem. And to quote Martha... that's a GOOD thing.

;)
SMW

[QUOTE=F. de Marzipan]The fact that you are unable to discern the difference between a simple FACTUAL comment about our reliance on a fast diminishing fossil fuel and me "screaming louder than anyone about the high price of gasoline," is no surprise. Tell me, does it hurt your brain to torture facts and logic in such obtuse ways, or do you just like the pain it puts on your tiny organ?

The World is Awash in Oil.
It costs OPEC no more to work full production {100%}
than at say 80%.OPEC doesn't want to tamper with the supply,
since Supply isn't the problem.Have you seen or heard of
any shortage.Gas stations with - NO GAS - signs out.
Of course not.The price of oil is high because DEMAND is still
high.Once consumers notice that they cannot afford to maintain
higher and higher trips to fill their tanks,they'll cut back.
China and India have screwed up demand,since being new players
on the demand equation of futures.
Futures traders have priced UP the bid on oil.They bid {price} up,
with speculation of how much supply will be in the future in
lieu of such high demand.If demand dwindles than that will
permit Oversupply and OPEC will cut production accordingly and
we're right back where we started.
Is all.

I'm not sure who you believe is avoiding the hard facts

Oh, folks like Mr. Bush, who would prefer to drill for a few barrels of oil in Alaska than develop viable alternative energy sources for the future, and who start wars in oil producing areas with the hopes that somehow that oil will become ours at low cost. Folks like mikezilla, who are hopelessly mired in the idea that we've got at least 800 years of burning coal (pollution, anyone?) before we really dedicate ourselves to stop sucking off the oil teat. And so on...

I think there are certainly lots of people working on a solution to the problem. And to quote Martha... that's a GOOD thing.

Can't argue with that. :)

Speaking of food banks.... A local church does a food thing every month. I think it's like $25 for a box of food. Anywho it amazes me the people who show up for the food. I drove by it last week and there were at least 15 out of 20 cars there that were luxury type cars. Maybe if they gave up their $400/$500 monthly payment not to mention insurance they could afford food. Same goes for housing. Granted some people have big families and need bigger homes but 3 people living in a 5 bedroom home??? A lot of those people who could afford that are NOW seeing themselves cutting out certain things just to pay their bills. It may just be me but I'd rather have money to live a little bit and enjoy life then throw away most of my earnings on bills. Maybe in the future people will find modest living a better choice then keeping up with the Jones'.

*drives off in my cheap cobalt*

Oh, folks like Mr. Bush, who would prefer to drill for a few barrels of oil in Alaska than develop viable alternative energy sources for the future, and who start wars in oil producing areas with the hopes that somehow that oil will become ours at low cost. Folks like mikezilla, who are hopelessly mired in the idea that we've got at least 800 years of burning coal (pollution, anyone?) before we really dedicate ourselves to stop sucking off the oil teat. And so on...



Can't argue with that. :)

Not sure I agree with the premise that we should rely on our president OR Mikey to solve the problem. Neither actually has the power to mandate what kind of fuel we use and I would hope the president has more important things to worry about. But regardless... without trying to assign blame, this issue is being studied by some of the top brains in the world. Obviously the answer isn't as simple as 'dedicating ourselves to stop sucking off the oil teat.'

One other aspect to consider. There are LOTS of people out there who couldn't care less how much gas costs. They have the money to fill up the tanks of their Hummer every 4 hours if necessary, rest of the world be damned. That certainly doesn't help the situation any.

Oh, folks like Mr. Bush, who would prefer to drill for a few barrels of oil in Alaska than develop viable alternative energy sources for the future, and who start wars in oil producing areas with the hopes that somehow that oil will become ours at low cost. Folks like mikezilla, who are hopelessly mired in the idea that we've got at least 800 years of burning coal (pollution, anyone?) before we really dedicate ourselves to stop sucking off the oil teat. And so on...
Well, cost is a problem NOW, Fran, and that's the point. No one's arguing that we don't need to develop renewable energy sources, but currently, we're being held hostage by the OPEC nations, and unfortunately, there's no viable alternative we can rely on as of yet. It'll come, but first we need to soften the financial blow to get the ball rolling. JMO.

