Commonsense Green Energy Solutions

Discussion in 'Soap Box' started by Julia-C, Mar 27, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Julia-C

    Julia-C Well-Known Member

    Before you read any further, this isn’t going to be a green energy bashing article. It sounds like it at first, but trust me it’s not. Neither is it a coal, oil, or nuclear energy bashing article. It’s sort of a long read, so bare with me.

    America and the world has evolved into an environmentally conscious society. A movement which widely began in the 1970’s by the Ash Council, who proposed to Richard Nixon who was then the President of the United States to create a new government entity called the Environmental Protection Agency (E.P.A.). The Ash Council made this proposal to Nixon in the Ash Council Memo.

    Which was presented to Nixon and his administration in April of 1970. This proposal not only advocated the creation of the E.P.A., but set out details for eliminating duties of other agencies which could be transferred over to the E.P.A. in order to streamline its effectiveness and centralize control over environmental concerns.

    Since the E.P.A. implementation in 1970, many strides have been made to protect the environment. Some fine examples would be in the reduction of smog. In the case of cars, there were tight nitrogen oxide standards that were thought to be unachievable when proposed in the 1970s, but what resulted was the catalytic converter. It was cutting-edge at the time--many people in the industry said it couldn't be done. But now the cost of a converter is trivial in the cost of an automobile. Also the elimination of many Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) in everyday products like hairspray and spray paint. Which according to many have an adverse affect on the ozone layer. The ozone layer made up of a triatomic molecule, consisting of three oxygen atoms. These tightly packed molecules which make up a protective layer around the earth tend to reflect narrow bandwidth (high frequency) light waves back out into space. These light waves in the ultra violet range and beyond are dangerous to the human body, especially the skin. Over exposure to ultra violet radiation dramatically increases your chances of getting sun burned, and prolonged exposure can lead to cancer.

    The E.P.A. when created was created with the good of the American people and the world in general in mind. Sadly this government institution which was founded with good intentions, have become an over burdensome bureaucracy . A bureaucracy that has found its way into nearly every aspect of our daily lives. Some of these intrusions are practical, and have a clear benefit to society like the two I mentioned above. Sure there are many more which I simply don't have time to mention. Regardless the E.P.A. pushes a green agenda, through the fear mongering of what use to be called Global Warming. Of course now it's no longer called Global Warming, because of the overwhanning evidence which leads more to a constant Climate Change throughout the world. Now it seems anytime a natural disaster occurs, it's because of Man Made Climate Change. Hurricanes, tornados, droughts, too much rain, above average temperatures, below normal temperatures, and too much snow, it all becomes conveniently blamed on man's actions. Under the umbrella of Climate Change.

    Environmental Conservatism is something we all should take part in. We should keep in mind that Environmental Conservatism isn't environmental fanaticism. One very simple example of this fanaticism which has taken over the E.P.A. is in Vehicle Emissions Testing (V.E.T.). I agree 100% with enforcing environmental pollution regulations on motorized vehicles, and testing them on a annual basis to insure the exhaust pollutants are below a specified standard. That being said, an exhaust test should be all that is needed. If the car passes the sniff test, then it should pass the V.E.T. Unfortunately it’s not that simple when it comes to environmental regulations by the E.P.A. The way the laws are written and enforced, even if the exhaust passes and gets a clean bill of health, your car could still fail. If the intent of the V.E.T. was to ensure a clean exhaust, and the cars exhaust was tested and shown to be clean. Why then is that vehicle failed because of a check engine light, or various other small faults like a gas take which fails a pressure test, or a vacuum line which leaks.

    Another insanity is engine swaps. It is a proven fact that a modern day efficient engines such as the 3 valve 4.6 liter modular engine which is found in the 2005 through current Ford Mustang, is a cleaner engine then the 5.0 liter engines found in the 1995 and older Mustangs. Yet, even with this truth. It is illegal to transplant a modern, cleaner, more efficient, all around more environmentally friendly 4.6 liter into a 1995 Mustang as opposed to keeping the 5.0 liter. ([Amended information] This is not the rule throughout the country, some localities allow for engine swaps as long as the donor car is the same year or newer, and have the same pollution control devices.)

