Hurricane
09-11-2017 | 05:09 AM
#161
Banned
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,473
Likes: 0
Let's assume for the sake of argument that the scientific consensus -- a consensus supported by 99 % of the people who know far more about the issue than us pilots -- is wrong. Let's assume that climate change actually isn't being caused and accelerated by human activity, specifically carbon emissions.
Even if you assume that, there are plenty of reasons why reducing global consumption of petrochemical fuels is a very, very good idea. One of those reasons should appeal to even the most ardent Breitbart fans, and that is simply this: the more dependent the US is on oil, the more beholden we are to nations such as Saudi Arabia (from which 19 of the 20 hijackers hailed on 9-11), Iran (need I say more?) And so forth. The money we spend at the pump, in many ways, finds its way into the pockets of terrorists, via Iran's funding of Hezbollah, Saudi funding of other fundamentalist groups, and so on. The more we invest in alternative fuels, such as electric cars, solar energy, hydrogen fuel cells, etc, the less influence these hostile nations will have over us. And they'll have a great deal less money to contribute to those who directly do us harm. If you're a Trump supporters and you subscribe to Bannon's vision of economic nationalism, how could this not appeal to you?
Oil is just one in a long series of energy options, and its time is ending. Do we drive around in steam-powered cars? Do we heat our homes mostly with coal? No, we don't. Twenty or thirty years from now (I hope), oil will be a specialty fuel, probably used mainly in aviation and to make plastics. The majority of cars will be electric (hopefully powered more by solar electricity than coal-fired power plants), or hydrogen fuel cell powered, or -- and this is the ideal -- something we haven't even invented, that's better than the above alternatives.
Whichever nation develops and perfects a mass-scale replacement for oil will be a nation whose economic might will have to be reckoned with. Now, do we want that nation to be China? Or are we going to stand up and lead the effort? Simply because die-hard conservatives can't stand Al Gore, or don't believe climate change is real -- are we willing to stick our heads in the sand and continue burning all the fossil fuels we can, with no effort to develop a better replacement? What is the point in that?
The biggest mistake made in the early days of discussion about global warming is that the activists who raised the public profile of the issue, went about it in a rather blame-casting, guilt-assigning, preachy sort of way. They tried to tell red-meat-eating, pickup-truck-driving Americans that their lifestyles were harming the planet. Well, we Americans don't like to be preached to in that way. I think if the narrative had been framed differently -- 'Look, the more oil we buy, the more resources guys like Bin Laden will have to wage war on us', we wouldn't be so ridiculously divided on a topic of science that is being approached like religion (either you believe, or you don't). But it's too late for that, alas.
But every time you fill up your F150, just think of how you're making America less secure. You are. You can't deny it. But if it makes you feel better to know you're flipping the bird at Al Gore or whichever 'snowflake liberal' happens to annoy you, well...go right ahead.
Just realize that the world you're leaving for your kids will be worse than the one you inherited from your parents.
Even if you assume that, there are plenty of reasons why reducing global consumption of petrochemical fuels is a very, very good idea. One of those reasons should appeal to even the most ardent Breitbart fans, and that is simply this: the more dependent the US is on oil, the more beholden we are to nations such as Saudi Arabia (from which 19 of the 20 hijackers hailed on 9-11), Iran (need I say more?) And so forth. The money we spend at the pump, in many ways, finds its way into the pockets of terrorists, via Iran's funding of Hezbollah, Saudi funding of other fundamentalist groups, and so on. The more we invest in alternative fuels, such as electric cars, solar energy, hydrogen fuel cells, etc, the less influence these hostile nations will have over us. And they'll have a great deal less money to contribute to those who directly do us harm. If you're a Trump supporters and you subscribe to Bannon's vision of economic nationalism, how could this not appeal to you?