We're already seeing HUGE changes in the industry, and that's not going to stop just by temporarily supplementing our incredibly costly supply with cheaper fossil fuels.

Im begining to see why Texas is so attractive a place to live.

GHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACK!!!!!

Speaking of food banks.... A local church does a food thing every month. I think it's like $25 for a box of food. Anywho it amazes me the people who show up for the food. I drove by it last week and there were at least 15 out of 20 cars there that were luxury type cars. Maybe if they gave up their $400/$500 monthly payment not to mention insurance they could afford food. Same goes for housing. Granted some people have big families and need bigger homes but 3 people living in a 5 bedroom home??? A lot of those people who could afford that are NOW seeing themselves cutting out certain things just to pay their bills. It may just be me but I'd rather have money to live a little bit and enjoy life then throw away most of my earnings on bills. Maybe in the future people will find modest living a better choice then keeping up with the Jones'.

*drives off in my cheap cobalt*

Absolutely, Musiq. As long as there are free handouts, there will be people clamoring to get what they consider their 'fair share' of freebies. I remember when I was a kid, there was a family on our block all us kids thought were 'rich' because they drove a new car and lived in a nice house. A couple of us were invited for lunch with their kid one day and when we walked in the kitchen, saw their mother slicing a block of cheese labeled, "Provided by the people of the United States of America." No idea how she came by that hunk of welfare cheese. Times have changed and now people get food stamps instead of commodities. How many of us have been to a grocery store where somebody was trying to convince the clerk that Marlboro's were listed on the WIC program?

GHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACK!!!!!

Keep your GHAAAAAAAAAAAAAACKs to yourself, Scumwad. You're just jealous because we won't let you in our Great State.

:taser:

Don't you live in California, Scummy? If, in fact, you do, then I'd be weary of casting aspersions on other states. At least Texas operates in the black.

Don't you live in California, Scummy? If, in fact, you do, then I'd be weary of casting aspersions on other states. At least Texas operates in the black.

She's a California girl, Prae, but relocated to the great NW. You know, where all the other tree huggers live??

:lolhit:
SMW

Not sure I agree with the premise that we should rely on our president OR Mikey to solve the problem. Neither actually has the power to mandate what kind of fuel we use and I would hope the president has more important things to worry about. But regardless... without trying to assign blame, this issue is being studied by some of the top brains in the world. Obviously the answer isn't as simple as 'dedicating ourselves to stop sucking off the oil teat.'

One other aspect to consider. There are LOTS of people out there who couldn't care less how much gas costs. They have the money to fill up the tanks of their Hummer every 4 hours if necessary, rest of the world be damned. That certainly doesn't help the situation any.

*****************************************
There's No denying the simple unadulterated fact that it is LIBERALS
and those Libs in Congress who demanded we NOT drill offshore
as China is set to do and No Anwar.Plus No new refineries.
Our refinery capacity now is 20% under what is needed.That means
about 3 weeks worth of refined oil,backlog.

Liberals whine that we are paying too much for oil but then vote against drilling and/or building refineries.

While it is imperative that we create alternative energy sources we should also be drilling and refining more domestic petroleum in the interim.

Liberals whine that we are paying too much for oil but then vote against drilling and/or building refineries.

While it is imperative that we create alternative energy sources we should also be drilling and refining more domestic petroleum in the interim.

I know we were told by Sparky to knock off the partisan rancor as
in Repubbie vs. Liberal.But how can one.?
That is the root cause of many of this Country's ills.
At least Repubbies don't flat out lie,in order to win the day.
Is all.

Liberals whine that we are paying too much for oil but then vote against drilling and/or building refineries.

