|
2 members (jjp, San Nicolas),
570
guests, and
127
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums26
Topics35,535
Posts417,726
Members6,187
| |
Most Online4,112
Mar 25th, 2025
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,691 Likes: 8
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,691 Likes: 8 |
You know all that money that the US gives Israel to keep it safe.. they've been putting it to good use.. nearly every house in urban areas, and many in suburban areas have solar panels to heat water. We complain that our taxes are high - the vehicle tax in Israel is 100%, which helps subside the oil that they buy - only from Mexico.. they do not buy Arab oil. Which leads to the price of gasoline in Israel, $6.25/gal.. They pay for it, partly with support subsidies from the US, why can't we support our own nation?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,214
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,214 |
"Is it because the oil industry is too tightly attached to our political system?"
Vast economic powerhouses cannot change ship very quickly. If blame is to be given, it may be more due to the nature of the stock market and short-term expectations for profit by shareholders and commodity traders. The market is already steering GM, Toyota, and other manufactures to invest in bio-diesel, hybrid, and other alternatives, but their investments are not at the scale a group like Greenpeace may wish. With what's available, consumers remain weary of paying more for clean vehicles than what they would expect to pay for non-green cars. That is a very challenging engineering problem.
Last I heard, the current processes of making hydrogen for fuel cells requires a lot of energy, as they juice up the water molecule with a charge that overpowers the bonds of its elemental components. The effect of bio-diesel is being felt in poorer parts of Mexico and other areas who feel the crunch of a higher corn price, but there are alternates to soy- and corn-sourced ethanol and they may be more effective in producing what is needed.
The oil industry is too tightly attached to the demands of the market to make hasty changes that affect profitability.
Terry
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,691 Likes: 8
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,691 Likes: 8 |
Hydrogen power as it is now is a scam and does nothing for environment or cost or efficiency.
Ethanol does have it's possibilities, but not if we limit ourselves to only corn and sugar. Hemp must be made available, it's really one of the only cheap materials that can be processed to ethanol effectively and year-round in the varied US climate.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 7,366 Likes: 104
Moderator Member
|
|
Moderator Member
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 7,366 Likes: 104 |
TERRY:
I thought the news out of SA was that they'd developed an internal combustion engine that could operate on oil, biofuel, or a combination of both. At any rate, the cars could be operated without a drop of foreign oil.
BOB
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,528
Grateful Member
|
|
Grateful Member
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,528 |
Hi Dan ! Top of the morning to you ! John,
Whenever new insights or deeper insights into physical phenomena come along we search around for answers. Entrepreneurs find ways of making money no matter what happens. [ . . . ] But without entrepreneurs we would not advance economically. I agree. Which is why I think we should be encouraging people and industries to make money by being green. Al Gore aside if sunspots are the way our Lord ends life on earth, so be it. I don't believe so. Should we be good stewards of the gifts God gives us? Should we be more conserving of oil? Would a simpler life style, one that respects Christ and His Church, be the way we should live? Certainly. I've been a conservationist all of my life and I trace it back to my faith in Christ and my respect for a simpler lifestyle. Yet, until we convert the world to Christ and His Church and until we find a way to live without so much oil, I don't think fast major changes are going to take place and I don't believe the end of the world is upon us in either case. Dan, I don't think the end of the world is nigh. I do think the temperatures, in general, have been rising. That will be a problem if it continues in several respects, and I think humanity --worldwide, including here-- has to prepare for it. What I'm advocating is a systemic response to what I see is a systemic problem. No matter what, Al Gore is a false prophet and he certainly is not the high priest of any religion I would wish to follow. Hyperbole aside, I don't think Al Gore is a prophet. I think he is an ex-Senator and an ex-Vice President who has found his niche by being an advocate on this subject. That's all. Ultimately, the point isn't Al Gore. Ultimately, the point is that there is abundant evidence that seems to indicate (strongly, in my opinion) that the planet has been warming; and the changes in climate that global warming could cause. And while I support grassroots efforts, I think it will ultimately require government action to force the necessary changes to (1) adapt to this changing climate and (2) try to repair some of the damage. In short, I don't think we can go on living as we have. Happily, the Eastern Church (and most traditional forms of religion) already have the means for encouraging people to live better. They are self control, self-discipline, mild