    My question is why. If the regulations imposed on the pollution created by motorized vehicles has solely to do with ensuring a clean exhaust, why is it illegal to swap out a less environmentally friendly engine for a newer modern one? The answer is simple. The E.P.A. has moved so far away from its original intent of Environmental Conservatism, that its regulations are less about clean air then they are about regulating. Regulation is a form of control, and the E.P.A. has become a bureaucracy which thrives on control. A bureaucracy which is largely ruled and influenced by environmental fanaticism, and lobbyists who push alternative energies as oppose to proven sources like coal and oil.

    I am one of those "evil conservatives" who don't care about the environment, or so I have been told. Also I am a supporter of choice, freedom, and fair market. I love the idea behind alternative energies, but not for the same reasons which are behind the green movement. Oil, coal, and Natural Gas are a limited commodity. It’s that which will drive the transfer from fossil fuels to alternative energies. The push for alternative energies as a means to stave off Global Warming or Climate Change, is one that the public won’t buy. The reason is simple. Oil, Coal, and Natural Gas is cheap and abundant.

    For every study which shows these commodities to be running low, there’s another study which shows there to be centuries worth of supply left. Regardless of what ones opinion is, we will eventually run out. Does that mean we shouldn’t be using what we have? Of course not.

    There’s an easy to understand fact about business. Businesses want to remain in the business of making money. Because of that simple fact, the energy companies will protect their future and our future energy needs, all without the government getting involved in forcing a green agenda upon its people. As commodities such as oil start to become rare, as our limited resources become used up. The same companies will in full force begin to produce our needed energy from alternative sources.

    I applaud alternative energy production. I wish there were more of it, because eventually the oil, coal, and natural gas will begin to run out. Still the government should let the free market work. The free market provides what the people ask for. People what sports cars, so automobile manufacturers make Mustangs, Corvettes, 350Zs, and countless other sport cars. People want faster computers, so the free market compels IBM, Compaq, Hewlett-Packard, and other computer manufacturers to design faster and cheaper priced computers. All of these companies being compelled by the free market to provide what the people (there costumers) want. This free market compulsion is applied to every sector of business and manufacturing. So why does the federal government have to get involved in the free market affairs and push a green agenda with tax incentives? Because the people as a whole don’t want it yet. Oil, coal, and natural gas are still cheap and abundant. Until that fact changes, the price of energy from those sources will remain cheap.

    Hmm, kind of makes a light bulb shine in your head doesn't it. Maybe that’s why the government is artificially inflating the cost of energy production through oil, coal, and natural gas. Maybe the government derived of free men is trying to limit choice and freedom of a free market, by regulation, and tax incentives. Electricity Use Per Capita Chart As of 2007 the average U.S. citizen used about 13.638 megawatts of energy a year. That’s enough energy to run twenty six 60 watt light bulbs, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. If you want to check the energy consumption per capita of other countries click this link. To see the per capita usage of other countries click here.

    A combined energy consumption of all energies combined from oil, coal, natural gas, wind, solar, etc in the U.S. is 4.228 trillion kwh or 4,228,000,000,000kwh equivalent. The total energy currently produced by wind power and other sources which are considered to be green sources in the U.S. is 30,876,000,000 kwh. Even though these green energy sources make up almost 7% of the total electricity used in the U.S., it only makes up .0073% of the total energy used in the U.S. We have to keep in mind that we don’t solely rely on electricity for our energy needs. Nearly every form of transportation in the U.S. uses a form of refined oil like gasoline or diesel. Energy production comparison based on commodity type chart

    There are some valid arguments when it comes to using solar, wind, hydroelectric, and other considered green energy sources. Still to make it practical I see only four possible solutions.

    Solution 1
    Each household would have to produce their own energy through solar, wind, geothermal, or which ever combination of sources can be obtained on their own property. This energy could be used to power all the energy needs for the house and used to charge their electric vehicles if they choose to own one.