While it is imperative that we create alternative energy sources we should also be drilling and refining more domestic petroleum in the interim.

The world supply of oil hasnt shrunk of late, its simply that more people are wanting to buy it. (And they all work in Beijing)

Paul,

There is an abundance of oil in Alaska and off the coasts of the U.S., Paul. There is also more oil locked up in oil shale than the is found in existing reserves. The main problem is that members of a certain political party won't allow drilling and there is a scarcity of refining plants.

Paul,

There is an abundance of oil in Alaska and off the coasts of the U.S., Paul. There is also more oil locked up in oil shale than the is found in existing reserves. The main problem is that members of a certain political party won't allow drilling and there is a scarcity of refining plants.

Well I can understand not wanting to allow drilling in a nature reserve. I think people still have nightmares of the Exxon Valdez disaster.

As for off shore, I dont see what the problem is. It may not matter for much longer tho, as I believe GM are gonna push for a reliable electric car, and will stop producing the Humvy.

There is an abundance of oil in Alaska and off the coasts of the U.S., Paul.

Exactly how much, Frogger? Do you know? What would it take to prepare the infrastructure necessary to find, drill, transport, store, refine and ship it to market? How many years would it take to develop that infrastructure? How much would it cost?

There is also more oil locked up in oil shale than the is found in existing reserves.

Exactly how much, Frogger? Do you know? What would it take to prepare the infrastructure necessary to find, drill, transport, store, refine and ship it to market? How many years would it take to develop that infrastructure? How much would it cost?

Drilling our way out of rising oil prices (http://money.cnn.com/2008/05/30/news/economy/oil_drilling/?postversion=2008053011)

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- The U.S. has huge amounts of untapped oil, butpesky politicians and environmentalists won't let us get it.

That's a common cry heard from some lawmakers and nearly everyone working at an oil and gas company. If the U.S. wants to help keep the market adequately supplied with oil and perhaps lower prices they say, it needs to open up vast sections of the country currently off-limits to oil and gas exploration.

But given the amount of time it would take to get new drilling projects up and running, and the relatively small amount of oil they'd likely yield, most analysts say more drilling in the U.S. would do little to help solve the world's dual energy challenge of meeting rising demand while cutting greenhouse gasses.

Some 60% of all federal land as well as most of the East and West coasts are currently subject to drilling bans - many were put in place after a big oil spill off the coast of Santa Barbara, Calif., in 1969. If these areas are not opened, it certainly won't be for lack of trying.

Oil industry executives harped on these drilling bans in testimony before Congress last week, telling lawmakers lifting them was one of the few things they could do that might have a prayer of lowering oil prices.

Several Republican-led efforts to lift the drilling bans have emerged in Congress, but they have all failed so far.

It's hard to say how much oil lifting the bans would provide - very little exploratory drilling has been done in most of these areas. But using estimates based on the limited information available from the Minerals Management Service, the Bureau of Land Management and the Energy Information Administration, lifting the drilling bans might boost the nation's oil production by 1 or 2 million barrels a day by sometime next decade.

These estimates are for conventional crude oil. They do not take into account the vast amounts of oil shale or tar sands that do exist in the country, but are either very expensive to develop or come with significant environmental costs.

Either way, 2 million barrels of oil is not an insignificant amount. It's roughly equal to the amount of oil currently pumped in Nigeria, and would increase the current U.S. output of 8.5 million barrels a day by over 20%.

But the projects would take a long time to come online. Places like the Atlantic coast, thought to be rich in natural gas, lack drilling platforms, pipelines, terminals, storage facilities, and other energy infrastructure. EIA estimates that if Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge were opened for drilling tomorrow, oil wouldn't flow at full tilt until 2025.

Plus, oil is a global market. It's true that oil pumped in the U.S. could stay in the U.S. But prices will be determined by international, not national, supply and demand. By 2025, world consumption, currently at about 85 million barrels a day, is expected to swell to well over 100 million barrels a day. That makes 2 million barrels a day look pretty small.