Oil is just one in a long series of energy options, and its time is ending. Do we drive around in steam-powered cars? Do we heat our homes mostly with coal? No, we don't. Twenty or thirty years from now (I hope), oil will be a specialty fuel, probably used mainly in aviation and to make plastics. The majority of cars will be electric (hopefully powered more by solar electricity than coal-fired power plants), or hydrogen fuel cell powered, or -- and this is the ideal -- something we haven't even invented, that's better than the above alternatives.
Whichever nation develops and perfects a mass-scale replacement for oil will be a nation whose economic might will have to be reckoned with. Now, do we want that nation to be China? Or are we going to stand up and lead the effort? Simply because die-hard conservatives can't stand Al Gore, or don't believe climate change is real -- are we willing to stick our heads in the sand and continue burning all the fossil fuels we can, with no effort to develop a better replacement? What is the point in that?
The biggest mistake made in the early days of discussion about global warming is that the activists who raised the public profile of the issue, went about it in a rather blame-casting, guilt-assigning, preachy sort of way. They tried to tell red-meat-eating, pickup-truck-driving Americans that their lifestyles were harming the planet. Well, we Americans don't like to be preached to in that way. I think if the narrative had been framed differently -- 'Look, the more oil we buy, the more resources guys like Bin Laden will have to wage war on us', we wouldn't be so ridiculously divided on a topic of science that is being approached like religion (either you believe, or you don't). But it's too late for that, alas.
But every time you fill up your F150, just think of how you're making America less secure. You are. You can't deny it. But if it makes you feel better to know you're flipping the bird at Al Gore or whichever 'snowflake liberal' happens to annoy you, well...go right ahead.
Just realize that the world you're leaving for your kids will be worse than the one you inherited from your parents.
09-11-2017 | 06:16 AM
#162
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Apr 2017
Posts: 150
Likes: 0
Let's assume for the sake of argument that the scientific consensus -- a consensus supported by 99 % of the people who know far more about the issue than us pilots -- is wrong. Let's assume that climate change actually isn't being caused and accelerated by human activity, specifically carbon emissions.
Even if you assume that, there are plenty of reasons why reducing global consumption of petrochemical fuels is a very, very good idea. One of those reasons should appeal to even the most ardent Breitbart fans, and that is simply this: the more dependent the US is on oil, the more beholden we are to nations such as Saudi Arabia (from which 19 of the 20 hijackers hailed on 9-11), Iran (need I say more?) And so forth. The money we spend at the pump, in many ways, finds its way into the pockets of terrorists, via Iran's funding of Hezbollah, Saudi funding of other fundamentalist groups, and so on. The more we invest in alternative fuels, such as electric cars, solar energy, hydrogen fuel cells, etc, the less influence these hostile nations will have over us. And they'll have a great deal less money to contribute to those who directly do us harm. If you're a Trump supporters and you subscribe to Bannon's vision of economic nationalism, how could this not appeal to you?
Oil is just one in a long series of energy options, and its time is ending. Do we drive around in steam-powered cars? Do we heat our homes mostly with coal? No, we don't. Twenty or thirty years from now (I hope), oil will be a specialty fuel, probably used mainly in aviation and to make plastics. The majority of cars will be electric (hopefully powered more by solar electricity than coal-fired power plants), or hydrogen fuel cell powered, or -- and this is the ideal -- something we haven't even invented, that's better than the above alternatives.
Whichever nation develops and perfects a mass-scale replacement for oil will be a nation whose economic might will have to be reckoned with. Now, do we want that nation to be China? Or are we going to stand up and lead the effort? Simply because die-hard conservatives can't stand Al Gore, or don't believe climate change is real -- are we willing to stick our heads in the sand and continue burning all the fossil fuels we can, with no effort to develop a better replacement? What is the point in that?
The biggest mistake made in the early days of discussion about global warming is that the activists who raised the public profile of the issue, went about it in a rather blame-casting, guilt-assigning, preachy sort of way. They tried to tell red-meat-eating, pickup-truck-driving Americans that their lifestyles were harming the planet. Well, we Americans don't like to be preached to in that way. I think if the narrative had been framed differently -- 'Look, the more oil we buy, the more resources guys like Bin Laden will have to wage war on us', we wouldn't be so ridiculously divided on a topic of science that is being approached like religion (either you believe, or you don't). But it's too late for that, alas.
