The price of fuel and global ****ing.

**Styles Bitchley** · 08-25-2012, 01:12 PM

Whenever something semi-scientific is posted in here, I'm always amazed at the number of people who seem to have a pretty good grasp on things, so yesterday as I was reading a Rolling Stone article, I thought about mentioning it here. The article was about global ****ing, and although I'm somewhat of the opinion that the earth will find a way to take care of itself, one of the things that was discussed was pretty disturbing. It basically stated that with what has already been refined and burned in terms of fossil fuels, and the potential that remains underground, that we basically have 4 times as much to burn as what the earth can handle. The numbers were expressed in gigatons. It also took into account that China and other countries without as much environmental protection will change the pace at which bad things happen exponentially. I guess what I'm looking for opinions on is ; is it possible for the U.S. and other developed nations to fix this without going broke. In other words, if we were able to become less dependent on the Middle East, could we refine our own resources profitably enough to solve the environmental issues caused by burning it worldwide, or as the article implied, are we screwed beyond repair no matter what?

**Firedance** · 08-25-2012, 02:22 PM

Originally Posted by Styles Bitchley

It also took into account that China and other countries without as much environmental protection will change the pace at which bad things happen exponentially. I guess what I'm looking for opinions on is ; is it possible for the U.S. and other developed nations to fix this without going broke.

Don't mean to sound critical, but re climate change, you do realise that significantly, the US has not signed up to the Kyoto protocol?

Kyoto Protocol - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

**brandondrury** · 08-25-2012, 02:59 PM

The US, as a nation, does not give a shit. The notion that we are somehow "ahead" or "progressive" is a complete joke. I think we covered that here: Why America is NOT the greatest country in the world The Kyoto Protocol, regardless of its effectiveness, is evidence of all of this.

We aren't doomed until we are doomed. There are a lot of unknowns here.

The idea of what the Earth can handle is mostly irrelevant. The Earth has been a fireball and a snowcone before and still here it is. The issue is what humans can handle. 1' rise in ocean levels means little to Mother Nature. I suspect it would be a disaster for New York and many port cities.

It's a shame the right wing has turned discussion of the data into some kind of sham. It's some kind of communist conspiracy or something now and so the average guy who believes in less government is more prone to laugh at the very idea of a planet getting ****er. The only logical reason to avoid the environmental issue is economic. Most republicans I know are nature-loving sportsman. It's odd when those guys say, "Ah, screw the environment." I wonder if the right wing pulled that off on purpose.

As is, any strong attempts at improving environmental issues (usually with totally unknown results....sometimes even immeasurable) generally come with outrageous price tags. (We are talking almost as much as 1/3 - 1/2 the cost of the US Military here!!!) This can change but it's going to require major breakthroughs from the scientific community. I like the electricity producing plants. Solar paint is interesting, too. There's enough wind energy in South Dakota to power the entire US if we had the super conducting wire to get that electricity to New York and LA. A new electric car battery was created 3 months ago that weighs half as much and has a 50% increase in storage. There are many promising possibilities. There are a lot of sharp people working their asses off on this right now who don't get near the credit they deserve.

Even when we find a mutual synergy between economics and environment (we really have to), I suspect few of the old guard fossil fuel companies are going to stand for it and they run this country/planet. That will continue as long as campaign contributions are so important to the doofusses we continually elect.

As for China and the rest of the world, I can't really judge them following exactly in the US's footsteps.

Brandon

**Styles Bitchley** · 08-25-2012, 03:31 PM

Let me add a little insight to the way I was thinking about it. From a political standpoint, I'm definitely a less government kind of guy. From the standpoint of belief in U.S. values, I think we've proven in the past that we can figure out just about anything if we have the initiative, so reducing our dependence on foreign oil is probably not technically much more difficult than it was to put a man on the moon back then. I'm just wondering if it's not economically enticing enough to get it done, or if it's futile to do it at all. Seems to me if we were able to be more independent we could figure out some of the environmental concerns with the money we'd be making, and that ultimately would be more beneficial. The article I read seemed to imply that the problem was much bigger than that simple view of things, I was just wondering if anyone had the other side of the story.

**ff_** · 08-25-2012, 04:41 PM

We all have to understand that our surviving is decided by us, not the earth, I'm with Brandon for this, the Earth will survive to us.

