Quote:
People can make up statistics to prove anything they want. 71% of all people know this.
Either that's sarcasm, or falling victim to your own point. 
Quote:
At the rate we're using it, oil WILL run out in 20 - 50 years. It is NOT a renewable source; it IS going to run out, whether the politicians say so or not.
Please click here to see why that WON'T be happening as soon as you may think.
Quote:
I wish there was a flat tax rate so people wouldn't have to have these wonderfully interesting debates.
Like I said earlier, a reworked tax system would do wonders for EVERYONE. Even so, we'd still probably have interesting debates.
Quote:
This topic cracks me up because it can basically be broken down into "Ohhhh, my friend jumped over a cliff, I better go do it too" and "only me, myself, and I matter."
Although I don't agree, at least we made you laugh. 
I'm beginning to wonder if this should go into Marble Garden...
I'm wondering what the topic would be. The only point left being discussed is "Is oil a renewable resource?" which we all learned in school: No.
Seems it's more an argument of "who deserves tax cuts more?" to me.
It looked like that had been put to rest. I guess not if others still want a say in it though.
Why can't motor companies hold more responsibility? I'm not going to argue whether or not the rich or the poor buy more fuel wasting cars, or speculate on whether or not they "need" them.
American owned plants really need to focus their efforts on creating more fuel efficient cars and more AFFORDABLE hybrid models. ($20,000 for a car is not affordable, kthxbi).
Also, I don't agree with taxing those who drive fuel inefficient cars (see first paragraph), but I'm all for the idea of giving a tax break to those driving fuel efficient cars. Of course this would mostly fall on the rich, because the rich are more likely to be able to afford a hybrid or a luxurious fuel efficient car.
Sarcasm.
Whether or not oil is still being created under the tectonic plates is irrellevant. We are still using it up far faster than it is being made.
Or maybe we should pen a note to Mother Earth and say "Hey, Mom! We're raping you faster than you can make resources! Make resources faster, then we can ravage you some more!"
Offer a tax break to those car companies that lower the prices greatly so everyone can afford the more green cars? Because those aren't cheap to build and then there's the issue of building larger cars for larger loads...
Or you could just make it unprofitable to dump oil in the sea.
Last time I checked, it costs millions of dollars to clean up an oil spill...and they pay for it and then get blasted by the media...
Quote:
Whether or not oil is still being created under the tectonic plates is irrellevant. We are still using it up far faster than it is being made.
By the time crude oil reaches dangerously low levels (if it ever does, and IF it does, it'll be some time from now), we'll have abandoned it for better and more efficient energy methods. In terms of producing plastics and other petroleum-based products, we'll probably be on to more synthetic products.
And I would hardly qualify the act of drilling for oil as 'raping the earth'.
Quote:
Offer a tax break to those car companies that lower the prices greatly so everyone can afford the more green cars? Because those aren't cheap to build and then there's the issue of building larger cars for larger loads...
Re-read my earlier statement. I'm not suggesting tax breaks for car companies who lower prices. I'm suggesting tax breaks for people who purchase fuel efficient vehicles instead of fuel inefficient vehicles.
I'm going for the more drastic approach...
All right. I may have missed the rapidfire debates, but I still got some points to make.
Quote:
It would be relatively simple to ensure that oil drilling in the region wouldn't harm the ecosystem as a whole (also note that the oil and natural gas industry spends over 10 billion dollars a year on environmental protection, which is more than what they spend on searching for new wells in the US).
OK. Let's break this down, shall we?
Simple? Have you forgotten about the pipelines needed to transport said oil? Or the noise pollution the derricks would make, driving wildlife away? 10 billion smackers the Natural Gas industry spends on protection? When were we talking about natural gas? It may be similar, but Natural Gas =/= Oil (they find it in coal beds at times, too). And drilling in the US...you think we're the only country they're prospecting?
Quote:
That's the point! The upper class having a higher income is the same reason why they deserve a bigger break.