But every time you fill up your F150, just think of how you're making America less secure. You are. You can't deny it. But if it makes you feel better to know you're flipping the bird at Al Gore or whichever 'snowflake liberal' happens to annoy you, well...go right ahead.
Just realize that the world you're leaving for your kids will be worse than the one you inherited from your parents.
Even if you assume that, there are plenty of reasons why reducing global consumption of petrochemical fuels is a very, very good idea. One of those reasons should appeal to even the most ardent Breitbart fans, and that is simply this: the more dependent the US is on oil, the more beholden we are to nations such as Saudi Arabia (from which 19 of the 20 hijackers hailed on 9-11), Iran (need I say more?) And so forth. The money we spend at the pump, in many ways, finds its way into the pockets of terrorists, via Iran's funding of Hezbollah, Saudi funding of other fundamentalist groups, and so on. The more we invest in alternative fuels, such as electric cars, solar energy, hydrogen fuel cells, etc, the less influence these hostile nations will have over us. And they'll have a great deal less money to contribute to those who directly do us harm. If you're a Trump supporters and you subscribe to Bannon's vision of economic nationalism, how could this not appeal to you?
Oil is just one in a long series of energy options, and its time is ending. Do we drive around in steam-powered cars? Do we heat our homes mostly with coal? No, we don't. Twenty or thirty years from now (I hope), oil will be a specialty fuel, probably used mainly in aviation and to make plastics. The majority of cars will be electric (hopefully powered more by solar electricity than coal-fired power plants), or hydrogen fuel cell powered, or -- and this is the ideal -- something we haven't even invented, that's better than the above alternatives.
Whichever nation develops and perfects a mass-scale replacement for oil will be a nation whose economic might will have to be reckoned with. Now, do we want that nation to be China? Or are we going to stand up and lead the effort? Simply because die-hard conservatives can't stand Al Gore, or don't believe climate change is real -- are we willing to stick our heads in the sand and continue burning all the fossil fuels we can, with no effort to develop a better replacement? What is the point in that?
The biggest mistake made in the early days of discussion about global warming is that the activists who raised the public profile of the issue, went about it in a rather blame-casting, guilt-assigning, preachy sort of way. They tried to tell red-meat-eating, pickup-truck-driving Americans that their lifestyles were harming the planet. Well, we Americans don't like to be preached to in that way. I think if the narrative had been framed differently -- 'Look, the more oil we buy, the more resources guys like Bin Laden will have to wage war on us', we wouldn't be so ridiculously divided on a topic of science that is being approached like religion (either you believe, or you don't). But it's too late for that, alas.
But every time you fill up your F150, just think of how you're making America less secure. You are. You can't deny it. But if it makes you feel better to know you're flipping the bird at Al Gore or whichever 'snowflake liberal' happens to annoy you, well...go right ahead.
Just realize that the world you're leaving for your kids will be worse than the one you inherited from your parents.
http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/05/26/wsj-the-myth-of-the-climate-change-97-what-is-the-origin-of-the-false-belief-that-almost-all-scientists-agree-about-global-warming/
As for the rest of your scaremongering, the us is now oil independent and we produce enough of our own oil that we for the first time are exporting it to other countries.
09-11-2017 | 06:41 AM
#163
Line Holder
Joined: Apr 2016
Posts: 328
Likes: 5
Let's assume for the sake of argument that the scientific consensus -- a consensus supported by 99 % of the people who know far more about the issue than us pilots -- is wrong. Let's assume that climate change actually isn't being caused and accelerated by human activity, specifically carbon emissions.
