Page 58 of 111 FirstFirst ... 848535455565758596061626368108 ... LastLast
Results 1,141 to 1,160 of 2209
  1. #1141  
    I have to say, that it still amazes me that with the potential of the world's wealth as a prize, that we do not have more advancement in alternative fuel sources for cars and other modes of transportation. I enjoy reading about the advancements of electronic cars, fuel cells, to nuclear powered batteries, etc... It seems that with all the technology we have now and all the new technologies we are developing and discovering all the time that there isn't a solution yet. It seems that no matter what alternative source you look at, it is "almost there"....but that for one challenge or another they are not able to mass market it, just cannot get that extra umph of power to make it have that mass appeal, just have to make it last a little longer to make it meet every day needs, etc...

    It reminds of what someone just posted today or yesterday....remember the movie Money Pit where the contractor keeps on telling Tom Hanks for months he will be finished in two weeks.

    I have already posted most of this quite a while ago, but I think it has been lost in the massive discusions on this topic here at TC, so here it is again.......There is no doubt that we effect the climate with our fossil fuel usage, coal burning, etc...(the point of interest in this with me is how much is a natural cycle as well). Even if one wanted to ignore all data confirming this, there is little doubt that there is certainly national security issues with our economy based on the oil prices that are directly controlled by all intentions our enemies or easily could become our potential enemies in the Middle East. Or with such a narrow pipeline (figuratively and literally speaking) of oil from the ground to our pumps that a terrorist org could stop our economy cold with some luck and planning on disrupting the oil supply chain. That with all this in mind, we need alternative fuel sources.

    So if someone cannot come to grips on the impact of our climate, maybe they can relate to the security needs of our nation. It doesn't matter if one believes in one and someone else in the other, the same solutions will meet both perspectives.

    I see this needing to be addressed in two...possibly three stages...these are just off the top of my head:

    IMMEDIATE NEEDS/GOALS (1-9 years)
    • Need to decrease foreign support for oil. this may mean domestic drilling to help curve this dependence.
    • I would support a tax on the oil companies AND at the pump that will go directly to funding alternative fuel research and implementation. With public awareness of where the money is going with public progression updates at least every 6 months.
    • I am generally not a gov regulation type of guy, but I have heard talk of gov regulations for oil companies that so much research must be geared toward alternative fuel sources. I would think that this would be a logical step. The day is coming when oil companies are going to be memory of the past for the most part, I would think they want to be involved in the next step.
    • Offer federal assistance to American auto makers to develop and implement current options (like more electrical power vs fossil fuel).
    • Increased Tax savings to individuals individuals who buy these cars.
    • There are certainly ethanol solutions that could be implemented now. Some with very few or minor adjustments to current trucks running diesel. Then add incentives for companies to implement the expansion of the distribution of the the new fuel and for auto makers to support it.


    LONG TERM NEEDS/GOALS (10-25 years)
    • Develop a car that does not run on fossil fuel at all. This would be such a HUGE financial incentive that the private sector should be easy to involve.
    • Add tax breaks for companies actively pursuing this goal with reviews of progress to continue these breaks.
    • Federal funding for University research into alternatives.
    • Implement a distribution system to support the new alternative fuel if needed that will need to replace gas stations.
    • The loss of world political clout that the Middle East will experience from such a transition will be HUGE and must be addressed in how to prepare for these concerns now. It is possible that this loss of wealth and power could turn violent if face with no longer having the world dependent on them for fuel consumption.
    • Have a $100 million X prize for the first person or org to present a mass market solution for non fossil fuel car.


    Again, these are just rambling thoughts that I am sure many are not thought out very far. Please add your perspective of what we need to do now for immediate goals and long term goals to move away from fossil fuel consumption all together.
    Last edited by HobbesIsReal; 04/28/2007 at 01:42 PM.
  2. #1142  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    I think Gore has a bigger impact on public opinion in the US than the scientists themselves. That's not a good thing, IMO.
    That idea does provide a plausible rationale to TCRP's campaign, but its wishful thinking. Even if Gore's private jet flys off into the horizon never to return, the evidence of global warming remains the same. Discrediting the vast majority of the scientific community is impossible.
  3. #1143  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix View Post
    That idea does provide a plausible rationale to TCRP's campaign, but its wishful thinking. Even if Gore's private jet flys off into the horizon never to return, the evidence of global warming remains the same. Discrediting the vast majority of the scientific community is impossible.
    There is a difference between what Gore claims and what the "vast majority" of scientists claim.

    And on what basis do you call it a "campaign"? Did they do more than produce a report and put out a press release (which is what think tanks do)? Or are you just picking up on bb's ravings?
  4. #1144  
    Re goals,

    1. Dozens of nuclear power plants
    2. Drilling in Alaska and Gulf of Mexico
    3. $.50/gallon gasoline tax
    4. Fund more research
  5. #1145  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    There is a difference between what Gore claims and what the "vast majority" of scientists claim.