Someone tell me how having more money equaling more tax breaks makes sense. They make more, they should have to pay more, each their fair share. If a flat rate were put in place, the "rich" would have to pay more regardless.
And as for that little site you linked us all to, 007, I'd love to see him, you know...explain how this happens...you know...scientifically? He doesn't seem to know what kind of pressures are exerted below the surface judging by what he said in his statement. And who says we won't still be on oil? The robber barons of big oil are seeing to it all research on oil alternatives is either marred to the public view or hushed when they can get it hushed. I mean, why do you think the hybrids're more expensive?
Quote:
Simple? Have you forgotten about the pipelines needed to transport said oil? Or the noise pollution the derricks would make, driving wildlife away? 10 billion smackers the Natural Gas industry spends on protection? When were we talking about natural gas? It may be similar, but Natural Gas =/= Oil (they find it in coal beds at times, too). And drilling in the US...you think we're the only country they're prospecting?
No, I have not. Federally protected reserves have been set up before to house animals, giving them a safe haven. The same can be done in Alaska. Once that's done, simply route the pipeline around it. Like I said, simple.
As for drilling in the US, yes they prospect in other lands (and seas) outside of the US. But even so, there's a lot of crude oil underneath and around the United States that's not being prospected. It would certainly put a dent in our reliance on foriegn oil.
Quote:
Someone tell me how having more money equaling more tax breaks makes sense. They make more, they should have to pay more, each their fair share. If a flat rate were put in place, the "rich" would have to pay more regardless.
The higher your income, the more money the government mooches off of you. Thus, when a tax cut comes, they get a bigger break because they pay more than anyone else in the first place.
Even if the upper class bracket is taxed more with a national sales tax rate in place, then it would be their fault and theirs alone: consume more, you pay more. If those in the upper class bracket wanted to slack off of taxes, all they would have to do is consume LESS. A sales tax would benefit practically EVERYONE, from lower class to upper class.
As it is now, however, the tax system is too muddled to truly make much sense. After all, why should those in the upper class be punished with uber-huge taxes for being successful?
Quote:
And who says we won't still be on oil? The robber barons of big oil are seeing to it all research on oil alternatives is either marred to the public view or hushed when they can get it hushed. I mean, why do you think the hybrids're more expensive?
It may just be me, but I've noticed a big conspiracy deal here with some forumers. >.>
Seriously though, I may just be an optimist, but let's be reasonable. When the car was first invented, what was more expensive; the horse or the car?
The car of course. Yet eventually, the technology to make cars became stream-lined. Cars were suddenly under mass-production. It became cheaper to buy a car. Suddenly, horses were replaced by cars as the de facto means of transportation.
Now we're at a similar point with the coming of hybrid cars and fuel cells. Sure, the efficiency and cleanliness is all good, but the technology isn't capable of undergoing mass-production as of yet. Once that happens, expect the hybrids to gradually take over.
Quote:
After all, why should those in the upper class be punished with uber-huge taxes for being successful?
With comments like these, you don't agree with why I say the tax debate is basically one of "only me, myself, and I matter"?
Taxes are not punishment. Taxes are how we fund the government so that it will in turn improve everyone's lives. Obviously those that need less from the government, get less from it and end up giving more. Those that have more needs get more from the government and end up giving less. Do note that I'm counting "needs" as in real necessities--food, water, shelter, clothing, but not TVs, internet, pools, etc. (those are luxuries). That's how the system is supposed to work and it makes sense that way because if we all paid the same amount, either the government wouldn't get enough to function OR too many people would end up bankrupt (which would lead to other problems people wouldn't want and would find worse than shelling out some more money). Of course, most people only want to know what they directly are getting out of things. Hence why most people equate taxes with "punishment" instead of with "caring" and why debates over taxes usually surround what I call "only me, myself, and I matter."