Even if you assume that, there are plenty of reasons why reducing global consumption of petrochemical fuels is a very, very good idea. One of those reasons should appeal to even the most ardent Breitbart fans, and that is simply this: the more dependent the US is on oil, the more beholden we are to nations such as Saudi Arabia (from which 19 of the 20 hijackers hailed on 9-11), Iran (need I say more?) And so forth. The money we spend at the pump, in many ways, finds its way into the pockets of terrorists, via Iran's funding of Hezbollah, Saudi funding of other fundamentalist groups, and so on. The more we invest in alternative fuels, such as electric cars, solar energy, hydrogen fuel cells, etc, the less influence these hostile nations will have over us. And they'll have a great deal less money to contribute to those who directly do us harm. If you're a Trump supporters and you subscribe to Bannon's vision of economic nationalism, how could this not appeal to you?
Oil is just one in a long series of energy options, and its time is ending. Do we drive around in steam-powered cars? Do we heat our homes mostly with coal? No, we don't. Twenty or thirty years from now (I hope), oil will be a specialty fuel, probably used mainly in aviation and to make plastics. The majority of cars will be electric (hopefully powered more by solar electricity than coal-fired power plants), or hydrogen fuel cell powered, or -- and this is the ideal -- something we haven't even invented, that's better than the above alternatives.
Whichever nation develops and perfects a mass-scale replacement for oil will be a nation whose economic might will have to be reckoned with. Now, do we want that nation to be China? Or are we going to stand up and lead the effort? Simply because die-hard conservatives can't stand Al Gore, or don't believe climate change is real -- are we willing to stick our heads in the sand and continue burning all the fossil fuels we can, with no effort to develop a better replacement? What is the point in that?
The biggest mistake made in the early days of discussion about global warming is that the activists who raised the public profile of the issue, went about it in a rather blame-casting, guilt-assigning, preachy sort of way. They tried to tell red-meat-eating, pickup-truck-driving Americans that their lifestyles were harming the planet. Well, we Americans don't like to be preached to in that way. I think if the narrative had been framed differently -- 'Look, the more oil we buy, the more resources guys like Bin Laden will have to wage war on us', we wouldn't be so ridiculously divided on a topic of science that is being approached like religion (either you believe, or you don't). But it's too late for that, alas.
But every time you fill up your F150, just think of how you're making America less secure. You are. You can't deny it. But if it makes you feel better to know you're flipping the bird at Al Gore or whichever 'snowflake liberal' happens to annoy you, well...go right ahead.
Just realize that the world you're leaving for your kids will be worse than the one you inherited from your parents.
Even if you assume that, there are plenty of reasons why reducing global consumption of petrochemical fuels is a very, very good idea. One of those reasons should appeal to even the most ardent Breitbart fans, and that is simply this: the more dependent the US is on oil, the more beholden we are to nations such as Saudi Arabia (from which 19 of the 20 hijackers hailed on 9-11), Iran (need I say more?) And so forth. The money we spend at the pump, in many ways, finds its way into the pockets of terrorists, via Iran's funding of Hezbollah, Saudi funding of other fundamentalist groups, and so on. The more we invest in alternative fuels, such as electric cars, solar energy, hydrogen fuel cells, etc, the less influence these hostile nations will have over us. And they'll have a great deal less money to contribute to those who directly do us harm. If you're a Trump supporters and you subscribe to Bannon's vision of economic nationalism, how could this not appeal to you?
Oil is just one in a long series of energy options, and its time is ending. Do we drive around in steam-powered cars? Do we heat our homes mostly with coal? No, we don't. Twenty or thirty years from now (I hope), oil will be a specialty fuel, probably used mainly in aviation and to make plastics. The majority of cars will be electric (hopefully powered more by solar electricity than coal-fired power plants), or hydrogen fuel cell powered, or -- and this is the ideal -- something we haven't even invented, that's better than the above alternatives.
Whichever nation develops and perfects a mass-scale replacement for oil will be a nation whose economic might will have to be reckoned with. Now, do we want that nation to be China? Or are we going to stand up and lead the effort? Simply because die-hard conservatives can't stand Al Gore, or don't believe climate change is real -- are we willing to stick our heads in the sand and continue burning all the fossil fuels we can, with no effort to develop a better replacement? What is the point in that?