    And on what basis do you call it a "campaign"? Did they do more than produce a report and put out a press release (which is what think tanks do)? Or are you just picking up on bb's ravings?
    This has been a long and informative thread. Its come from a widespread denial that global warming existed, through a firm denial that humans contributed to it, through a denial that we could do anything about it anyway, and now finally people are talking about solutions, real solutions, like you and Hobbes are doing. I think thats great. Its unfortunate that TC seems to feel the need to be so overly heavy handed with its moderation of this forum, but I would rather neither of us risk getting this thread closed by likening the others person's comments to ravings. Even if I am not posting here as frequently, I do enjoy reading the views of all of you when I can and I do hope this thread can remain a focus of a thoughtful discussion on global warming.
  6. #1146  
    cell...I agree, and mentioned the underhanded remarks back and forth from both sides of the aisle a couple pages back. This has been an educational thread. It has been a nicely, and even often light hearted, debated on a vary controversial topic. Let's keep up this productive atmosphere so it may continue.
  7. #1147  
    BTW...Cell....I am interested in your thoughts on some of my thoughts above.
  8. #1148  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix View Post
    This has been a long and informative thread. Its come from a widespread denial that global warming existed, through a firm denial that humans contributed to it, through a denial that we could do anything about it anyway, and now finally people are talking about solutions, real solutions, like you and Hobbes are doing. I think thats great. Its unfortunate that TC seems to feel the need to be so overly heavy handed with its moderation of this forum, but I would rather neither of us risk getting this thread closed by likening the others person's comments to ravings. Even if I am not posting here as frequently, I do enjoy reading the views of all of you when I can and I do hope this thread can remain a focus of a thoughtful discussion on global warming.
    Oh please.
    You have no problem with his lying and name calling, and now suddenly you think just my posts are inappropriate. They're no worse than characterizing TCPR's report as a "smear campaign". You're just trying to deflect the fact that you made a baseless attack. Don't make me use the H word again.

    And if you're implying that someone has had an inconsistent position, please identify who and how.
  9. #1149  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal View Post
    cell...I agree, and mentioned the underhanded remarks back and forth from both sides of the aisle a couple pages back. This has been an educational thread. It has been a nicely, and even often light hearted, debated on a vary controversial topic. Let's keep up this productive atmosphere so it may continue.
  10. #1150  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    Re goals,

    1. Dozens of nuclear power plants
    2. Drilling in Alaska and Gulf of Mexico
    3. $.50/gallon gasoline tax
    4. Fund more research
    Agree with three out of four, but I am not sure how number 2 will reduce carbon emissions or help global warming. Is this just pork?
  11. #1151  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix View Post
    Agree with three out of four, but I am not sure how number 2 will reduce carbon emissions or help global warming. Is this just pork?
    It's not meant to. The objective is to reduce our dependence on foreign oil.
  12. #1152  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal View Post
    BTW...Cell....I am interested in your thoughts on some of my thoughts above.
    I agree with your suggestions on research and implementation of alternative fuels as well as using taxes to leverage a reduction in carbon emissions.
    As far as the long term impact, I would hope that big oil companies and the Gulf states can avoid problems with the inevitable depletion of oil resources by reinvesting their revenues wisely in the interim.
  13. #1153  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    It's not meant to. The objective is to reduce our dependence on foreign oil.
    thanks for the clarification
  14. #1154  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix View Post
    Agree with three out of four, but I am not sure how number 2 will reduce carbon emissions or help global warming. Is this just pork?
    I too believe that Alaska and Gulf drilling should not be on the list. It will reduce the dependence on foreign oil but that is not a good thing. If oil is finite, then we should use up everyone else's before we begin on our own. Of course, the current reason for preferring foreign oil is that the cost of recovery plus transportation is still lower for foreign supply.

    While this list addresses two out of three of the big polluters, i.e., coal powered plants and automobiles, it does nothing to address the contribution of air transportation. A tax on jet fuel will not help much unless all nations participate.

    [Higher prices on jet fuel have helped. Think how much energy the airlines have saved by not paying to carry excess fuel, not serving hot food and beverages, and by surcharging excess luggage. Even TSA has helped by limiting the amount of toiletries in cabin luggage.]

    If we are serious, we should be willing to pay at least as much for gasoline as for bottled water [I paid $3.10/gal. for gasoline last night and $14/gal for water in the movie theater today.] We should be willing to pay as much for gasoline as the Europeans do. There is nothing that will reduce emissions like more realistic pricing of them.

    [Interesting data point from Science Friday. Flying fresh vegetables from California to London consumes 3000 times as much energy as the vegetables will yield when eaten. I am giving up foreign perishables like haricot vert, Irish butter, and Devonshire clotted cream in favor of local product. That I can afford them does not mean that consuming them is a good idea. I will continue to drink French champagne that moves by ship but will avoid the Beaujoulais Nouveau that is flown in.]