"I wouldn't say it's a drop in the bucket," said Greg Priddy, a global energy analyst at the Eurasia group. "But it changes things only marginally over the long term."

Priddy said these 2 million barrels a day would need to be balanced against steep production declines expected in many non-OPEC areas like Russia, Mexico and the North Sea over the next several years. Non-OPEC production is expected to peak within the next decade or two, regardless of what the U.S. does, he said.

"It really just delays the day of reckoning a bit," he said.

The larger argument put forth by the environmental community is that more oil will not solve the world's energy challenge... more and cheaper oil will only foster the same culture of big cars and sprawling houses we've become accustomed to, and leave us even more dependent on OPEC 20 or 30 years out.

Environmentalists also push for focusing more on conservation.

If the U.S. switched to plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, the country would save 3.8 million barrels of oil a day - roughly twice what new drilling would provide - according to the Natural Resources Defense Council.

Most analysts agree that conservation will play a greater role in meeting energy demand than drilling in the U.S.


The main problem is that members of a certain political party won't allow drilling

The party of people who recognize that ripping up pristine lands for a few barrels of oil some 20 years down the line is, at best, postponing the inevitable?

and there is a scarcity of refining plants.

True. While I have no problem with our building more refining plants (something we should have done decades ago - now it's a bit too late), it still doesn't solve the bigger problem of our reliance on a finite and diminishing fuel source.

The only reasonable solution is immediate and dedicated effort to the development of alternative/renewable energy sources combined with heavy conservation. The American people have gotten fat and lazy - it's long past time for us to suck it up and do the right thing for ourselves and our planet.

While I agree that drilling up there isn't going to help us any time soon, you can use that excuse forever. Why exercise? It's not going to make you look good by Friday. Eventually it will help, and inasmuch as we have no idea what the future holds, I think it would be a good idea to pursue it.

The party of people who recognize that ripping up pristine lands for a few barrels of oil some 20 years down the line is, at best, postponing the inevitable?

I haven't had the opportunity to confirm this, but the comparison I heard was that ANWR was the size of South Carolina, and the drilling/production area would be about the size of an international airport. That strikes me as a pretty reasonable compromise.

She's a California girl, Prae, but relocated to the great NW. You know, where all the other tree huggers live??
SMW


You say that like it's a BAD thing. Well pfffffffffttt on you!

:hitout:

http://img293.imageshack.us/img293/1618/treepd5.jpg

[QUOTE=F. de Marzipan]Exactly how much, Frogger? Do you know? What would it take to prepare the infrastructure necessary to find, drill, transport, store, refine and ship it to market? How many years would it take to develop that infrastructure? How much would it cost?



Exactly how much, Frogger? Do you know? What would it take to prepare the infrastructure necessary to find, drill, transport, store, refine and ship it to market? How many years would it take to develop that infrastructure? How much would it cost?


*******************************************
Well I believe it takes 7 years for a Refinery to be up and running.
And they say,10 years for Anwar to deliever the first drop of oil.
Did you know that Anwar is roughly the size of S.Carolina and
they only want to use a site { couple thousand acres } the size
of an average International Airport for drilling.
Plus... Scummy will like this.They found that Caribou like pipelines
because they can nestle up against them and keep warm.

You say that like it's a BAD thing. Well pfffffffffttt on you!

:hitout:

http://img293.imageshack.us/img293/1618/treepd5.jpg

Awwww, Scummy... you know you're my all-time FAV tree hugger!

:bighug:
SMW

Liberals whine that we are paying too much for oil but then vote against drilling and/or building refineries.

You say that as if only the Liberals are "whining" about the high gas prices. That is an absurd statement and I find it offensive. I consider myself rather 'Liberal' and yes, the high gas prices are the pits (and no one disagrees with that) but I, personally, would rather pay $8.00 a gallon (or more) than to see what's left of our pristine lands turned to shit by oil companies.