That said, there are many issues with the tax code, not only in terms of complexity but also fairness in the whole "everyone is supposed to be treated equal unless they make a certain amount of money" mantra that is supposed to be present in the country. However, no matter what is done, there will always be a fairness issue in terms of people being "unfairly" saddled with things that they can't afford to pay or getting more than they should due to the differences in prices throughout the country. $50,000 a year will get you more in many parts of the country than it will in NY, which means taxes will always hurt some people more than others depending on how the code is written. What may help a person in Texas could be bad for a person in California (among many different scenarios).
Since most people have a "only me, myself, and I matter" attitude toward taxes, taxes will continue to be seen as a punishment or something bad, when taxes aren't a punishment or bad. They're just a fact of life in the society that we have. If planned with a certain amount of foresight with the emphasis on helping others and not the usual "I only have [insert amount] to spend on what I want," it would be possible to make a relatively good tax code that would work for many (but not all). When the attitude changes, maybe then the people will put in charge people who will do something right with the tax code other than attempting to pander.
Quote:
Taxes are not punishment. Taxes are how we fund the government so that it will in turn improve everyone's lives. Obviously those that need less from the government, get less from it and end up giving more. Those that have more needs get more from the government and end up giving less. Do note that I'm counting "needs" as in real necessities--food, water, shelter, clothing, but not TVs, internet, pools, etc. (those are luxuries). That's how the system is supposed to work and it makes sense that way because if we all paid the same amount, either the government wouldn't get enough to function OR too many people would end up bankrupt (which would lead to other problems people wouldn't want and would find worse than shelling out some more money). Of course, most people only want to know what they directly are getting out of things. Hence why most people equate taxes with "punishment" instead of with "caring" and why debates over taxes usually surround what I call "only me, myself, and I matter."
That's not my point. Taxes (in some way, shape, or form) are a neccesity of every working society. HOWEVER, there's a line between necessary taxes and ludicrously obscene taxes that are currently in place. After all, think of how many arbitrary government programs exist that only siphon money from taxes (points at Matthew Lesko).
And I'm not saying everyone would pay the same. A flat tax wouldn't work so well (everyone pays the same rate regardless of income) but a national sales tax (taxed on what you buy) would make sense, seeing as how most of those in the upper class would buy more anyway (usually of the more expensive variety).
Quote:
That said, there are many issues with the tax code, not only in terms of complexity but also fairness in the whole "everyone is supposed to be treated equal unless they make a certain amount of money" mantra that is supposed to be present in the country. However, no matter what is done, there will always be a fairness issue in terms of people being "unfairly" saddled with things that they can't afford to pay or getting more than they should due to the differences in prices throughout the country. $50,000 a year will get you more in many parts of the country than it will in NY, which means taxes will always hurt some people more than others depending on how the code is written. What may help a person in Texas could be bad for a person in California (among many different scenarios).
Quite true; the high cost of living varies from place to place. And unfortunately, you're probably correct in the tax code; there'll probably always be an arbitrary tax(es) sneaked in. 
Quote:
Since most people have a "only me, myself, and I matter" attitude toward taxes, taxes will continue to be seen as a punishment or something bad, when taxes aren't a punishment or bad. They're just a fact of life in the society that we have. If planned with a certain amount of foresight with the emphasis on helping others and not the usual "I only have [insert amount] to spend on what I want," it would be possible to make a relatively good tax code that would work for many (but not all). When the attitude changes, maybe then the people will put in charge people who will do something right with the tax code other than attempting to pander.
Taxes aren't bad, nor are they punishment. Arbitrary and excessive taxes are. That's my bottom line.
(And FYI, I wouldn't place myself in the 'only me, myself, and I matter' category. )
Of course you wouldn't You'd look bad. =.
Quote:
Of course you wouldn't You'd look bad. =.
Uh, no. Don't mistake pride for something else entirely.
Besides, despite the disdain for those in the upper class bracket, ever stop to think about how many of them go out of their way to help those who are less fortunate than them? Heck, even Bill Gates gives to charity.