    All this said, this is a global problem and only a truly global solution has much hope. Kyoto demonstrates what happens when global solutions are not seen as equitable. That is, the big polluters opt out. George W. Bush opts out of Kyoto because his base sees it as giving too much of an economic advantage to China and India.

    [I think that we should participate in Kyoto anyway on the basis that one should "think globally but act locally."]
  15. #1155  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    Oh please.
    You have no problem with his lying and name calling, and now suddenly you think just my posts are inappropriate.
    I am not getting involved in dealings between you and backbeat, but I do not agree with his tactics.
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    They're no worse than characterizing TCPR's report as a "smear campaign". You're just trying to deflect the fact that you made a baseless attack.
    The TCRP's report is being used in a two month long campaign by conservative activists to discredit Gore and I suspect the motivation behind it is not just to discredit Gore, but to discredit the science behind global warming in the eyes of the American public. I stand by this statement 100%.
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    Don't make me use the H word again.
    Only if H stands for Heinekin.
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    And if you're implying that someone has had an inconsistent position, please identify who and how.
    This was not directed at you, and I am not interested in chastizing anyone for inconsistency. In fact, I am glad that people's views are coming around to appreciating that global warming is a serious problem and needs to be dealt with.
  16. #1156  
    Quote Originally Posted by whmurray View Post
    If oil is finite, then we should use up everyone else's before we begin on our own.
    And if it's not, then we'd be enriching the Arab nations for no good reason.

    If we are serious, we should be willing to pay at least as much for gasoline as for bottled water [I paid $3.10/gal. for gasoline last night and $14/gal for water in the movie theater today.] We should be willing to pay as much for gasoline as the Europeans do. There is nothing that will reduce emissions like more realistic pricing of them.
    I pay about 80 cents per gallon for spring water. But yeah, I agree we should pay more for gas.
  17. #1157  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix View Post
    I am not getting involved in dealings between you and backbeat, but I do not agree with his tactics.
    You already did.

    The TCRP's report is being used in a two month long campaign by conservative activists to discredit Gore and I suspect the motivation behind it is not just to discredit Gore, but to discredit the science behind global warming in the eyes of the American public. I stand by this statement 100%.
    I objected to your characterization as a "smear campaign" because that implies 1) that it's false or misleading, and 2) that it's some kind of coordinated effort, and you provided no support for that.

    My objective is to discredit Gore's recommendations. As for the science behind global warming, you've been saying that over and over, but there is no connection.

    This was not directed at you, and I am not interested in chastizing anyone for inconsistency. In fact, I am glad that people's views are coming around to appreciating that global warming is a serious problem and needs to be dealt with.
    Once again, whose views are "coming around"?
  18. #1158  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    You already did.
    nope you brought him into our discussion, not me

    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    My objective is to discredit Gore's recommendations. As for the science behind global warming, you've been saying that over and over, but there is no connection.
    I disagree, I think there is a strong connection in the public mind between Al Gore and the science of global warming.
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    Once again, whose views are "coming around"?
    The conversation over the long duration of this thread has shifted dramatically from significant denial to overwhelming acceptance of the scientific consensus on global warming. That is a good thing, and something to be happy about. What good will it do to name names and castigate others except to stir up trouble? I will not do it, sorry.
  19. #1159  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix View Post
    nope you brought him into our discussion, not me
    I certainly didn't invite you to get in between him and me. You decided to share your view that my reference to his ravings was inappropriate, and then you decided to express your disapproval of his tactics with me.

    I disagree, I think there is a strong connection in the public mind between Al Gore and the science of global warming.
    Yes, but criticism of Gore is not criticism of science. You said yourself that the American public wouldn't get confused by that.

    The conversation over the long duration of this thread has shifted dramatically from significant denial to overwhelming acceptance of the scientific consensus on global warming. That is a good thing, and something to be happy about. What good will it do to name names and castigate others except to stir up trouble? I will not do it, sorry.
    Yes, the conversation has changed, but I wasn't aware of people changing their views. Did Hobbes change his mind? I don't remember what he said before. Did whmurray? Again, I don't remember.

    I'm not asking you to castigate anyone. I'm simply asking you to support your claim. I don't understand why you always have a problem with that.
  20. #1160  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    I'm simply asking you to support your claim.
    Its obvious to anyone who looks back at the early parts of the global warming thread how dramatically the arguments have changed.
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    I don't understand why you always have a problem with that.
    Those who know me, realize that I have contributed a large number of objective citations to this thread - as many as anyone. And as my longstanding signature shows, I welcome people to investigate global warming science themselves. And the fact that people are now recognizing that global warming is a problem we need to deal with makes me optimistic now in a way I was not before.

Posting Permissions