PDA

View Full Version : New source of oil!!!



KoreanJoey
06-19-2008, 07:46 AM
http://www.autoblog.com/2008/06/18/scientists-create-bacteria-that-eat-junk-produce-oil/

Hurray!

Lonestag
06-19-2008, 01:23 PM
Yeah, this stuff has been around for a while, but thats more advanced then anything I have seen yet.

Bacteria FTW

Crasoum
06-19-2008, 01:39 PM
Pift, shoulda pumped it off my face 10-5 years ago.

Crasoum
06-19-2008, 01:48 PM
One week for 40 gallons... That's just short of a real barrel of oil (42 gallons). But to match what we need currently in usage (US 21 MILLION barrels per day. 147 million per week.) it'd take 154.35 TRILLION liters of that bacteria... PER WEEK! How much cellulose stock would that take? What's the net energy gain?

Crasoum
06-19-2008, 01:54 PM
So 155 cubic kilometers.... That's a lot... but not impossible.

extremeskillz
06-19-2008, 02:04 PM
Very interesting...Just to let everyone know America sits on 35 trillion barrels of oil that we can't drill because of enviromental wackos. This is a light estimate too!

iwamaryu
06-19-2008, 03:46 PM
Very interesting...Just to let everyone know America sits on 35 trillion barrels of oil that we can't drill because of enviromental wackos. This is a light estimate too!

Yeah thatís the same for Canada, apparently they have heaps of oil under national parks and mountains or where ever you find oil. But it still works out to be cheaper getting the stuff from the Arabs, even at the price we are buying it for now.

Simonhla
06-19-2008, 05:03 PM
Very interesting...Just to let everyone know America sits on 35 trillion barrels of oil that we can't drill because of enviromental wackos. This is a light estimate too!

As much as I love my car and driving I feel compelled to point out how much is wrong with this statement.

Have you ever heard of global warming? Are you not aware of the dire need to change our energy consumption so that we still have an inhabitable planet in 50-100 years?

The last time I checked clean air, forrests and plants were all good things. Pollution, drilling and unsstainable energy consumption were not. Instead of ruining our planet further we should be seriously investing in alternative energies. There is enough oil left to keep your Celica running for a good while yet....don't worry, but why drill new fields so that we can keep producing gas burning cars?

You do yourself a disservice by labelling people 'environmental wackos' because given your viewpoint one would be entirely entitled to call you an irresponsible ignoramous. Not that I am but I am sure you wouldn't like it very much if I was.

Conrad_Turbo
06-19-2008, 06:17 PM
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23411799-7583,00.html


Last Monday - on ABC Radio National, of all places - there was a tipping point of a different kind in the debate on climate change. It was a remarkable interview involving the co-host of Counterpoint, Michael Duffy and Jennifer Marohasy, a biologist and senior fellow of Melbourne-based think tank the Institute of Public Affairs. Anyone in public life who takes a position on the greenhouse gas hypothesis will ignore it at their peril.
Duffy asked Marohasy: "Is the Earth stillwarming?"

She replied: "No, actually, there has been cooling, if you take 1998 as your point of reference. If you take 2002 as your point of reference, then temperatures have plateaued. This is certainly not what you'd expect if carbon dioxide is driving temperature because carbon dioxide levels have been increasing but temperatures have actually been coming down over the last 10 years."

Duffy: "Is this a matter of any controversy?"

Marohasy: "Actually, no. The head of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) has actually acknowledged it. He talks about the apparent plateau in temperatures so far this century. So he recognises that in this century, over the past eight years, temperatures have plateaued ... This is not what you'd expect, as I said, because if carbon dioxide is driving temperature then you'd expect that, given carbon dioxide levels have been continuing to increase, temperatures should be going up ... So (it's) very unexpected, not something that's being discussed. It should be being discussed, though, because it's very significant."

Duffy: "It's not only that it's not discussed. We never hear it, do we? Whenever there's any sort of weather event that can be linked into the global warming orthodoxy, it's put on the front page. But a fact like that, which is that global warming stopped a decade ago, is virtually never reported, which is extraordinary."

Duffy then turned to the question of how the proponents of the greenhouse gas hypothesis deal with data that doesn't support their case. "People like Kevin Rudd and Ross Garnaut are speaking as though the Earth is still warming at an alarming rate, but what is the argument from the other side? What would people associated with the IPCC say to explain the (temperature) dip?"