asceticism in diet and other consumption, and compassion: because of a lively sense that God, not we (and our desires), are the center of the universe. That mindset and set of practices could make an enormous difference if we actually put into practice more. That is on the private side. On the public, governmental side, combating global warming boils down to encouraging an investment economy. Heretofore, we have encouraged a consumerist economy of gross self-indulgence. However, in an investment based economy, we would encourage -- saving (instead of spending and using second mortgages and credit cards), -- self control (instead of self-indulgence), -- responsible conservation of animals, plants, wilderness and, especially, natural resources (instead of the opposing extremes: of either exploiting everything or turning the world into a park) -- a mindset of keeping our home --this planet-- clean, because this is the only home that we have. I could write more, but I have to go. I'll just leave you with one more thought, Dan. Being green does not necessarily mean being liberal, or secularist. As you yourself pointed out, you were raised with a conservation ethic. So was I. So were most people in this country. The problems were that our economy got away from conservation and investment, because our hearts got stuck in lust, anger and greed. (I'm referring to "you" in general, not you in particular.) So, to fix this mess, government has to get back to encouraging conservation and investment, and we have to get back to practicing self control and compassion. That's just my 2 cent's worth of opinion. Be well, my friend. I always enjoy fencing with you.  -- John
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,214
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,214 |
Bob,
I've heard that too. That works on a small scale, but our cars use so much energy that it would be difficult to cut off foreign supply with those processes (I heard a third or so of our gasoline is refined overseas.)
I look forward to the development of the fuel, but I have more hope in what I heard about extracting biofuel from certain strains of algae than with other sources. With that, less will be demanded of soy and corn growers and food prices will not be at least with those products, tied directly with the fuel market.
Terry
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,214
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,214 |
I thought this proposal for a "child tax" brought onto parents who have more than two children was interesting: http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22896334-2,00.html
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,528
Grateful Member
|
|
Grateful Member
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,528 |
Terry,
I read that article, and I thought: "What a bunch of nonsense !" The economic disincentives for having children in "advanced" nations are already severe enough; we don�t need anymore ! Birth rates are dropping in advanced nations, sometimes below replacement levels, in large part because having kids and raising them is so expensive.
As a society�s economy becomes more monetized, having children becomes more expensive. As children become economic liabilities rather than economic assets, there is a strong incentive to have fewer children. That plus selfishness have already caused enough problems with the advanced world�s demographics.
We don�t need more incentives to have fewer children in the advanced world; we need more incentives to have more kids in the advanced world.
If people like Professor Walters are so upset about the "carbon footprint" of human beings, there is a very simple solution: make the use of carbon itself expensive. Taxes on carbon usage could work. Absent that, higher prices for petroleum are having the same effect . . .
It's pathetic. Folks like Professor Walters want to penalize people for having children instead of penalizing people (and society) for using so much petroleum.
My favorite part of the article was this response to Professor Walters� proposal: Australian Family Association spokeswoman Angela Conway said it was ridiculous to blame babies for global warming. I think self-important professors with silly ideas should have to pay carbon tax for all the hot air they create," she said.
-- John
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,264
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,264 |
You guys are gonna love this one. Way to go Papa Bene! Gordo http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/li...=501316&in_page_id=1811&ito=1490 The Pope condemns the climate change prophets of doom
By SIMON CALDWELL
Attack: Pope Benedict criticised climate-change prophets of doom
Pope Benedict XVI has launched a surprise attack on climate change prophets of doom, warning them that any solutions to global warming must be based on firm evidence and not on dubious ideology.
The leader of more than a billion Roman Catholics suggested that fears over man-made emissions melting the ice caps and causing a wave of unprecedented disasters were nothing more than scare-mongering.
The German-born Pontiff said that while some concerns may be valid it was vital that the international community based its policies on science rather than the dogma of the environmentalist movement.
His remarks will be made in his annual message for World Peace Day on January 1, but they were released as delegates from all over the world convened on the Indonesian holiday island of Bali for UN climate change talks.