I speak from personal experience on the matter; I helped my stepmother with a charity organization for foster children. Basically, we rounded stuff up that other people didn't want (clothes, furniture, beds, books) and gave those items away (in the case of large items, like a dresser, we sold them for small prices, like less than ten dollars cheap).
And think about this; if I truly were in the 'only me, myself, and I matter' bracket, why would I even bother debating? I would be settled in my opinion and unwilling to give logical reasons to say otherwise.
Thank you for your time and giving me something else to debate and/or refute.
It would actually make you much more eager to defend yourself.
...
And you just made a whole paragraph out of a measely sentence.
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. *skips away*
What can I say? This is the first forum debate I've taken a major part in. It's fun. ^.^
People in the public eye, particularly ludicrously obscenely rich people like Bill Gates, don't give away money because it's 'the right thing to do', they do it because it gives them good PR so they can sell more products and get more money in return.
And remember, kids: charitable donations are tax-deductible!
Quote:
y the time crude oil reaches dangerously low levels (if it ever does, and IF it does, it'll be some time from now), we'll have abandoned it for better and more efficient energy methods. In terms of producing plastics and other petroleum-based products, we'll probably be on to more synthetic products.
"I'll take the trash out tomorrow, mom."
During the last great Ice Age atmospheric CO2 levels were fourteen times what they are today.
There is no such thing as "man made carbon dioxide". Simply put all the fossil fuels are just stored carbon, put there by carbon dioxide fixation in plants. The level of carbon on the planet isn't going up or down, it is just changing from one form to another.
Historically we are at a CO2 low, and if you look at the history of the planet (based on ice core sampling) then you see that C02 levels have as much to do with mean surface temperature as swimming and the accordian. If any of you actually study the extremely limited wavelength interaction between CO2 and IR radiation you would begin to understand why CO2 can't be causing global warming, or global cooling, or whatever it is that the environmentalists are currently raving about. Water has more interaction with the IR spectrum than CO2.
The idea of a "Greenhouse Gas" is that a gas will allow radiation in, but not out, similar to the glass panels of a greenhouse. Solar radiation hits the surface and is absorbed by matter, and the matter heats up, heat is IR radiation, and in theory a "greenhouse gas" traps the IR in the atmosphere like a blanket, slowing the rate at which the earth and atmosphere cool, but not slowing how quickly it heats up since these gasses do not interact with the bulk of the spectrum. Once again I recommend you look at the interaction between CO2 and the IR spectrum and compare it to water, or methane.
Anyways, it seems like nobody wants to listen to the science, I guess it's more fun to rage against the Bush administration than to actually learn some chemistry. All the doomsday predictions by climate modelers are only models, systems built by people who aren't always the most objective. Do a study of climate models and you'll see that they rarely agree with each other.
TTFN
Jimro
Quote:
Besides, despite the disdain for those in the upper class bracket, ever stop to think about how many of them go out of their way to help those who are less fortunate than them? Heck, even Bill Gates gives to charity.
Actually, I don't think people "hate" the rich as much as they don't understand why they'd ever need tax cuts. Even Bill Gates' father was one of the biggest complainers against the latest tax cuts for the reason that he felt that the "upper class" didn't need the tax cuts and the government needed the money more. Considering the governments current funding issues whether it's for research, education, troops, etc. they may very well have needed it. I never did very much appreciate budgets being sent to Congress that didn't budget for Iraq at all and leaving it solely up to Congress to make numbers fit. ;p
You know, if we use up all the oil and coal, there won't be any oil or coal to burn, so industrial CO2 emissions would drop to zero, and the planet could begin healing!
So clearly this new energy bill has the environmentalist vision at heart!
/sarcasm off
Realistically alternative "green" energy sources are unpredictable and must be backed up by oil, coal or nuke. Period, end of discussion.
As more and more dams are destroyed for environmental reasons, and less and less being built, hydro energy will not address growing energy requirements.