Awwww, Scummy... you know you're my all-time FAV tree hugger!

:bighug:
SMW

I seen a sailor once hug a tree.Before them tree huggers even
became poplar.
Is all.

Scummy will like this.They found that Caribou like pipelines
because they can nestle up against them and keep warm.

Well, that actually made me laff, even being completely absurd. :rolleyes:

Awwww, Scummy... you know you're my all-time FAV tree hugger!

:bighug:
SMW

Ya, I know. *blush*

For a G Bush lover, yer alright. It pains me to say it, but yer alright. :hug:

Well, that actually made me laff, even being completely absurd. :rolleyes:

It happens to be true.They did lots of studies.

It happens to be true.They did lots of studies.

Even if it IS true, so what? The caribou know how to live just fine with no pipes to nuzzle up against. They've been doing if for centuries, you goofball. Have you ever thought about the thousands of animals who DEPEND on their natural, unadulterated habitat?

Good grief, the sun is FREE and wind is FREE and the oceans are FREE so why the shit are we still so damned dependent on O~I~L ???

What a nightmare this planet has become.

Good grief, the sun is FREE and wind is FREE and the oceans are FREE so why the shit are we still so damned dependent on O~I~L ???[/B]
And talk is cheap.

You gotta better plan? Let's have it - I wanna know what other viable energy source we have at our disposal RIGHT NOW that we could use to soften the financial blow we're experiencing. Dazzle me.

And talk is cheap.

You gotta better plan? Let's have it - I wanna know what other viable energy source we have at our disposal RIGHT NOW that we could use to soften the financial blow we're experiencing. Dazzle me.

You do realize, of course, that oil from ANWR isn't remotely "at our disposal RIGHT NOW to soften the financial blow we're experiencing," right? Finding the deposits and developing the infrastructure to drill there is at least 10-15 years away; add another five to develop the refining and shipping infrastructure.

You do realize, of course, that oil from ANWR isn't remotely "at our disposal RIGHT NOW to soften the financial blow we're experiencing," right? Finding the deposits and developing the infrastructure to drill there is at least 10-15 years away; add another five to develop the refining and shipping infrastructure.
True. But if we were to put it on a timetable, I'd be willing to bet that we're a whole lot closer to making ANWR viable than GM is to having a car that runs on hippie farts, moonbeams, and sunshine.

:p You have such a pleasant way of putting things, Prae.

:p You have such a pleasant way of putting things, Prae.

That last line nearly got me fired... I actually LOLed.

:D

And talk is cheap.

You gotta better plan? Let's have it - I wanna know what other viable energy source we have at our disposal RIGHT NOW that we could use to soften the financial blow we're experiencing. Dazzle me.

I don't have a better plan, the better plans are already out there. I'm sure you've heard of solar power, yes? And wind power? How about power supplied by water currents?

I'm sure none of this "dazzles" you but yer post about hippie farts is so very dazzling. :rolleyes:

I don't have a better plan, the better plans are already out there. I'm sure you've heard of solar power, yes? And wind power? How about power supplied by water currents?

I'm sure none of this "dazzles" you but yer post about hippie farts is so very dazzling. :rolleyes:
Wow, all that's missing is the practical reality of implementing a wind farm that's the size of Montana to power the southwest, solar panels the size Oregon to augment it, and a few multi-billion dollar hydroelectric dams with turbines the size jumbo jets in California, and voila' - half our country is home free!

Of course, none of which does anything for transportation, and 2 of the 3 "solutions" you've mentioned here are dependant on whether or not the sun is shining or the wind is blowing to work. That said, you can't just put a sun, wind, or water generated power solution anywhere you want. It doesn't work that way.

On the other hand, I wonder why nobody else has thought of this? :confused:

:p You have such a pleasant way of putting things, Prae.
Thank you, sweetie. :flowers:

Wow, all that's missing is the practical reality of implementing a wind farm that's the size of Montana to power the southwest, solar panels the size Oregon to augment it, and a few multi-billion dollar hydroelectric dams with turbines the size jumbo jets in California, and voila' - half our country is home free!