    The most prevalent problem with this solution is that not everyone owns their own home. Where will they put the equipment needed for the production of their own energy if they live in an apartment?

    Solution 2
    Each county, city, or neighborhood would have to produce their own energy through the same means mentioned above.
    The most prevalent problem with this would be regulation. Who will run these 1000s of energy production sites?

    Solution 3
    Create a world wide web of energy production, or a world power grid. We have to keep in mind the constant fluctuation of power consumption needs from day to night, winter to summer. If it is night time in one part of the world their solar energy production will be near zero, but on the other side of the planet it will be daytime. Likewise when it is winter in one hemisphere, it is summer in the other. Same with wind, one part of the world may not be windy while others will. One other huge advantage to a world energy grid is the lack of need to store energy. When one part of the world isn’t producing enough energy for their needs, the world grid would automatically transfer power to the areas that need it, from the areas that don’t. I know, I know, it sounds a lot like the famous phrase from Karl Marx. "From each according to his ability, to each according to their need."

    We have to be realistic. This approach, even though it sounds good on paper, can not work in the real world. There’s far too much controversy in the world, and I suspect there will always be. Unless Gene Rodenberry got his future world vision of a utopia correct. Me personally would love this to be the utopia we live in, but I am a realist. IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN.

    Solution 4
    This is the solution I would bet on. Use the energy we have in the form of oil, coal, natural gas and green sources to keep the American economy running strong. Over the next century or so, slowly transform America’s energy production from one dependent on nonrenewable sources to green energy sources. This is something which will take a century or longer to accomplish, and during the transitional phase we will have to exploit fossil fuel sources in order to keep the economy strong. Without a strong economy, we simply can’t afford to take on such a daunting task. This solution would have four major steps (requirements) to make it work.

    National Energy Grid
    We will have to design and build a national energy grid. A grid which if need be can transfer power from one part of the country which is currently producing a surplus of energy, to another part of the country which isn’t producing enough. Several factors would affect a regions ability to produce power. Weather (wind), cloud cover (sun), and temperature. A national energy grid would be the first step, as much of our infrastructure is already compatible. Also once the grid is completed it will still work with energy produced by coal, and nuclear. As the green energies start to come online throughout the nation, we can start to eliminate these nonrenewable sources.

    We will have to let free market and industry flourish, allowing it the means to drive the production costs of building solar panels, and wind turbines down. Mass production is the answer, not government tax incentives. Overtime though mass production the cost of these products will decrease.

    Building Green Energy Production Sites
    Each individual power company will have to build their own sites. Each of them built over an extended period of time, and put online and into the power grid as they are completed. Slowly over a century or more, the need to burn coal, natural gas, and other sources will diminish. This will also keep the current energy companies in business. The difference is after an extended period of time the energy being produced and profited from has transitioned from a limited commodity to one that isn’t.

    New technology will constantly have to be invented, the most pressing one would be in automation of a national grid. We have to have a grid which is reliable and effortlessly transfers energy from one area to another. The second would be in the area of energy storage. A much better means of storage would have to be devised then the modern battery. You will have to have enough storage capacity to provide the nation with all of its energy needs for short period to the occasional long period of time. Again it’s not always sunny, or windy. Sometimes the cloud cover in the U.S. can reach nearly 100% which would virtually void any solar production at that time. Further this energy storage would have to be nontoxic, and or easily recycled.

    In conclusion, although our energy needs are no where near as pressing of an issue as the national debt. If not tackled or at least steps taken to conquer our future energy needs, we will one day years into the future find ourselves in a situation where we are actually running out of coal, oil, and natural gas. Sure it’s a century or more in the future, but it will be so much easier of a transition over a long period of time then it will in the 11th hour.

    Wind Power Production In The U.S.
    Solar Power Production In The U.S.
    Hydroelectric Power Production In The U.S.
    Nuclear Power Production In The U.S.
    Coal Power Production In The U.S.
  2. jota1

    jota1 Well-Known Member

    I dont think there is the will to implement any of your three solutions. This new environmental drive is a smoke screen that is meant to appease those that are worried about our planet. The multinational companies want us to use oil and their income depends on us using it. If and when you decide to produce your own solar energy, thermal or photovoltaic its hell on earth to have it approved and even when it is approved a few months/years later a new government comes into power and changes the rules.