The biggest mistake made in the early days of discussion about global warming is that the activists who raised the public profile of the issue, went about it in a rather blame-casting, guilt-assigning, preachy sort of way. They tried to tell red-meat-eating, pickup-truck-driving Americans that their lifestyles were harming the planet. Well, we Americans don't like to be preached to in that way. I think if the narrative had been framed differently -- 'Look, the more oil we buy, the more resources guys like Bin Laden will have to wage war on us', we wouldn't be so ridiculously divided on a topic of science that is being approached like religion (either you believe, or you don't). But it's too late for that, alas.
But every time you fill up your F150, just think of how you're making America less secure. You are. You can't deny it. But if it makes you feel better to know you're flipping the bird at Al Gore or whichever 'snowflake liberal' happens to annoy you, well...go right ahead.
Just realize that the world you're leaving for your kids will be worse than the one you inherited from your parents.
09-11-2017 | 07:05 AM
#164
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Aug 2015
Posts: 2,630
Likes: 570
From: Guppy Gear Slinger
09-11-2017 | 07:09 AM
#165
Banned
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,473
Likes: 0
Can a tesla pull my tractor or boat? And ya teslas are great I actually am thinking about getting the cheap model as my commuter car since the airport has free electricity to me. I mean why aren't we flying electric planes everywhere? What's the obsession with jet fueled powered planes? Only problem where I live is I need my big truck to navigate snowy county roads. So until teslas makes a truck for my needs I'll stick with my diesel F250.
09-11-2017 | 07:26 AM
#166
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Aug 2015
Posts: 2,630
Likes: 570
From: Guppy Gear Slinger
Can a tesla pull my tractor or boat? And ya teslas are great I actually am thinking about getting the cheap model as my commuter car since the airport has free electricity to me. I mean why aren't we flying electric planes everywhere? What's the obsession with jet fueled powered planes? Only problem where I live is I need my big truck to navigate snowy county roads. So until teslas makes a truck for my needs I'll stick with my diesel F250.
What I am saying is that the sooner we replace oil as a primary fuel, the better. 10 years from now we'll have electric F350s, boats, and whatever other toys you want (aside from commercial aircraft). As a nation, we should be investing heavily in bringing replacement technologies to market. It's a win-win: we create jobs with the development of the new tech (admittedly, it'd probably be a transfer of jobs from petrochemical extraction and refinement, rather than a net creation of jobs), and we quit pouring so much carbon into the atmosphere. We also deprive nations like Iran and Saudi of their leverage over us.
Show me the one negative result of such a scenario.
09-11-2017 | 07:30 AM
#167
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,410
Likes: 1
From: Cockpit speaker volume knob set to eleven.
Can a tesla pull my tractor or boat? And ya teslas are great I actually am thinking about getting the cheap model as my commuter car since the airport has free electricity to me. I mean why aren't we flying electric planes everywhere? What's the obsession with jet fueled powered planes? Only problem where I live is I need my big truck to navigate snowy county roads. So until teslas makes a truck for my needs I'll stick with my diesel F250.
But if you plug it in to a coal fired electrical plant you really aren't saving the planet from carbon.
09-11-2017 | 07:41 AM
#168
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Aug 2015
Posts: 2,630
Likes: 570
From: Guppy Gear Slinger
Sure, but if that electricity is generated from hydro, solar, geothermal, or wind... Whole different story.
09-11-2017 | 08:31 AM
#169
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 5,244
Likes: 2
From: Baja Vermont
How much electricity is actually produced in those ways? Also, you have to count all the energy ( dirty energy) that goes into building Teslas and the nasty bit of producing the batteries. Then, there's taxpayers earning median wages paying for the tax break.
GF
GF
09-11-2017 | 08:32 AM
#170
Banned
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,473
Likes: 0
I was going to say this but my area gets almost all it's power from the TVA so couldn't say that with a straight face
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