Of course, none of which does anything for transportation, and 2 of the 3 "solutions" you've mentioned here are dependant on whether or not the sun is shining or the wind is blowing to work. That said, you can't just put a sun, wind, or water generated power solution anywhere you want. It doesn't work that way.

On the other hand, I wonder why nobody else has thought of this? :confused:

Good grief, you are too much. Why not have all new dwellings built with solar panels? Where are you getting "solar panels the size Oregon"? There are places in this country where the wind pretty much never stops blowing. Have you ever driven to Las Vegas from So. Cal? Most likely not but there are acres and acres of wind turbines that never stop turning, but that's just one part of the country where that happens.

If the weather is cloudy and you absolutely need to fire up your oven or watch the Sports Channel, you can have a back-up plan instead of relying on your solar panels… even tho I'll bet they still provide energy on a cloudy day. Kind of like a hybrid car where you can switch from electric to gas. And if they don't, then why not focus on stuff like that instead of invading places that are oil rich?

And I didn't say or insinuate that you can "just put a sun, wind, or water generated power solution anywhere you want." It will obviously take much planning but why not get the ball rolling on this and stop focusing so blatantly on oil as our only solution?

As far as transportation goes, aside from possibly using veggie oil for petrol, I always thought every big city should have a monorail system. Ya know, kind of like what Disneyland does?

I can hear the laughter now. :o

[QUOTE=Scumbelina][B]Good grief, you are too much. Why not have all new dwellings built with solar panels? Where are you getting "solar panels the size Oregon"? There are places in this country where the wind pretty much never stops blowing. Have you ever driven to Las Vegas from So. Cal? Most likely not but there are acres and acres of wind turbines that never stop turning, but that's just one part of the country where that happens.

If the weather is cloudy and you absolutely need to fire up your oven or watch the Sports Channel, you can have a back-up plan instead of relying on your solar panels… even tho I'll bet they still provide energy on a cloudy day. Kind of like a hybrid car where you can switch from electric to gas. And if they don't, then why not focus on stuff like that instead of invading places that are oil rich?

And I didn't say or insinuate that you can "just put a sun, wind, or water generated power solution anywhere you want." It will obviously take much planning but why not get the ball rolling on this and stop focusing so blatantly on oil as our only solution?

As far as transportation goes, aside from possibly using veggie oil for petrol, I always thought every big city should have a monorail system. Ya know, kind of like what Disneyland does?

I can hear the laughter now. :o

*****************************************8
Aarg,ugh ah eeeeeeeeeeUwe,why do YOu care so mush.?
Woory bout yer own Kitchen thar tOOt's.
Quit bein a major league buddinski.
Who puts you in charge of rat feed ... anywho.?

*****************************************8
Aarg,ugh ah eeeeeeeeeeUwe,why do YOu care so mush.?
Woory bout yer own Kitchen thar tOOt's.
Quit bein a major league buddinski.
Who puts you in charge of rat feed ... anywho.?[/QUOTE]

I wasn't butting in, you dillwad. I was asked several questions directly and I answered them, is that alright with you?

Talk about a "buddinski".

Get back to watching TV in yer tattered bathrobe while eating Cheetos and fondling yer has-beens.

scumbelina
I ask a friend what he would call a law that would prevent say a company like Texaco Oil from buying the rights to anew revolutionary battery just so people can't get it and will keep buy gas. (who killed the electric car) movie.

The Humanity Law
is this right?

Wow, all that's missing is the practical reality of implementing a wind farm that's the size of Montana to power the southwest, solar panels the size Oregon to augment it, and a few multi-billion dollar hydroelectric dams with turbines the size jumbo jets in California, and voila' - half our country is home free!

I dunno Prae, sounds great to me. On the other hand, I think it would take 10-15 years to build all of that, so like ANWR, we shouldn't bother.