As technologies mature, they will be put into use. I have a deep interest in solar and wind energy for home use, and right now the prohibitive factor is cost. Why would a home owner spend 15 thousand US dollars to have his home retrofitted for wind? 5-10 thousand US for photovoltaics? Even the switch that connects the house to the grid costs a whole lot of money.
Now, the cost of manufacturing photovoltaics is dropping like rocks off a cliff, so I expect increased use when installation of a 5 killowatt system costs the same as a year of paying the power company. Most homeowners will spend the up front cash to lose their electric bill simply because they are making money when they start the second year. At least the ones who can afford it.
Jimro
Quote:
"I'll take the trash out tomorrow, mom."
I assume by that you mean 'why not switch from oil to alternative energy methods today?' Because it's not affordable, and it's not practical...YET. Give the technology time to stream-line and the industrial business time to mass produce.
Quote:
People in the public eye, particularly ludicrously obscenely rich people like Bill Gates, don't give away money because it's 'the right thing to do', they do it because it gives them good PR so they can sell more products and get more money in return.
Point taken.
Quote:
And remember, kids: charitable donations are tax-deductible!
You say that as if it were a bad thing. It's called an incentive.
And also, well said Jimro.
I assume by that you mean 'why not switch from oil to alternative energy methods today?' Because it's not affordable, and it's not practical...YET.
If governments and leading energy companies made it a priority, it probably would be. Bills like this encourage the continued use of oil and coal and fail to encourage the development of alternatives.
Quote:
If governments and leading energy companies made it a priority, it probably would be. Bills like this encourage the continued use of oil and coal and fail to encourage the development of alternatives.
I have to say that, unfortunately, until it becomes profitable, energy companies won't take the initiative to research and develop the alternatives. That's how business works (unless you want take risks).
Once alternatives become more wide-reaching, efficient, AND stream-lined, expect mass production to follow.
Believe it or not, I'm kinda with Cycle on this one. The government has a responsibility to light a fire under the behinds of energy companies to find alternate methods of energy. Now the bill does support that somewhat. I was just reading an article saying how people in the Mid-West are really happy because the bill has big provisions for domestic use of ethanol(a form of petroleum made out of corn), but it's still not enough.
It's not just an energy issue or an environmental one. You can say what you want about the future dependibility of oil or lack thereof. You can say all you want about global warming or lack thereof. What I'm worried aboutis the fact that it's also a national security issue in that it's not safe for the country to be relying on foreign countries for the majority of our energy needs.
Now I understand companies won't do something unless they see the profit in it. That's why the government has a responsibility for the good of its people in these cases to make it profitable for them either through encouragement or coersion. So once again I'm going to agree with Cycle when I say that this bill sends the entirely wrong message to energy providers.
I'm usually a supporter of the current administration and congress (because this is a bill. It's not just Bush that has to sign off on it, congress must as well), but not this time. They really dropped the ball here.
Quote:
It's not just an energy issue or an environmental one. You can say what you want about the future dependibility of oil or lack thereof. You can say all you want about global warming or lack thereof. What I'm worried aboutis the fact that it's also a national security issue in that it's not safe for the country to be relying on foreign countries for the majority of our energy needs.
VERY true. Although we aren't quite at the point where we can effectively switch away from oil, decreasing our dependence on foriegn oil seems like a natural step. For instance, if it gets truly out of hand, Bush could simply sign an executive order to commence drilling in Alaska for oil. Hopefully it won't come to that (not the Alaska drilling itself, but Bush being forced to sign an executive order), but I'd rather we depend on ourselves for oil instead of a foriegn country.
Quote:
As more and more dams are destroyed for environmental reasons, and less and less being built, hydro energy will not address growing energy requirements.
I wonder what's more polluting; a hydro-electricity dam, or a coal-fired power-station complete with open-cast coal mines?
These dams are being destroyed so that hydro-electricity, which is cheap and dependable, doesn't get a proper chance to show its mettle. Enviromental reasons are just the smug smirk on the face of the oil and power companies as they know they've got less and less competition.