    I was going to get a couple of photovoltaic panels to micro produce energy for my house and sell the rest to the grid. Last year this type of production would have been approved however this year they have lowered the amount of electricity you can sell to the grid and above that limit you actually pay a fine. I not only have to spend a fortune on solar panels but I also have to constantly police how much electricity I am using /producing.
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 28, 2011
  3. Julia-C

    Julia-C Well-Known Member

    That's why I say the government needs to stay out of it. Let the free market work. I don't care how big and how powerful energy companies become, one day fossil fuels will run out. It will run out long before we have the chance to destroy the planet. These energy companies will realize if they want to stay in business they will have to start producing energy by other means. The free market will eventually work as long as government keeps their hands and regulations out of it.
  4. jota1

    jota1 Well-Known Member

    I agree with you Julia, in the end it will be the market that will push these conglomerates into changing their way of thinking, money will be the motivator as usual, but even free markets need basic guidelines in order to function properly or we have anarchy.

    A gentle push, not bureaucracy would do a lot to speed up the process and save us years of depending on those ex goat herders in the desert that do nothing more than pump the thing from the ground or Wall Street Pimps that skim our money. Sorry if I offend anyone but its the truth.
  5. Lovecraft

    Lovecraft Well-Known Member

    Step one: Put all oil subsidies into nuclear fusion research.

    Step two: Wait around a while with the status quo for practical fusion reactors.

    Step three: The power of the sun at your command.

    Nuclear fusion would have no wasteful by-products solid or gaseous, would not need any particularly special fuel, potentially be safer then current fission practices, potentially allow us to manufacture rare or dwindling elements we want more of - like helium, etc.

    Fusion plants would be great. Let's do it.
  6. Julia-C

    Julia-C Well-Known Member

    I agree artificial thermonuclear creation of energy such as the sun does 24/7 will someday be viable. The problem goes beyond technological containment issues and into public perception and fears. Long term controlled fusion where the chain reaction can be kept in a limited reaction without reaching the point of a uncontrolled thermonuclear explosion is well beyond current technologies. Containment would have to consist of a magnetically controlled environment, with magnetic forces which would make todays super-magnets seem like refrigerator magnets. These magnetic forces not only have to be strong enough to limit fusion reaction or stop it in an instant, but to be precise enough to throttle up or down a self sustaining reaction. Further these these precise changes in magnetic containment have to happen in nano and pico seconds, because that is all the time a fusion reaction needs to spiral out of control and into a uncontrolled thermonuclear explosion.

    That rant being said, I am all for it. I simply don't suspect we will have enough technology or knowledge to be able to make it safe for several centuries.
  7. Lovecraft

    Lovecraft Well-Known Member

  8. Julia-C

    Julia-C Well-Known Member

  9. Lovecraft

    Lovecraft Well-Known Member

    -Edit due to me being silly. Don't mind me-
  10. johnnysays

    johnnysays Well-Known Member

    Your Solution #4 has a problem: We don't have a century. You're advocating business as usual. I know where you're coming from and partly agree with you. Your theory is that people can't care about this problem if they're poor. If you're going to die tomorrow, who cares what happens in 100 years. The other part of the theory is that our technology will not get better with a regulated economy. So the only way to get better AND cleaner technology is to pump up our economy and avoid slowing it down.

    Here's what you don't get, I'll explain it here. How do you stop a tobacco smoker from smoking? How do you encourage industry to stop illicit cost cutting measures and predatory business practices? How do you stop them from burying pollutants and then building a playground on top? How do you stop criminals from committing crimes? How do you stop liars from lying? How do you stop government from sleeping with bankers? How do you stop companies from sucking off addicts? How do you stop insider trading or monopolies?