I dunno Prae, sounds great to me. On the other hand, I think it would take 10-15 years to build all of that, so like ANWR, we shouldn't bother.
So your wisdom is to do nothing?

I just don't understand how EVERYONE on the right can be against renewable energy sources? Do they all listen to the same talk shows or something?
How can it be?

Anyway, I am really surprised by all these nay sayers. It is not the American way. Give America and us Americans more credit for doing the impossible as we have done for the last 200 years (independence, free the world from Nazi Germany, sending man to moon, robots to mars, internet, cell phone technology, etc. etc.) ! Shit, if its solar, wind, whatever, we'll find a way and don't let these talking heads who just repeat what they hear stop us. They are ready to burn trillions in a war but when it comes to investing in our own country (for infrastructure, education, healthcare, research for alternative energy) they just start repeating the words of their favorite radio right wing nut "How will we pay for that?".

Here's one for you, god said "let there be light". What is that? solar? If you don't use solar power, then you are the anti-christ.

So your wisdom is to do nothing?

I believe he/she was being sarcastic.

scumbelina
I ask a friend what he would call a law that would prevent say a company like Texaco Oil from buying the rights to anew revolutionary battery just so people can't get it and will keep buy gas. (who killed the electric car) movie.

The Humanity Law
is this right?


I've not heard of The Humanity Law but I've heard for many years that the big oil companies put the halt on electric cars, but now, at least they are being looked at more seriously and manufactured. If that's what the Humanity Law is about, (halting energy sources that will put a big hurt on the multi-billion dollar oil companies) then I think it's an outrage.

Ok, after reading yer response again, it sounds like The Humanity Law will keep the big oil companies at bay and not let them intervene with different energy sources. If that's the case, I'm all for it!

I just don't understand how EVERYONE on the right can be against renewable energy sources? Do they all listen to the same talk shows or something?
How can it be?

Anyway, I am really surprised by all these nay sayers. It is not the American way. Give America and us Americans more credit for doing the impossible as we have done for the last 200 years (independence, free the world from Nazi Germany, sending man to moon, robots to mars, internet, cell phone technology, etc. etc.) ! Shit, if its solar, wind, whatever, we'll find a way and don't let these talking heads who just repeat what they hear stop us. They are ready to burn trillions in a war but when it comes to investing in our own country (for infrastructure, education, healthcare, research for alternative energy) they just start repeating the words of their favorite radio right wing nut "How will we pay for that?".

Here's one for you, god said "let there be light". What is that? solar? If you don't use solar power, then you are the anti-christ.

I applaud yer post. :)

I've not heard of The Humanity Law but I've heard for many years that the big oil companies put the halt on electric cars, but now, at least they are being looked at more seriously and manufactured. If that's what the Humanity Law is about, (halting energy sources that will put a big hurt on the multi-billion dollar oil companies) then I think it's an outrage.

Ok, after reading yer response again, it sounds like The Humanity Law will keep the big oil companies at bay and not let them intervene with different energy sources. If that's the case, I'm all for it!

I don't think there is a law I was trying to name it.
after my friend understood the question about what you would call such a law he suggested that name. So it sounds good huh?

I don't think there is a law I was trying to name it.
after my friend understood the question about what you would call such a law he suggested that name. So it sounds good huh?

Yes it sounds good. I'd call it the Sensibility Law, or sumthin like that. :D

Yes it sounds good. I'd call it the Sensibility Law, or sumthin like that. :D

sounds good to me.

I just don't understand how EVERYONE on the right can be against renewable energy sources? Do they all listen to the same talk shows or something?
How can it be?

Anyway, I am really surprised by all these nay sayers. It is not the American way.

I don't know that the right is so much against it as they'd prefer a little perspective. At this point in time you're just not going to be able to run the country using wind power and solar power. And it's not like were close, either.