Oh, and about many alternatives not being dependable, well, the answer is simple - put more money into researching and they will become dependable.
Quote:
What I'm worried aboutis the fact that it's also a national security issue in that it's not safe for the country to be relying on foreign countries for the majority of our energy needs.
You talk like these people will suddenly cut your supplies off and leave you dry. Why the hell would they do that? They're making good money out of the USA. Since when did buisnessmen let political, religious, personal or any other reasons stand in the way of making money?
What you should be worried about (if you're going to totally ignore the polution problem) is the fact that if you're going to become reliant on them, they can up their prices as much as they want.
And stop compaining about the price of petrol. You have it easy. Over here in the UK, we're paying (88 x 2 is...) just under $1.66 for a (damn what do we use...) gallon? Or is it litre?
As more and more dams are destroyed for environmental reasons, and less and less being built, hydro energy will not address growing energy requirements.
Technically, the entire state of California is running on hydro power from British Columbia. We have a few dozen small-to-medium-size dams in BC and they're more than adequate to address not only the energy requirements of some of the densest and fastest-growing urban centres in North America, but also those of the most populous part of the United States, with many gigawatts to spare.
I wonder what's more polluting; a hydro-electricity dam, or a coal-fired power-station complete with open-cast coal mines?
It's not as though hydro dams are featherweight polluters. Dams are wasteful amd inefficient, and building them involves flooding massive areas home to God knows how many forms of native wildlife. While they're not a leading cause of asthma, I'd still rather be running on a fission reactor, or wind farms.
Quote:
You talk like these people will suddenly cut your supplies off and leave you dry. Why the hell would they do that? They're making good money out of the USA. Since when did buisnessmen let political, religious, personal or any other reasons stand in the way of making money?
You're talking like it hasn't happenned before.
Quote:
And stop compaining about the price of petrol. You have it easy. Over here in the UK, we're paying (88 x 2 is...) just under $1.66 for a (damn what do we use...) gallon? Or is it litre?
Seeing as how you converted it into dollars, you actually have it MUCH EASIER. Even down in the South, average gas price per gallon is $2.20. Unless your math's a bit off (either that, or you use 'litres' intead of gallons...but even so, one litre is roughly equal to an American quart, and four quarts = a gallon).
Use a currency conversion tool next time.
Quote:
Technically, the entire state of California is running on hydro power from British Columbia. We have a few dozen small-to-medium-size dams in BC and they're more than adequate to address not only the energy requirements of some of the densest and fastest-growing urban centres in North America, but also those of the most populous part of the United States, with many gigawatts to spare.
2003 - California Electricity Consumption by Utility Type
Unless a lot's changed in two years, I don't think all of California is powered by hydro dams (unless you have proof to the contrary).
Yeah, I know dams involve flooding. But at least they can still support life, and look, when it comes to it, much more scenic than a forest decimated by acid rain.
You know, we have wind-farms in the UK. And the people who live nearby complain something chronic about the noise.
I have no idea what the noise is (apart from this constant "Whump Whump Whump"), but it's exactly the same theory as hydro-electricity - what would you prefer on your landscape? Coal-fired power station or huge white fans?
The main problems with wind farms is that they aren't reliable because they need wind to work, and also, you need a lot of them.
And Ultra, you try multiplying $1 by 0.57 in your head. Which is pretty close to the current exchange rate. Sorry though - I didn't know the current price for petrol in the US, I just always thought it was close to 20c or something.
Quote:
And Ultra, you try multiplying $1 by 0.57 in your head. Which is pretty close to the current exchange rate. Sorry though - I didn't know the current price for petrol in the US, I just always thought it was close to 20c or something.
Sa'llright. If ONLY it were 20 cents... (it might've been this low a few decades ago...or perhaps longer. Not quite sure)
The current price of oil has more to do with increasing demand from China and India than any other factor. After 9/11 it was financial speculators on the commodaties market keeping the price high, now increased demand has more or less permanently inflated the cost at the consumer level. Gotta love free market economies.