The 80-year-old Pope said the world needed to care for the environment but not to the point where the welfare of animals and plants was given a greater priority than that of mankind.
"Humanity today is rightly concerned about the ecological balance of tomorrow," he said in the message entitled "The Human Family, A Community of Peace".
"It is important for assessments in this regard to be carried out prudently, in dialogue with experts and people of wisdom, uninhibited by ideological pressure to draw hasty conclusions, and above all with the aim of reaching agreement on a model of sustainable development capable of ensuring the well-being of all while respecting environmental balances.
"If the protection of the environment involves costs, they should be justly distributed, taking due account of the different levels of development of various countries and the need for solidarity with future generations.
"Prudence does not mean failing to accept responsibilities and postponing decisions; it means being committed to making joint decisions after pondering responsibly the road to be taken."
Efforts to protect the environment should seek "agreement on a model of sustainable development capable of ensuring the well-being of all while respecting environmental balances", the Pope said.
He added that to further the cause of world peace it was sensible for nations to "choose the path of dialogue rather than the path of unilateral decisions" in how to cooperate responsibly on conserving the planet.
The Pope's message is traditionally sent to heads of government and international organisations.
His remarks reveal that while the Pope acknowledges that problems may be associated with unbridled development and climate change, he believes the case against global warming to be over-hyped.
A broad consensus is developing among the world's scientific community over the evils of climate change.
But there is also an intransigent body of scientific opinion which continues to insist that industrial emissions are not to blame for the phenomenon.
Such scientists point out that fluctuations in the earth's temperature are normal and can often be caused by waves of heat generated by the sun. Other critics of environmentalism have compared the movement to a burgeoning industry in its own right.
In the spring, the Vatican hosted a conference on climate change that was welcomed by environmentalists.
But senior cardinals close to the Vatican have since expressed doubts about a movement which has been likened by critics to be just as dogmatic in its assumptions as any religion.
In October, the Australian Cardinal George Pell, the Archbishop of Sydney, caused an outcry when he noted that the atmospheric temperature of Mars had risen by 0.5 degrees celsius.
"The industrial-military complex up on Mars can't be blamed for that," he said in a criticism of Australian scientists who had claimed that carbon emissions would force temperatures on earth to rise by almost five degrees by 2070 unless drastic solutions were enforced.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,214
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,214 |
Is there a full transcript available?
The Pope's a "global warming skeptic", oh boy!
Terry
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,214
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,214 |
I don't know how many members here are very familiar with Al Gore's background. I believe that one stage of his life has played a significant role in his posturing and framing of the global warming debate. When I try to understand why he is saying what he is saying, it is difficult for me to separate his seminarian background from the language he uses to frame the global warming "call to action" in moral, if not religious, terms. Even though he dropped out of the seminary and eventually pursued a political career on the coattails of his father Albert Gore Sr., his experience in the seminary may have pointed him to the leadership role he's taken in the debate.
The rhetoric he uses and the inflections in his voice sounds to me like it could come out of the mouth of a Southern evangelist preacher's mouth.
Terry
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 576
OrthoDixieBoy Member
|
|
OrthoDixieBoy Member
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 576 |
The rhetoric he uses and the inflections in his voice sounds to me like it could come out of the mouth of a Southern evangelist preacher's mouth. Terry, I think this is a very astute observation. ALgore, imho, knows how to influence people. He presents himself as a genuine "Southerner" knowing that the "impression" of conservative, traditional, southern values will carry over in his personal presentation while all the time, he is really an ultra-liberal wolf in southern sheepskin clothing. Jason
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 7,366 Likes: 104
Moderator Member
|
|
Moderator Member
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 7,366 Likes: 104 |
Gee, Jason, and I thought I was the only one around here who didn't think Al was genuine!   BOB
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,725 Likes: 2
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,725 Likes: 2 |
Gee, Jason, and I thought I was the only one around here who didn't think Al was genuine! BOB There is very little that is southern about Al Gore. True, he is from Tennessee and his family owns a farm here. However, he has lived in Washington most of his life and was educated at elite private schools. He doesn't have much in common with the average person in this state. I suspect that's why he lost his "home" state in the election.
|
|
|
|
|