    Do you get what I'm saying? This isn't about getting people to do something better to solve an old problem. This is about getting them to do the right thing. Doing the right thing is different from doing something better! Furthermore, the economy is inherently self-organizing and people who participate are driven by greed. The designers of capitalism stated this clearly. Companies routinely exploit addiction to make profit. You can't just shutdown unions and prohibit regulatory measures. That would be like letting all of the felony prisoners out onto the streets. Don't you understand that regulating economy is an essential practice, just like police and military are?

    What you're saying is that if we're moving forward on some train tracks and we see a train up ahead coming towards us then we should keep moving forward up ahead to get to level ground instead of jumping off now into the ditch. The problem with running ahead to get to the level ground is that it's a RISK. You might not make it. Why take a risk like that when you know you'll survive jumping into the ditch? It's not worth it. Jump into the ditch while you're still alive. Never play the devils advocate when the risks are this high.

    Remember it's the entire human civilization at risk. If the methane hydrates go and the permafrost melts all bets are off. It won't just be the humans that die-off. We're talking about something that could get terrible beyond imagining. We face a similar situation that TEPCO and the japan government faced in the years before this recent disaster. We have to determine whether the safety of humans and life on this planet is more important than how much money we have. Remember, they didn't have to mix MOX fuel into reactor #3. They didn't have to build nuclear reactors on dangerous fault-lines. But they did anyway. It was a risk. They gambled.

    And btw the amount we emit in the next 100 years FAR EXCEEDS what we've emitted in the past. There's no time to doddle.

    I usually underplay all of this with people I know. Personally, I'm very skeptical about it. However, if I had to make a choice for the human race I would do so conservatively. Even a small chance that we could set off a major extinction event is enough reason to act now and steadfastly. This is the same methodology that the military uses in determining the danger a threat poses. Imagine if we had arranged a peace parade instead of surrounding hitler during WWII, using the justification that hitler only had a small chance to take over the world so it was not our problem. But that's not how it worked. The chance that he had the bomb or could get it and that he could manage to overcome his enemies was enough for the world to unite against him. It was an existential threat and that's precisely what AGW is.

    AGW = Anthropogenic Global Warming.

    And what if humanity is alone in the cosmos? We might be the only civilized life in our galaxy! Should we risk our lives here on this planet, and that of other life, for a few extra bucks and some bonus swagger in the shortterm?

    How will I live my life though? Like I said, I'm very skeptical. I'll let time tell me what the truth is.
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 30, 2011
  11. Isabel

    Isabel Staff Alumni

    Thank Johnnnysays for your thoughtful reply. You wrote:

    Of course, this thread is just one in a million examples that most Westerners will throw everything and the kitchen sinks to protect the status quo until this world is a pile of toxic rubble.
    I hope this is not a waste of your time because in my experience, deniers and cornucopian techno-believers (which is very different than being a scientist) are very rarely amenable to change their beliefs, no in the face of scientific evidences, logic or even common sense. I gave up a while ago embarking in that kind of discussions, even refusing to bother to listen or read the stuff spewing of the mouthpieces of the industrial-technological, necrophiliac (as defined by Erich Fromm) society, endorsing Garrett Hardin:

    "The scientific mind is not irrevocably closed: it is merely intolerant of wasting time on the proposals of those who are too lazy to submit themselves to the necessary discipline of science."

    So kudos to you for still having the patience and compassion to put up with it.

    I just find it deliriously hilarious (in a gallows humor kind of way, mind you), that there are still people defending free market in the twilight of civilization as we know it. There were probably some Romans still arguing over the merits of the Old Republic when the Barbarian Hordes were knocking at the door. Its like a Monty Python skit: humans in all their glorious absurdity. Even one year ago, I would I have tried to answer this thread with a nice, well thought of rational, full of references and scientific data. Now, not only have I learned the futility of such an effort, but I don't give a flying fuck. The Zombie Free Zone Warning at Mike Ruppert collapsenet not only makes me smile, but always sounded like a great policy:

    Either deniers don't want to see, or they are too wrapped up in their pet ideology to see. In any case, they are a lost cause until the tsunami is in their backyard. But for purely therapeutic reasons (ie venting is good for the soul), here is my piece. By the way, I got my Ph.D. in Natural Resources, which, while not making me an expert on everything under the sun, at least give me the minimal critical apparatus to read a whack of scientific papers and draw some general conclusions.