Anyways, lets do a PMI on the current energy bill.
Pluses. It uses current infrastructure. It strengthens and upgrades current infrastructure. It is feasable in the near to medium future.
Minuses. It doesn't do "enough" to encourage "green" technologies. It is not a permanent solution to the problem of energy production and distribution.
Interesting Points. It does encourage more efficient appliances and vehicles, how will the free market react to provide more efficient products? "Green" power sources have been on the rise and govt. programs already exist to encourage their continued growth (for example Federal Funds will match close to 50% for some wind projects).
Does anyone have anything else to add?
Now let's do an APC.
Alternatives. Screw the free market economy and draft legislation requiring solar, tidal, and wind power generation. Do nothing at all, let consumers drive the energy market to "green" technologies. Increase Federal grant money available in current programs for "Green" power.
Possibilities. Possible that if power distribution infrastructure is not modernized more rolling blackouts will occur. Possible that current regulations limiting the construction of new power plants of any type will cause demand to outpace production, and lead to even more reliance on oil and coal. Possible that mature "green" technologies will not be available soon enough to help solve the problem in the near future, possible that they will mature tomorrow.
Choices. What is a prudent course of action? Use what we have and gently encourage the populace to increase reliance on "green" tech? Open up more US land to oil drilling to provide our own oil? Give bigger tax breaks to farmers who produce biodiesel?
I think that this legislation is the correct answer for the short term, but it definately does not address long term issues. However, considering the state that Congress is in, I think that they are lucky to have hammered out this bill. What I suspect will happen is that rollable polycrystalline photovoltaic cells will become cheap enough for the average American or Canadian homeowner to have installed. I also suspect that wind generation will become much more popular in the midwest, prime generation zone. However, I expect that only a small section of the population will willingly adopt such generation capabilities unless there is a tax break involved, either from the State or Federal government.
Grants are nice, but they only help offset initial cost of installation, not the continued cost of ownership and maintenance. As technologies mature, and they are maturing quickly, another bill needs to address these issues.
As far as fission reactors, the Yuca Mountain storage sight can hold all the current "hot" waste and then some, but locals and environmentalists are fighting the opening of the sight. The biggest danger is a transportation mishap spilling "hot" material over a large area. The odds of such an accident are unlikely, but real odds.
Jimro
Seeing as how you converted it into dollars, you actually have it MUCH EASIER.
Vancouverites pay, on average, one Canadian dollar ($0.83US) per litre. When I was in France in March gas was about 1.20 Euro ($1.50US). One litre equals 0.27 gallons. Therefore, we're paying about $3.05 per gallon, and the French are paying $5.50 per gallon. Quit your whining.
Quote:
Vancouverites pay, on average, one Canadian dollar ($0.83US) per litre. When I was in France in March gas was about 1.20 Euro ($1.50US). One litre equals 0.27 gallons. Therefore, we're paying about $3.05 per gallon, and the French are paying $5.50 per gallon. Quit your whining.
...oh. Apparently, MY math was off. Whoops. My mistake.
Yay! I was right!
I feel sorry for the French though...
I'll say it only once more.
OIL IS GOING TO RUN OUT.
SO IS COAL.
THEN, THANKS TO THE LACK OF RENEWABLE ENERGY POWER STATIONS, WE WILL BE SCREWED.
WHETHER YOU SAY SO OR NOT.
Sure, there are renewable energy power stations. But there are not enough. Not enough to supply even 10% of the USA when the oil and coal runs out.
LETS DRILL FOR MORE OIL!
If we had more renewable energy sources we wouldn't need to resort to these drastic measures. And they are drastic, because they are proving that we are running low.
Feel sorry for the French? the bulk of their electricity comes from fission reactors, zero "greenhouse gas" emissions.
But the truth is, we will run out of oil, coal, wind, sun, etc. Eventually the universe will run down, expand to infinity, or collapse to a singularity...
I am not worried about it, we will adapt and overcome, or die out. Either way problem solved.