I think that all the world (politics, media, people) is blind for the damage that this - destructive - model of economy is making to the natural resources of this planet, and the entire economy is ignoring that, always and everywhere searching for profit. Personally I'm feeling like a gear wheel in a mechanism that I don't like.

Luckily, some things are moving around and the envinroment issue is becoming an interest for more people. But it can be too late.

**garww** · 08-25-2012, 05:18 PM

It's been my opinion that we have to wean off the thermal tit. And, that includes structures that store thermal energy without any pretense of being useful.

**Stan_Halen** · 08-25-2012, 05:25 PM

Originally Posted by Styles Bitchley

so reducing our dependence on foreign oil is probably not technically much more difficult than it was to put a man on the moon back then. I'm just wondering if it's not economically enticing enough to get it done, or if it's futile to do it at all.

Presidential candidate Romney just announced that - if elected president - he will have America free of foreign energy dependence by 2020. So it's doable.

Drill, baby, drill!

Originally Posted by ff_

But it can be too late.

I think we're all doomed.

**venuestudio** · 08-25-2012, 05:27 PM

I heard an interesting comment on the arctic polar ice cap, that by the end of the decade we will, for the first time in history, see a summer where there is no ice cap up there. I put that right up there with peeing blood, not a good sign.

**venuestudio** · 08-25-2012, 05:29 PM

Originally Posted by Stan_Halen

Presidential candidate Romney just announced that - if elected president - he will have America free of foreign energy dependence by 2020. So it's doable.

Drill, baby, drill!

I think we're all doomed.

Doomed indeed, it is just a matter of time. We care too much about today and too little about tomorrow.

**ff_** · 08-25-2012, 06:35 PM

Originally Posted by venuestudio

Doomed indeed, it is just a matter of time. We care too much about today and too little about tomorrow.

Yes, this is the reality. What about our sons, and their sons? It doesn't matter, we can save a lot of money burning coal instead of making investments in wind and solar energy. This is the wrong way, and it's not an opinion, is a fact: it's like a father covering the house floor with nails for his kids, it's crazy!

**Styles Bitchley** · 08-25-2012, 08:04 PM

Originally Posted by Stan_Halen

Presidential candidate Romney just announced that - if elected president - he will have America free of foreign energy dependence by 2020. So it's doable.

Drill, baby, drill!

I think we're all doomed.

I think it won't get fixed because in the background there are people that don't want it to get fixed.

**Styles Bitchley** · 08-25-2012, 08:12 PM

Originally Posted by Firedance

Don't mean to sound critical, but re climate change, you do realise that significantly, the US has not signed up to the Kyoto protocol?

Kyoto Protocol - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

No offense taken at all, I am not truly informed on this in any way, shape or form. I just think there are a variety of factors going on in regards to oil dependency that are outside the scope of environmental concerns. I'm trying not to be my usual cynical self and believe it's more about money than the environment.

**venuestudio** · 08-25-2012, 08:58 PM

It is sad about the US not signing up for the Kyoto Protocol. Very sad. I would bet if you polled people under 30, the majority would sign up. Unfortunately Washington only listens to PACs, large corporations and each other, not the people they represent or people of science and academia. I am embarrassed of our position.

**shackman** · 08-26-2012, 02:23 AM

Originally Posted by brandondrury

Any strong attempts at improving environmental issues (usually with totally unknown results....sometimes even immeasurable) generally come with outrageous price tags. (We are talking almost as much as 1/3 - 1/2 the cost of the US Military here!!!)

Yup. So let's do away with the US Military. World right now would be a safer place without it.

Seriously. I love you arguments Brandon. The one issue you didin't address was WHY it will cost that much. WHy does solar power cost so much to make? Why do wind turbines cost so much? Why does wave power throw a curved ball with mega bills? Why aren't any governments - desperate to solve the world's economic mess, hiring thousands of people to make solar panels, wind turbines, thousands more to install them (and otgher kinds of renewable energy) so that we can stop burning fossil fuels.

(At this stage - for folks who don't know me - I don my hat with the red flag flying off the brim and paint the hammer and sickle on my cheek.

Because they are all being made by private enterprise. And what is private enterprise best at (it's REALLLY GOOD AT THIS)?

Spotting an easy profit from a captive market.

Whizz vbang. I'm outta here before the McCarthyites get me.