    The planet is pretty much fucked up beyond repair to sustain human life as we got to know it in the 20th century for much longer. There are all kind of very strange and wonderful stuff happening, such as bat colony collapse, melting of the Greenland Ice sheet, fishery collapse, 150 species disappearing everyday, ocean dead zones, which points out to the end of business as usual for a fair chunk of the six billions people in a quite near future. No way there is the time or political will to make any significant changes. The game is pretty much over and western civilization is basically a dead man walking but does not know it yet. Add to this peak oil, which was reached for conventional oil in 2006, and the Hirsch report which clearly stated we needed to start attempting mitigation 20 years ago, and you got some nice witch brew to deal with. Clean pure water would be a nicer alternative, but, at the rate of aquifers depletion (google Ogalalla aquifer), that witch brew is pretty much all that will be left to drink when the dust settles at the bottom of the oceans (that would be the topsoil in which we grow our food).

    Despite what the psychopathic, scientifically illiterate mouthpieces can say, climate change is now a scientific consensus, with a rapidly mounting body of empirical evidences establishing the anthropogenic cause of it. Many climate change scientists fear we have already reached the tipping point. To make good use of your metaphor: when a freight train looses it breaks on the way down a steep slope, nobody needs to see exactly in what its going to crash to figure out it wont be a pretty sight. The geo-engineering schemes such as proposed by Lovelock, just show how desperate the scientific community really is. Real life data are streaming, not only confirming model expectations, but actually showing that the situation on the ground is evolving much faster than what the models predicted. We already are observing the beginning of positive feedback loop with the release of methane from Siberia Arctic shelf. The unpredictable extreme weather patterns will shut down food production with crop failures most everywhere, as it did last year in Pakistan and Russia. The main street Joe has no clue agriculture developed over the past 10 000 years on the premise of reliable climates. He think food comes from the "Megamart All Corn Syrup Shit Emporium". Sowwy Joe, even that GM corn is grown the old fashion way in some 1000 acres field in Iowa.

    As far as I am concern, this debate is over. Thought I am pretty sure that many idiots with the scientific background of an oyster will keep arguing for their rights to drive SUVs and watch NASCAR till the frozen pizzas stop being delivered to Wallmart. I personally always been puzzled about the retarded, completely twisted thinking process which leads somebody to defend the economy against a functioning biosphere, which actually provide for air, water, food and other "necessities". Anyhow, here some reading material:

    Also, if you have not seen this, this is a good piece by Bill McKibben.
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 30, 2011
  12. Julia-C

    Julia-C Well-Known Member

    @ Johnnysays
    You didn't really read a damn thing I wrote.

    You don't stop them, you educate them. Freedom gives us the choices to destroy our own body. This is a prime example of people with your mentality. You don't truly care about freedom of choice.

    Sure there needs to be regulation, but not over regulation.

    " Over regulation causes this crap. If the government would step out of the way, nothing is to gain via lobbying and campaign donations designed to get political perks for their business. How can you not see that?

    Making a profit is greed? Every time I pickup my paycheck, that must be greed as well. No one is forced to do business with a company. If you don't like their business practices, or what you perceive to be their unjust environmental impact. DON"T DO BUSINESS WITH THEM. The free market gives the people the power to influence business practices. The same idiots who bitch about Wal-Mart being so huge still shop there. Not because there aren't any other stores, but because of the prices. If you stop doing business with companies which you disagree with on their business practices, they will change. That's how the free market works. The people have the power, not the government. The government isn't needed. The people can force these changes by their own influence on business.

    I never once in my article brought up unions, or even used the word "unions".

    The rest of it is where you lost my attention. Global warming, climate change, and Christianity, all have something in common. Faith in a belief which is unproven. For every scientist who cry out in fear that we are going to die because of global warming, there's another who's study show it to be ridiculous. Faith is a personal thing, I won't fault you for having faith in your global warming religion.

    There's a small chance a rock the size of long island will hit the earth as well. We must immediately build a repulser beam generator on the moon to stave off disaster. Who cares how remote the possibility is? Who cares about the harm it will do to our economy, with such an expensive ambition? The mere remote chance of DEEP IMPACT compels us to build it. GIVE ME A BREAK. Same damn possibility, same damn mentality.

    Who cares if we are the only sentient beings in the universe?

    "Give Me Liberty Or Give Me Death" -Patrick Henry

    What good is having a free people, if we don't use the freedom of a free market to influence the businesses which make up the free market? Using the government to force a change, isn't freedom. Out lawing cigarettes, trans fat, guns, and forcing adults to wear seat belts under the cloak of saving lives in insane. When you open the door in one area by limiting freedoms to save lives. You open up a can of worms. Let's limit all cars to 5mph, no one dies in a car accident at 5mph. Let's make it law that safety harnesses be worn and properly tethered before we allow people to walk up a flight of stairs. I mean they might fall, and we need to save their lives. Let's limit everyones calorie intake and regulate their nutrition. It's all for the purpose of preventing obesity and saving live. Who cares about this being a free society, it's all for the greater good.

    Yes that rant in bold is just as insane as this statement of yours.
    Just like the typical person who lives outside of America, you want to blame all of the worlds problems on America. So narrow and closed minded.

    Yet again instead of really reading what I wrote, you set out to praise your ideals. You fail to realize your goals and my own are one in the same. I want to get off of fossil fuels, but through the power of the free market, not government.

    Your quote goes both ways.
    People like you don't want a practical solutions which works within the confines of a peoples freedoms. You want to fundamentally change society, even if the cost is freedom. It truly is sad that you failed to see the main point of my article. I will give you the abridged version, since you were unable to see it on your own.

    We (the world) needs new sustainable energy sources. Not because of climate change, but because oil, coal, natural gas are limited. Regulation slows the economy, a slow economy is unable to make a quick change. The people need to force the change through the influence they have on a free market, not the power of government.

    Why is that so hard to understand? Why is that logic evil? The goal is one in the same. To end dependence on fossil fuels, and move to alternative energy. The defining difference is I promote the transition while maintaining freedom.
  13. jota1

    jota1 Well-Known Member

    I completely agree with this. Europe is being ruled by fanatics that want to regulate every part of our lives. The US used to be the last bastion of freedom in the world but its getting sick and absorbing some of our cr*p. The Uk used to be another bastion of free thinking but that changed with all those years under Labours social/economic agenda. I was looking at some statistics about the Uk councils with regards to the financial cuts in this new budget and in most cases the council/government are the biggest employers. How can anyone think this can work, where does the money come from? Another statistic that would be interesting to see but that I cant prove for lack of data is that most of the immigrants (first but mostly second generation) end up working for the state. Amazingly I am sure everyone suspects this but are afraid to speak their mind for fear of being labeled as racist or a right winged liberal. I am neither.

    Europe is sinking under over-regulation. Can I move to the states??? pretty please!
  14. Julia-C

    Julia-C Well-Known Member

    We are sinking here as well. All for the same reasons. The more free a society is, the more economic might they have, and the more powerful their military is. When you remove the desire, or the promotion of freedom from a great power, you get a dictatorship, who has the power to rule and conquer the world. No one really wants a one world government except for George Soros. Unfortunately, totalitarianism and a dictatorship is a part of an over regulated society. I prefer freedom, and sense-able regulations. :irony:

    I have been looking more into fusion, and have found some very interesting stuff. Likely my next article will be on that as an alternative to oil, coal, etc. You spurred that thought in my ity bity melon. lol
  15. johnnysays

    johnnysays Well-Known Member

    Well Julia-C I"m not making decisions for our country or the world so don't fear me. All I can do is talk.

    Like I said, I'm skeptical as an individual.

    I voted for a republican in the state election you know and he campaigned on a promise of lower taxes and less regulation and business friendly policy. From my post you would think I'm big on tax and regulation. But if so then you've taken me out of context. I also don't look at issues as being either/or. I think we sometimes need a democrat and sometimes need a republican to balance things out.

    No where in my post have I said anything is certain. That's what makes this difficult for leaders.

    Imagine for a moment being a leader and feeling the weight of the world on your shoulders. I couldn't handle it.
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 31, 2011
  16. Julia-C

    Julia-C Well-Known Member

    Don't mind me, I was in a bitchy mood when I replied to your previous post.

    I'm skeptical too, of all sides of an argument. Those who advocate huge changes often have an agenda which goes far beyond the surface of what they are advocating.

    Don't be too proud of voting republican, especially when the alternative probably created the bulk of the deciding factor. lol We have had many losers on all sides of the isle.
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 31, 2011
  17. johnnysays

    johnnysays Well-Known Member

    As a person, I'm definitely a cornucopian techno-believer. Don't have the patience for REAL science.

    My position on AGW in that post was only ... if I was dictator of the world I'd have to be cautious and assume that even a small chance is enough reason for some kind of action. Luckily, I'm not. So I sit back and watch. I haven't made up my mind on a lot of things, as a person. AGW is just one example. I do tend to think that advances in technology will solve a lot of our problems, but I'm not sure we'll ever stop crime. Futurism is my religion. It's how I find peace in my confusing world. I lean on it for support.

    Take for example this nuclear disaster in japan. I still support nuclear power. I believe if we support it we'll get more advances and nuclear power has probably the highest potential of the technologies out there. So I'm a futurist no doubt at all. If we're using it we're more likely to invest in related research, I would think. The situation in japan, in my mind, is more a result of predatory business and government not doing its job which is to make sure that law and order prevail. MOX fuel in reactor 3 and nuke plants on dangerous fault-lines is not law and order, it's sacrificing security for a little extra financial cushioning. They gambled peoples lives.

    So some say we should shelve nuclear power but what are our alternatives? Japan, rightly so, should switch to natural gas. But what about the rest of us? We'd probably switch to coal. Coal is probably worse than nuclear. Or maybe we'd switch to natural gas, I'm not sure how well that would work out. I'd be open to it, but I think the leaderships needs sustained investment in nuclear research if they're going to abandon uranium-based nuclear power. Divert some funds to researching thorium as safer cleaner fuel, for instance.
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 1, 2011
  18. johnnysays

    johnnysays Well-Known Member

    My state is almost always blue. I thought we needed a republican in there. Remember how Obama ran on a promise of CHANGE? That's how I saw the republican candidate. Not only that but the democrat had already been in office before and had his chance. I just thought that putting a republican in there would remind the predominantly blue state that republicans live here too. The democrat won the election, but only by a thin margin and only because of a hugely concentrated county in the state's largest metropolitan area.
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 1, 2011
  19. Lovecraft

    Lovecraft Well-Known Member

    The US is sinking in under-regulation. In the US you heard all sorts of stories of the laid off workers and people selling homes for what may as well be a nickle compared to what they originally paid for it.

    In Canada, where we have much more regulation that prevents things such as bad loans much more often our recession was more of a sigh and a while with a little less spending; the Bank of Canada said that the recession was over in Canada on July 23 '09 and since then we have indeed been getting back to where we were after a dip that I can't honestly say I noticed in the least. Changes in consumer spending weren't noticeable to me, House sale prices around my area have been going up consistently even during the dip and I can't even find a friend of a friend that really suffered in any way for it... except for a friend with family in Cleveland.

    Also, as a bastion of freedom, I'm sure that the US will have no problem with me personally deciding to marry another person of the same sex, let my female friends select abortion if it's in their best interests, have consenting sex with another person for whatever favours - material or immaterial - we find favourable or to travel without random searches of my person. As a free country I can no doubt make another political party if the current ones don't satisfy me and surely I can rely on some government transparency!

    Hey, Canada is hardly perfect either I know, but just a week ago we saw our Prime Minister booted out on a no confidence vote. Why? Turns out he wasn't giving enough information about proposed legislation to the parliament and that gave enough credence to the opposition party to rule his government unsuitable and force an election.
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 1, 2011
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.