Jimro
I can't say I've ever really been a fan of the "We're all going to die anyway, so why even bother?" attitude myself.
Quote:
OIL IS GOING TO RUN OUT.
SO IS COAL.
THEN, THANKS TO THE LACK OF RENEWABLE ENERGY POWER STATIONS, WE WILL BE SCREWED.
WHETHER YOU SAY SO OR NOT.
I have to disagree. Like I said earlier, we WON'T be running out so soon that we won't have any alternative power sources to use. IMO, you being a bit too pessimistic on the matter.
Quote:
Sure, there are renewable energy power stations. But there are not enough. Not enough to supply even 10% of the USA when the oil and coal runs out.
You talk as if no more renewable energy power stations will be built.
Quote:
If we had more renewable energy sources we wouldn't need to resort to these drastic measures. And they are drastic, because they are proving that we are running low.
Then I guess I'm an optimist who thinks the Earth is a lot tougher than you think it is.
Quote:
Feel sorry for the French? the bulk of their electricity comes from fission reactors, zero "greenhouse gas" emissions.
Nuclear power. Cleaner than oil or coal. Nuclear waste can be dumped in a place where no one lives (like say, a cavern deep underground that no one has any business going into, or perhaps the inside of a mountain).
(And FYI, a big reason French gas prices [or most anywhere else in Europe] are so high is due to high taxes.)
Quote:
Nuclear waste can be dumped in a place where no one lives (like say, a cavern deep underground that no one has any business going into, or perhaps the inside of a mountain).
Has Captain Planet taught you nothing!?!?!
Quote:
Has Captain Planet taught you nothing!?!?!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! XD
Good one.
No, Ultra Sonic, he's right. You can't just pop nuclear waste in a barrel and say "Okay, it's safe now, let's bury it where nobody will see it."
Unless, of yourse, you want your potatoes to start walking around, discussing the weather.
The "It doesn't matter, I'll be dead by the time it's an issue" approach that the majority of the USA takes is a little unfair to your children and grandchildren, don't you think?
One day, not too far in the future, somebody is going to wake up, and open their curtains, and notice something very important - the sky is on fire.
"Hey, what's happening to the atmosphere?" they'll ask.
And it's a question they should have been asking TWENTY BLOODY YEARS AGO.
Quote:
No, Ultra Sonic, he's right. You can't just pop nuclear waste in a barrel and say "Okay, it's safe now, let's bury it where nobody will see it."
You seriously think that's all what goes on when disposing of nuclear waste?
Methods of Disposing Nuclear Waste
Storage and Disposal of Nuclear Waste
It's not just burying either; it's possible for nuclear waste to be reused.
Quote:
Unless, of yourse, you want your potatoes to start walking around, discussing the weather.
...okay. No comment. 
Quote:
The "It doesn't matter, I'll be dead by the time it's an issue" approach that the majority of the USA takes is a little unfair to your children and grandchildren, don't you think?
Eh, wrong. That's not my position. I'm simply being optimistic on the matter; I believe that ways will be found to deal with this problem.
Quote:
One day, not too far in the future, somebody is going to wake up, and open their curtains, and notice something very important - the sky is on fire.
You honestly think it'll get that bad? Are you serious?
Quote:
"Hey, what's happening to the atmosphere?" they'll ask.
And it's a question they should have been asking TWENTY BLOODY YEARS AGO.
You don't think the same question (among others) has been asked? More to the point, you don't think people are working on ANSWERS for those questions?
I believe that they are. And I believe that the answers they find will be sufficient.
Harley,
I read what you write, but you really aren't saying much. Running around in a panic a la Chicken Little doesn't give credence to your argument.
Environmentalist dogma has been predicting catastrophe for quite some time. Yet here in the states reforestation has been a reality for the last couple decades, a net gain of forest. Air quality has improved, and continues to improve.
If you really want to do something about greenhouse gasses and fossil fuel consumption, write letters to Chinese officials.
Jimro