Marohasy: "Well, the head of the IPCC has suggested natural factors are compensating for the increasing carbon dioxide levels and I guess, to some extent, that's what sceptics have been saying for some time: that, yes, carbon dioxide will give you some warming but there are a whole lot of other factors that may compensate or that may augment the warming from elevated levels of carbon dioxide.

"There's been a lot of talk about the impact of the sun and that maybe we're going to go through or are entering a period of less intense solar activity and this could be contributing to the current cooling."

Duffy: "Can you tell us about NASA's Aqua satellite, because I understand some of the data we're now getting is quite important in our understanding of how climate works?"

Marohasy: "That's right. The satellite was only launched in 2002 and it enabled the collection of data, not just on temperature but also on cloud formation and water vapour. What all the climate models suggest is that, when you've got warming from additional carbon dioxide, this will result in increased water vapour, so you're going to get a positive feedback. That's what the models have been indicating. What this great data from the NASA Aqua satellite ... (is) actually showing is just the opposite, that with a little bit of warming, weather processes are compensating, so they're actually limiting the greenhouse effect and you're getting a negative rather than a positive feedback."

Duffy: "The climate is actually, in one way anyway, more robust than was assumed in the climate models?"

Marohasy: "That's right ... These findings actually aren't being disputed by the meteorological community. They're having trouble digesting the findings, they're acknowledging the findings, they're acknowledging that the data from NASA's Aqua satellite is not how the models predict, and I think they're about to recognise that the models really do need to be overhauled and that when they are overhauled they will probably show greatly reduced future warming projected as a consequence of carbon dioxide."

Duffy: "From what you're saying, it sounds like the implications of this could beconsiderable ..."

Marohasy: "That's right, very much so. The policy implications are enormous. The meteorological community at the moment is really just coming to terms with the output from this NASA Aqua satellite and (climate scientist) Roy Spencer's interpretation of them. His work is published, his work is accepted, but I think people are still in shock at this point."

I find it funny watching the weather channel and seeing the record highs and lows, lots of crazy high temperatures that occurred in the past even before the mass production of the automobile.

I agree we could reduce our ecological footprint, however there are a lot of scare tactics out there which drive people to do crazy things. :D

extremeskillz
06-19-2008, 06:55 PM
As much as I love my car and driving I feel compelled to point out how much is wrong with this statement.

Have you ever heard of global warming? Are you not aware of the dire need to change our energy consumption so that we still have an inhabitable planet in 50-100 years?

The last time I checked clean air, forrests and plants were all good things. Pollution, drilling and unsstainable energy consumption were not. Instead of ruining our planet further we should be seriously investing in alternative energies. There is enough oil left to keep your Celica running for a good while yet....don't worry, but why drill new fields so that we can keep producing gas burning cars?

You do yourself a disservice by labelling people 'environmental wackos' because given your viewpoint one would be entirely entitled to call you an irresponsible ignoramous. Not that I am but I am sure you wouldn't like it very much if I was.


Global Warming is bullshit do your research as i already have! It's political BS. and costing too many people to much money while others cash in. Europe had taxed there citizens for years based on carbon footprint and guess what the citizens realized there isn't much that changed as for as the climate is concerned.

I'm not going to rule out global warming entirely as the I do know the earth goes through cycle changes every 1000 years or so. And we are currently going through one of those cycles. Also you forget to rule out other phenomenon like El Nino and El Nina which too alter the climate that we don't control.

I'm all about the environment and searching for alternatives. but we need to keep our economy moving and the fact oil is getting to a point of slowing us down isn't acceptable if we are going to remain a super power in the world. Besides we are the only country in the world with the best pollution control systems. We even have the technology to clean up our mess so your conclusion still isn't sound. With that said look at other countries out there who give a rats ass about the environment and then make your argument. Thats right the media didn't mention that did they?

I'm independent and very aware of my surroundings and very aware about energy alternatives as i experiment myself and found exciting results i would like to expand on as funds become available. Like i said do your research.

Also, as young child "global warmings" was called "summer". Just to let you know im not oblivious to the environment. I love the enviroment, hell i plant trees every once in a while in empty lots with just grass.

extremeskillz
06-19-2008, 06:59 PM
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23411799-7583,00.html



I find it funny watching the weather channel and seeing the record highs and lows, lots of crazy high temperatures that occurred in the past even before the mass production of the automobile.

I agree we could reduce our ecological footprint, however there are a lot of scare tactics out there which drive people to do crazy things. :D


This is why the global warming theory is unproven because earths climate is unpredictable. BTW the earths climate has only averaged 1 degree in warming over the last decade. Not enough to convince me we are doing much of an impact. But yes we need to look for alternative energy but not kill our economy in the process.

extremeskillz
06-19-2008, 07:00 PM
Another side note did you know we didn't have a oil spill when all the oil rigs were damaged during the Hurricane Katrina incident. Yes our technology is that good!

extremeskillz
06-19-2008, 07:05 PM
As much as I love my car and driving I feel compelled to point out how much is wrong with this statement.

Have you ever heard of global warming? Are you not aware of the dire need to change our energy consumption so that we still have an inhabitable planet in 50-100 years?

The last time I checked clean air, forrests and plants were all good things. Pollution, drilling and unsstainable energy consumption were not. Instead of ruining our planet further we should be seriously investing in alternative energies. There is enough oil left to keep your Celica running for a good while yet....don't worry, but why drill new fields so that we can keep producing gas burning cars?

You do yourself a disservice by labelling people 'environmental wackos' because given your viewpoint one would be entirely entitled to call you an irresponsible ignoramous. Not that I am but I am sure you wouldn't like it very much if I was.

Another side note to you. Stop watch drive by media and look beyond the facts. You will find more information out there that the media just doesn't report. I personally hate American media but some news sources isn't that bad. But i've learned to look beyond the reports and find more information about what is happening around me. Also i follow economics and political stuff closely and economics usually backed by hardcore researchers.

BTW Simonhla I'm not bashing you. You seem have a good point but with a lot of facts i've already heard and looked beyond. Sorry man!

Simonhla
06-19-2008, 11:34 PM
This is why the global warming theory is unproven because earths climate is unpredictable. BTW the earths climate has only averaged 1 degree in warming over the last decade. Not enough to convince me we are doing much of an impact. But yes we need to look for alternative energy but not kill our economy in the process.

Umm one degree in a decade is a staggering rate of warming. The polar icecaps are continuing to melt at an alarming rate and sea levels are rising. This is directly attributable to the effects man is having on the environment. Despite the eagerness of some to make out that global warming is a fallacy this is an argument based on either staggering ignornace or alarming profiteering.

Every single scientist that has come out with an argument against climate change has been linked back in some way shape or form to economic interests that would be damaged by the transition of scoiety away from fossil fuels such as oil and coal. To say that climate change is just an agent of political progaganda shows that you have been a victim of propoganda yourself by the oil companies, private entities that support them and their many supporters and lobbists in Washington.

Fact remains that the US consumes 2/3 of the world's resources when it has only 5% of it's population. This is damning indictment of the profligacy of energy policy in this country. The attitude by and large here is to not pay taxes and to just do whatever the hell we want, unfortunately time and experience has shown us that we can ill afford to allow indiviudals to be so selfish. Government has to play some role in defining the finer values of society and shaping it's future evolution. This consumption and waste society we live in is leaving a bleak future for generations ahead.

There are so many viable alternatives to fossil fuels that it is laughable we have not made serious investment into full R&D and implementation. The cost to the US economy of the fallacy of a war in Iraq is into the trillions of dollars in direct expenditure, national deficity and lost productivity. This is money that could have been far better spent in getting this country off it's volatile dependency on oil. The counter argument is one fueled by greed. As we speak oil companies and their many stooges in the US and arab world are lining their pockets and laughing all the way to the bank. The have no need to be competitive as there are no alternatives.

What we have right now is a failed energy policy, a failed economic policy, a failed military policy and a failed clmiate change policy and yet still there are people who refuse to recognise it. To give you an example of why we don't need to fear change.............

Drivers are rightly concerned that using biofuels for example will require the use of special engines that are not high performance. Well Koeniseg recently proved this a fallacy with their high performance vehicle. The regular version runs at around 808 hp (there or thereabouts) whereas the ethanol version generates more than a hundred extra bhp. This is stageering and attributed I believe to the fact that ethanol detonates at a high threshold. It has an octane rating to the equivalent of around 120 i think.

The fact is we need to change. Climate change is real. We can expect those who profit from it (oil companies, politicians etc) to fight tooth and nail to admit it, including wheel out rinky dink scientists but the undeniable consensus in the international community is that deny gloabl warming is a problem and we are the primary cause is like denying that the holocaust ever happened.

The claim that temperatures have actually gone down in the last few years is also a misleading one. The reality of that statistic is that in most areas temperatures have coninued to consistently rise in like with every global warming trend however in some areas there have been particular freezing and harsh (atypical for those regions) meterological phenomenon. This is not an indication therefore that global warming is not continuing a pace but rather an indication of the ever alarming rate at which we are experience dramatic weather shifts....hence the term CLIMATE CHANGE. The by products of this process such as desertification (the driest areas getting even drier and spreading), flooding, natural disasters, raising sea levels. Continues not only unababted but accelerated. Just turn on the news and witness the effects of raising sea levels every year in the United States alone, let alone around the world. Witness the food shortages now being experienced gloablly, causing a rise in food prices due to inhospitable farming conditions.......this is all a cause of our impact on earth. The bottom is that the earth is not going anywhere, it will replenish itself in time. The only thing facing extinction in us.

Thanks for your previous posts.
Best regards.

Chris
06-19-2008, 11:46 PM
The argument is interesting guys, but when you throw out statistics and stories could you please give something to back it up?

extremeskillz
06-20-2008, 03:37 AM
Umm one degree in a decade is a staggering rate of warming. The polar icecaps are continuing to melt at an alarming rate and sea levels are rising. This is directly attributable to the effects man is having on the environment. Despite the eagerness of some to make out that global warming is a fallacy this is an argument based on either staggering ignornace or alarming profiteering.

Every single scientist that has come out with an argument against climate change has been linked back in some way shape or form to economic interests that would be damaged by the transition of scoiety away from fossil fuels such as oil and coal. To say that climate change is just an agent of political progaganda shows that you have been a victim of propoganda yourself by the oil companies, private entities that support them and their many supporters and lobbists in Washington.

Fact remains that the US consumes 2/3 of the world's resources when it has only 5% of it's population. This is damning indictment of the profligacy of energy policy in this country. The attitude by and large here is to not pay taxes and to just do whatever the hell we want, unfortunately time and experience has shown us that we can ill afford to allow indiviudals to be so selfish. Government has to play some role in defining the finer values of society and shaping it's future evolution. This consumption and waste society we live in is leaving a bleak future for generations ahead.

There are so many viable alternatives to fossil fuels that it is laughable we have not made serious investment into full R&D and implementation. The cost to the US economy of the fallacy of a war in Iraq is into the trillions of dollars in direct expenditure, national deficity and lost productivity. This is money that could have been far better spent in getting this country off it's volatile dependency on oil. The counter argument is one fueled by greed. As we speak oil companies and their many stooges in the US and arab world are lining their pockets and laughing all the way to the bank. The have no need to be competitive as there are no alternatives.

What we have right now is a failed energy policy, a failed economic policy, a failed military policy and a failed clmiate change policy and yet still there are people who refuse to recognise it. To give you an example of why we don't need to fear change.............

Drivers are rightly concerned that using biofuels for example will require the use of special engines that are not high performance. Well Koeniseg recently proved this a fallacy with their high performance vehicle. The regular version runs at around 808 hp (there or thereabouts) whereas the ethanol version generates more than a hundred extra bhp. This is stageering and attributed I believe to the fact that ethanol detonates at a high threshold. It has an octane rating to the equivalent of around 120 i think.

The fact is we need to change. Climate change is real. We can expect those who profit from it (oil companies, politicians etc) to fight tooth and nail to admit it, including wheel out rinky dink scientists but the undeniable consensus in the international community is that deny gloabl warming is a problem and we are the primary cause is like denying that the holocaust ever happened.

The claim that temperatures have actually gone down in the last few years is also a misleading one. The reality of that statistic is that in most areas temperatures have coninued to consistently rise in like with every global warming trend however in some areas there have been particular freezing and harsh (atypical for those regions) meterological phenomenon. This is not an indication therefore that global warming is not continuing a pace but rather an indication of the ever alarming rate at which we are experience dramatic weather shifts....hence the term CLIMATE CHANGE. The by products of this process such as desertification (the driest areas getting even drier and spreading), flooding, natural disasters, raising sea levels. Continues not only unababted but accelerated. Just turn on the news and witness the effects of raising sea levels every year in the United States alone, let alone around the world. Witness the food shortages now being experienced gloablly, causing a rise in food prices due to inhospitable farming conditions.......this is all a cause of our impact on earth. The bottom is that the earth is not going anywhere, it will replenish itself in time. The only thing facing extinction in us.

Thanks for your previous posts.
Best regards.

Yes I have to agree with this mostly. We have failed energy policy which needs to be changed. But oil companies make those profit number because we buy so much of the product they produce. they only make about 15% profit while the government makes more on the taxes they charge. When you here record profit yes we as a people bought a lot of gas during that quarter. Those profits do get reinvested in research and development to improve processing oil, finding new sources of oil, build new rigs and so on.

But yes we need new energy sources and technology like this to emerge so us as a nation can get ahead in innovation once again.

SIde note: Being independent is touch business geez

extremeskillz
06-20-2008, 03:37 AM
The argument is interesting guys, but when you throw out statistics and stories could you please give something to back it up?

Google it ;)

Murgatroy
06-20-2008, 03:52 AM
As much as I love my car and driving I feel compelled to point out how much is wrong with this statement.

Have you ever heard of global warming? Are you not aware of the dire need to change our energy consumption so that we still have an inhabitable planet in 50-100 years?

The last time I checked clean air, forrests and plants were all good things. Pollution, drilling and unsstainable energy consumption were not. Instead of ruining our planet further we should be seriously investing in alternative energies. There is enough oil left to keep your Celica running for a good while yet....don't worry, but why drill new fields so that we can keep producing gas burning cars?

You do yourself a disservice by labelling people 'environmental wackos' because given your viewpoint one would be entirely entitled to call you an irresponsible ignoramous. Not that I am but I am sure you wouldn't like it very much if I was.
:stupid:

I think we should take the money used to 'find' and harvest new oil sources and invest that in finding a viable, easy to adapt solution to break our dependence on oil.

HHO for instance.

Solves a lot of problems all at once.

caneman
06-20-2008, 06:18 AM
It is with great satisfaction that I read articulate and intelligent discussion regarding carbon footprints, global warming, and energy use and dependence (some might say energy addiction).

Putting global warming aside for a moment, there is definitely something interesting going on with our planet that even the most casual observer should have noticed by now: Photographic evidence of humongous glacier meltback during the last 100 years, the possibility of navigating the so-called Arctic polar route during the next decade or so for the first time in recorded history, dieback of climate/pollution-sensitive creatures around the world, etc., etc., or, as a sceptic would say, blah, blah, blah.

Sources of data have been asked for and given. You can drown yourself in the amount of conflicting data that is available. Try this site. You'll find over a hundred reputable source news blurbs relating to the environment:

http://www.mongabay.com/xml/impact_of%20climate%20change1.xml

The point is, you can readilly find data that will support any viewpoint in prodigious amounts on the Web. One important blurb might be one that is mentioned on the mongabay.com site: The U.S. justice Dept just forced the Bush Administration to release a government-sponsored scientific report about the affect man is having on the planet. It was due to be released in 2002, but those non-science majors working in the Bush Admin decided that the data was too dangerous to be read by the common man. It was finally released, under pressure from Justice, six years late.

Using arguments that global warning is real and is being caused by mankind's plofligate use of limited natural resources is a waste of our breath. First of all, there are always those "the-earth-is-the-center-of-the-universe" types that never believe what scientists come up with. More importantly though, is that even if everyone agreed that the Earth was headed toward an ice age (which ironically begins with a warming cycle) because of mankind's carbon dioxide emissions (or livestock farting), nothing substantial would be done to change things.

After all, China is in the middle of a record-breaking industrialization effort, and just try to tell their one billion citizens that they have to slow down and reduce their carbon-footprints. And its not just China; lots of third world countries will gladly buy all of the oil that we don't use; even at exhorbitant prices (Norway's paying $11 US per gallon right about now and China has a bottomless pocketbook; they'll happily outbid us for every drop of crude oil and even buy the damn oil companies if they're allowed to).

So even if the U.S. finally signed the Kyoto Agreement (look it up), and Americans starting hating any vehicle bigger than a Prius and wouldn't even drive it if they could get there by bicycle, things would still look pretty grim for the planet for a long time to come. Oh, I firmly believe that history teaches us that humans don't react to a threat until it becomes a full-blown crisis (like, "Hey, I just went to buy gasoline and guess what? There isn't any!").

I better stop here, or I'll go on for pages.

Simonhla
06-20-2008, 07:17 AM
Well said caneman. It makes for depressing reading to be honest but the current hyper-industrialization of China is going to be one of the largest single contributors to global pollution in coming years. What can we do about this? Not an awful lot right now but should we stop trying? Absolutely not. Change begins at home. We cannot expect anyone else to make the necessary adjustments if we are unprepared to do it ourselves. Sadly it should not have been as painful a transition as it should have been if we had spent tax dollars more wisely (instead of bombing Iraq). Thankfully there is still a great opportunity to drive a sector that should experience tremendous and vibrant growht in comning decades....renewable energy.

Europe has clearly stolen a march in this field. One example is solar energy. Whereas once the US had 40% of the world market share, it now has only 8% and declines year on year.

The chinese industrial revolution also needn't take the same course as our own. They can take advantage of improved technologies when planning their infrastructure and the evolution of renewable energy provision will be hopefully embraced. They are already manufacturing and using solar panels in vast quantities. One really interesting example I came across and something I found fascinating was the conspicuous absence of telephone lines in China. The entire population is being armed with cell phones and land lines are scarce. This saved huge cost. Even internet is typically connected via satellite.

Although they are currently amongst the worst abusers of the environment due to the sadly lacking presence of enforcement agencies or regulations, it is not to say that this is something that need continue indefinitely. A start (something you mentioned) would be for the US to sign up to the Kyoto protocol. This would at least increase internaitonal pressure for China to be more stringent. A second way would be to actually develop the technology that made alternatives forms of energy be desirable.

The next generation of biofuels for cars, solar panels and wind turbines should be leaps and bounds ahead of what the industry has produced today and should be able to rival or beat the cost of energy of more traditional forms. There is hope, I really believe there is, the question is...is there the desire?

You make a good point about human nature and the denial of a problem until it becomes a crisis.

Crasoum
06-20-2008, 11:46 AM
Thing is the Kyoto protocol EXEMPTS (except for monitoring and reporting on output) Brazil, India, and China, so they'd have no REASON to feel any pressure to be more stringent, which is GWs excuse for not signing the treaty (along with it causing undue extra expenses).

extremeskillz
06-20-2008, 01:33 PM
It is with great satisfaction that I read articulate and intelligent discussion regarding carbon footprints, global warming, and energy use and dependence (some might say energy addiction).

Putting global warming aside for a moment, there is definitely something interesting going on with our planet that even the most casual observer should have noticed by now: Photographic evidence of humongous glacier meltback during the last 100 years, the possibility of navigating the so-called Arctic polar route during the next decade or so for the first time in recorded history, dieback of climate/pollution-sensitive creatures around the world, etc., etc., or, as a sceptic would say, blah, blah, blah.

Sources of data have been asked for and given. You can drown yourself in the amount of conflicting data that is available. Try this site. You'll find over a hundred reputable source news blurbs relating to the environment:

http://www.mongabay.com/xml/impact_of%20climate%20change1.xml

The point is, you can readilly find data that will support any viewpoint in prodigious amounts on the Web. One important blurb might be one that is mentioned on the mongabay.com site: The U.S. justice Dept just forced the Bush Administration to release a government-sponsored scientific report about the affect man is having on the planet. It was due to be released in 2002, but those non-science majors working in the Bush Admin decided that the data was too dangerous to be read by the common man. It was finally released, under pressure from Justice, six years late.

Using arguments that global warning is real and is being caused by mankind's plofligate use of limited natural resources is a waste of our breath. First of all, there are always those "the-earth-is-the-center-of-the-universe" types that never believe what scientists come up with. More importantly though, is that even if everyone agreed that the Earth was headed toward an ice age (which ironically begins with a warming cycle) because of mankind's carbon dioxide emissions (or livestock farting), nothing substantial would be done to change things.

After all, China is in the middle of a record-breaking industrialization effort, and just try to tell their one billion citizens that they have to slow down and reduce their carbon-footprints. And its not just China; lots of third world countries will gladly buy all of the oil that we don't use; even at exhorbitant prices (Norway's paying $11 US per gallon right about now and China has a bottomless pocketbook; they'll happily outbid us for every drop of crude oil and even buy the damn oil companies if they're allowed to).

So even if the U.S. finally signed the Kyoto Agreement (look it up), and Americans starting hating any vehicle bigger than a Prius and wouldn't even drive it if they could get there by bicycle, things would still look pretty grim for the planet for a long time to come. Oh, I firmly believe that history teaches us that humans don't react to a threat until it becomes a full-blown crisis (like, "Hey, I just went to buy gasoline and guess what? There isn't any!").

I better stop here, or I'll go on for pages.

Well said. But this is what bugs me me. No one points out the rest of the worlds lack of pollution control technology that we heavily invested in and are the cleanest society on the planet. No its just the US and US and blah blah. Seriously this sickens me especially when you know the rest of the world like China gives a rats poo about the environment!

Simonhla
06-20-2008, 04:51 PM
Thing is the Kyoto protocol EXEMPTS (except for monitoring and reporting on output) Brazil, India, and China, so they'd have no REASON to feel any pressure to be more stringent, which is GWs excuse for not signing the treaty (along with it causing undue extra expenses).

The treaty exempts these countries only during such time as they are classified as "developing" nations. All 36 developed nations have ratified and adopted the protocol with the exception of the United States which is the biggest single problem polluter. This is unacceptable. George Bush had no reason to not sign the protocol other than pressure from big business (read big polluters) and their lobbists in Washington.

GW has an excuse prepared for most things but time and common sense has shown us that there is often little reason and scarcely any morality behind his decisions, except of course money...............

Crasoum
06-20-2008, 05:40 PM
Thing is senate voted 95 to ZERO not to ratify the bill unless it had time tables set and biding for developed and developing nations, and the initial person that had the ability to sign it didn't (hint, it's not GWB).

I think we should reduce our dependence on non-renewable energy. We should also reduce our pollution output. But it's all a red herring because it fines places that actually make things as opposed to economies that rely mostly on services. Not only that but it charges developed countries to pay for the developing countries pollution technology. It also allows for places to "sell" their pollution cuts to other countries, which is as ridiculous and unfair as carbon credit tax. You're just paying to make some other people rich.

Again, as a note, I support reducing pollution, I drive cars that get over 30MPG, I recycle plastic, glass, metal, and reuse my papers, all my bulbs are CF, I bought a LCD because it has 1/5th the power usage as a CRT, I only air condition my bedroom, and have installed low flow toilets in both my house and my rent house.

Luni
06-23-2008, 09:40 PM
I dont believe in the stereotypical global warming crap. Ive said it before, Ill say it again.

Tests have proven that water vapor holds WAY more latent heat in than CO2 and accounts for MUCH more of the atmosphere which is a much higher environmental variable.

Tests have also proven that methane is just as responsible for raising and holding tempratures of a given air substance in a test box (not saying the test box or variables are even scientifically accurate cause you cant really replicate or predict our weather or environment, but if you could, and they were, here you go) at the same temp or a higher temp than CO2.

So what that tells me is while there are other environmental factors affected by our carbon footprint (acid rain, stuff like that) I dont buy into the fact that its carbo dioxide from our cars and petroleum consumption thats doing it.

The bottom line is they dont know what is causing the temprature to rise, and theres a trend of sellout jumpers who go from one finding to the next and try and sell it all as global warming causes but in the end nobody has anything conclusive on it other than the statitistics themselves. They cant explain it. Nobody can. Its ALL speculative.

Until I see that oil consumption in combustion engines is directly linked to global warming, I call BS on that part.

Just my opinion too. Take it however you want.

extremeskillz
06-23-2008, 09:57 PM
^Yes i read this about water vapor holding more temp then CO2 buy like a 1000x more. This is why the global warming thing keeps me from believing completely.

Conrad_Turbo
06-25-2008, 07:04 PM
Exactly and when water changes states it absorbs/requires a lot of energy to do so. If C02 is making the world warmer, then the water will begin to evaporate and absorb the heat. I'm not saying that we should keep driving around doing what we're doing, but if we lived on a rock with no water then yes I would 100% point my finger at emissions causing global warming. However we are largely surrounded by water which has a high heat capacity, basically a very large capacitor that can absorb variations in temperature.