Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Thanatoast, Dec 9, 2005.
Clinton lays the smack down. Bush soldiers blithely on, a tool of the energy industry.
Bush is bought and paid for by the Oil companys, its that simple. Interesting Hurricane Season to say the least, is it even over? We have to give govt back to the people and not the corporations. As long as the megaCorps run our elected spin masters we are going to screw up our only atmosphere.
and then the US delegation walked out.
Bush is also "flat wrong" in his Flat Earth hypothesis.
sorry i just couldn't resist
Interesting that Clinton has so much more credibility than Bush at this point. Bush was supposed to be the honest one, remember?
Clinton and Bush are obscuring the issue here, but Clinton is doing it with better intent.
Making "green" energy is costlier, and goods would be more expensive to produce. But since that energy would be produced domestically probably, the US economy would get the benefit (instead of shipping $1B a day to the middle east like we do now) and jobs would be created. And of course our air would be cleaner, we would be healthier, and we could hopefully sell that technology to other countries and lead the "green energy" industry, etc.
So both analyses are a little suspect, but I'd rather live in Clinton's world (more expensive energy at first, but cleaner air and jumpstart the "green energy" industry) than Bush's world (still expensive energy followed by all the costs of global warming).
I'm afraid the time when you could choose is probably past.
I like the way you think.
Which of course is why it isn't happening. There's no way a megapowerful existing industry is going to make way for nascent technology. The "green" energy companies would be invading their turf.
Of course, if those dunderheads in the oil industry would transform themselves into the "green" energy companies, their futures would be assured for at least a century to come. Sure, they're taking tiny little baby steps into "alternative" forms of energy, but the fact is they are fixated on pumping their present cash cow, oil.
What's needed is some kind of competition induced "green war" like the push to land on the moon after the Soviets were first with a human in space. The EU is making great strides but they've admitted themselves they have a long way to go.
I think one of the saddest things about the war in Iraq is that if all that money had been spent in the US on alternatiive energy and conservation, employment would be up, the current account deficit would be down, and we wouldn't be so dependent upon oil rich and autocraticl and corrupt nations.
We all know though this isn't really about oil, it's about the oil companies.
This annoys me.
The whole ****ing world economy is going to be damaged if greenhouse gas emissions continues at the current rate.
Can't help but feel that the US government needs to look beyond their own immediate and selfish interests.
Why do you think that is? These companies know what the future holds. Why aren't they going into greener, more renewable forms of energy?
It's because there is no alternative to what oil currently does. There is no form of green or alternative energy that can sustain our oil-based nation.
The only solution to the oil problem is to redesign our economy and structure to conserve as much energy as possible.
Since conservation is an evolution of the energy industry that would involve contraction (Think how the age of megafauna gave way to smaller creatures) they will do anything to delay this transition.
They will die. It's only a matter of time and how many of us they take down with them.
That's all a government has to care about; the next elections.
Wired had a neat article in their December issue about the types of alternative fuels that become competitive as the price of oil rises. Personally, I agree w/ ugg. I think there should be a very large prize awarded by the government to the guy/company that can develop an effective/clean alternate fuel source that could compete economically w/ fossil fuels. Perhaps even subsidizing the cost of creating an infrastructure to supply gas stations by increasing the taxes on fossil fuels. Not that this would happen under Bush though.
BMW in Germany is doing well at trying this. Their Hydrogen (NOT fuel cell) cars are doing quite well, and are breaking records in both range, speed, and power. This is while also offering drivers familiar feel, and drivability as experienced in petrol automobiles. They have cars that can run on hydrogen and regular unleaded gasoline.
BMW is also taking on the cost of creating a Hydrogen fuel distribution system and micro economy, and they have teamed up with GM to make a distribution network. While most of this work was done by BMW, GM will help with development and cost sharing as much as possible.
There may not be much hope for the US Government in Greenhouse gasses, but it looks like Private companies are looking to the future .
I guess Japan and Europe will take the lead in these green technologies and the US will fall further behind...
I like Jeremy Clarkson's take on it:
and agree with him that the hybrid crap is just silliness. Most of the things serve no real superior function beyond having cleaner urban emissions. They're not that efficient, they have no power and they're flimsy. But they do make a lot of people feel really good about themselves while they continue to burn gasoline as members of the Cult Of The Car.
Hybrids are a joke. They're an insult to innovation and real progress.
Hydrogen technology is just a notch more whiz-bang than hybrids at hiding its lack of forward thinking.
What we need long term is to get off the burning of carbon. Until we find a way to do that, we're still always ending up right back where we started with the steam engine, Model T and jet turbine.
No, you got it wrong on this one, hybrids are a modification of the ICE, just like fuel injection was and I don't hear anyone complaining about that. There are two important aspects of hybrids: first, the capture of power of a moving vehicle. Who would have ever thought that energy could be created in such a way? Second, pushing the limits of battery technology.
Hybrids aren't taking off very well in the EU simply because there are enough cars on the market that equal or surpass the hybrids in fuel efficiency. Add the extra cost and it's a no brainer. Hybrids do make sense in urban areas where stop and go traffic is the norm. Of course they're only a stopgap measure but the technology that comes with them is valuable and anyone who denigrates them is not seeing the big picture.
The manufacture and eventual replacement cycle of the battery largely eats up any energy savings that were gained by regenerative braking.
Hybrids do not involve a modification of the ICE. Fuel injection, turbo direct injection, common rail, cap and rotor, Wankel design (big time), sure.
But hybrids are a modification of the automobile itself, not the engine. More simply, it's just a unique way to blend an electric car with a gasoline car. Which leaves you, ultimately, with the problems of both designs.
You could just as easily run a hybrid automobile using steam, solar panels (like an acre of 'em), or plutonium delivering primary power.
As a stopgap measure the hybrid is a cruel ruse. It still needs gasoline, albeit a tiny little bit less. It solves nothing.
The end of the Stone Age wasn't brought about by bigger, stronger, hybrid stones. If the ICE were the Saturn V, hybrids would be the Shuttle. But we don't need a Shuttle, we need Warp Drive. We don't need evolution, we need revolution.