As far as being able to achieve anything if we just try - a lot of people really think that if you try hard enough we can somehow invent our way out of problems, but sometimes things just aren't possible. I find myself chuckling everytime someone says that all we need is a "Manhattan project to solve X." Well, sometimes that ain't gonna happen. The Manhattan project to create a room-temperature superconductor doesn't seem to be going anywhere.

I always thought every big city should have a monorail system.
Remember, mono means one, and rail means rail.

http://www.freewebs.com/mypicturesandsht/simpsons%20monorail.gif

I don't know that the right is so much against it as they'd prefer a little perspective. At this point in time you're just not going to be able to run the country using wind power and solar power. And it's not like were close, either.

As far as being able to achieve anything if we just try - a lot of people really think that if you try hard enough we can somehow invent our way out of problems, but sometimes things just aren't possible. I find myself chuckling everytime someone says that all we need is a "Manhattan project to solve X." Well, sometimes that ain't gonna happen. The Manhattan project to create a room-temperature superconductor doesn't seem to be going anywhere.
the Canadians are on (http://www.eetimes.com/news/latest/showArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=HTTOTGYXPCPWSQSNDLSCK HA?articleID=206904213)it...their room temps are lower:lolhit:

I don't know that the right is so much against it as they'd prefer a little perspective. At this point in time you're just not going to be able to run the country using wind power and solar power. And it's not like were close, either.
Solar is ripe for huge efficiency increases. It won't be long before Americans will be able to run a significant portion of their household electricity with solar RTUs. Not only that, we can do considerable good with heating water with solar power, something that can be accomplished in any weather fairly cheaply. As oil prices rise, these normally-eccentric home upgrades will become standard upgrades, in the same way that new homes now come with an easy option to use a tankless water heater and super-efficient appliances.

So is wind. I was recently looking at a brand new, novel system for generating wind power that doesn't require turbines, but instead a belt that vibrates in the wind, and are claimed to be ten-thirty times more efficient than current technology.

Algae-grown ethanol should replace corn-based ethanol, and smarter consumers and businesses will buy pluggable hybrid electric vehicles to vastly reduce their dependence on liquid fuels. Nanotech batteries are just around the corner and promise order of magnitude upgrades in energy storage capability.

The future won't have a single point of failure like the oil era did. That's the mistake made by skeptics of renewable energy. We will get our energy from many, many sources. What we need to do is start seriously funding research into energy alternatives to the tune of many billions. To think that we're spending so much damn money in Iraq when we could be undermining the very source of the power of Middle Eastern despots is depressing to say the least. The technology is much closer than just on the horizon. We need them now.

I don't know that the right is so much against it as they'd prefer a little perspective. At this point in time you're just not going to be able to run the country using wind power and solar power. And it's not like were close, either.

As far as being able to achieve anything if we just try - a lot of people really think that if you try hard enough we can somehow invent our way out of problems, but sometimes things just aren't possible. I find myself chuckling everytime someone says that all we need is a "Manhattan project to solve X." Well, sometimes that ain't gonna happen. The Manhattan project to create a room-temperature superconductor doesn't seem to be going anywhere.

I agree, to a point. When you discuss new or prototype technologies you're probably right, but we have technologies that are perfectly viable now, we're just not utilizing them. What innovations we may need would be in the production end of the equation. For example, there's no reason every house in the country couldn't have solar panels on the roof. Would it solve the problem? No, but it'd sure help. We have the technology to exploit wind power, there's just no money to be made, or not enough in the short term. I think part of the problem is our unwillingness to view the problem in the long term. Capitalism demands a quick return on your investment, especially in the private sector.

In addition to wind or solar power, we have the technologies available to exploit tidal energy, and geothermal sources, we just need to invest in the infrastructure necessary to exploit it.

Remember, mono means one, and rail means rail.

http://www.freewebs.com/mypicturesandsht/simpsons%20monorail.gif

I'm quite aware of that but I'm missing the point, assuming you have one.

:confused: