BarackZero writes:
1. You pretend that creating an immediate and permanent global depression is preferable to what you CLAIM is a later, certain-to-follow global depression.
Ever hear of peak oil, the point at which the maximum rate of petroleum extraction is reached? By some estimates, we've already passed it; even the most optimistic estimates say that we have at best less than 10 years before production levels start their inevitable decline. All the readily available oil is already gone. You can keep scraping for shale, I suppose, but there's a point at which the costs of extracting and refining what's left are going to exceed any acceptable selling price. Regardless, what part of
non-renewable resource do you not understand?
Besides, you have yet to demonstrate how developing alternative energy resources is going to have a negative impact on the world economy. The petroleum industry is going to collapse at some point no matter what. (
Non-renewable resource, remember?). Would you rather have alternative energy sources already in place by the time that happens, or should we wait until the price of crude goes up to $300 a barrel and the trucking industry collapses? Guess what happens to the economy when the deliveries stop?
Also, did you ever hear of the concept of
phasing in these new energy resources? Is anyone seriously suggesting that we all immediately turn everything off and start farming with digging sticks and heating our homes by burning dung? I think it might just be possible to start small and gradually shift over to other sources of energy as oil use declines. You think?
Also, do you think that the southwest might see some economic benefit by investing in mass solar power production? Plenty of sun down there, but not so many jobs, I hear. Likewise the plains states. Plenty of room for windmills out there in wheat and corn fields, but not so many jobs right now. Would you rather invest in the technology to get those
renewable resources on the grid, or invest in ways to squeeze a few more drops of crude out of the rocks?
BarackZero writes:
3. Jimbo Carter, far left-wing lunatic, said we were going to run out of fossil fuel in the 1990s.
What Carter said was that if we didn't start making changes in our energy consumption and use of petroleum products, that we'd become inextricably dependent on foreign oil. He was absolutely correct.
Today a little over half of the oil that the US consumes comes from other countries. And while we might assume (for the time being, anyway) that Mexico and Canada are our friends, are Venezuela and Saudi Arabia such great supporters of the US and its interests? With China growing more and more oil-hungry every day, we need those foreign producers more than they need us.
President Carter was correct, and you are wrong.
BarackZero writes:
That sure does move back that "third world slag heap" you were predicting, doesn't it.
Moreover, there are considerable reserves in Canada stored in oil shales. Our technology continues to improve with respect to not only recovering oil but also in locating it.
Thank you for so artfully missing my point.
Even if you tapped ANWR to its fullest, it would still only be a drop in the bucket compared to the US's current rate of oil consumption. And again, petroleum is ... wait for it ... a
non-renewable resource. You can be as clever as you want in squeezing oil out of shale, it's still going to keep costing more and more to do so, and the supply of available petroleum is going to run out sooner or later. Do you want to wait until then before you look for alternative sources?
BarackZero writes:
Please contact your pals at the Club of Rome to learn how and why technology will let us down. Again. Luddites like them and you are not to be believed. They've/you've been so wrong so many times in the past, why should they/you be believed now?
Can you explain how making advances in new technology and creating new, more efficient sources of energy is being a Luddite?
BarackZero writes:
How vulgar and unscholarly of you.
Perhaps, but essentially an accurate description of the world view of the AGW-deniers, forest-burners and strip-miners of the world. Considering the way that you consistently label anyone who cares about the environment as an eco-terrorist, I'd say that you can be counted as one of that crowd.
BarackZero writes:
1. I have never been in any fraternity.
analogy [uh-nal-uh-jee] - noun: (from Greek — analogia, "proportion". 1. a similarity between like features of two things, on which a comparison may be based.
2. similarity or comparability.
BarackZero writes:
2. Pollution is far worse in third world countries than it is in the United States.
Pollution is worse in third world countries in proportion to how much they use fossil fuel technology, especially outdated technology. Last time I checked, solar panels and wind-mills were a lot cleaner than coal-burning plants.
BarackZero writes:
3. Your god, Al Gore, is one of the world's worst examples of abusing resources.
What is it with your obsession with Al Gore? Did he turn you down for a date in high school or something?
And really? The former next president of the United States is a worse abuser of resources than, for example, the companies responsible for the destruction of the Amazon rain forest, currently vanishing at a rate of 1 1/2 acres a
second, mostly to keep McDonalds and KFC stocked with cheap meat? I would wager that a single tour by the Rolling Stones burns a lot more fuel than Mr Gore has in the last ten. Or, maybe a little closer to home, who do you think has been putting in more time in first class these days, Al Gore or Sarah Palin, who put in at least 2300 miles just in the first week after she decided she didn't have time to be governor anymore?
But really, give this whole Al Gore thing a rest. Please.
BarackZero writes:
4. Your fellow environmentalist cohort, Theodore Kaczynski, burned through $50,000,000 of resources while killing and bombing and maiming before he was captured in a rathole shack in the woods. On his table was a dog-eared copy of Al Gore's book,
Earth in the Balance.
ad hominem [ad hom-uh-nuhm ‐nem, ahd-] —adjective
1. appealing to one's prejudices, emotions, or special interests rather than to one's intellect or reason.
2. attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument.
I hardly think that Ted Kaczynski is all that representative of environmentalists as a whole, do you? No wait, you really do, don't you?
Do you also blame J.D. Salinger and/or Jodi Foster for John Hinkley popping Ronald Regan with a .22?
BarackZero writes:
You should be very proud of Ted, as well as the many enviro-wackos who have:
A. Burned Hummers at dealerships ... etc.
Again, the exception, not the rule. You're talking about very rare, random acts. Exactly how many car dealerships got burned down in the last month?
BarackZero writes:
F. Driven their cars into towns solely in order to commit property destruction to further their/your extremist causes
You'd respect these mythical "eco-terrorists" more if they took the bus instead of driving?
BarackZero writes:
My favorite environmentalist wacko comment comes from Cheryl Crow. While attracting hordes of sycophantic lemmings who collectively drove thousands and thousands of miles to her concerts, Cheryl told them the way to protect the environment is to use a single sheet of toilet paper.
joke [johk] - noun
1. something said or done to provoke laughter or cause amusement, as a witticism, a short and amusing anecdote, or a prankish act
The point that Crow was making is that lots of small acts can add up. Which is true.
Thanks for playing. We have some nice gifts for you on the way out.
I have no time for lies and fantasy, and neither should you. Enjoy or die.
-John Lydon
What's the difference between a conspiracy theorist and a new puppy? The puppy eventually grows up and quits whining.
-Steven Dutch