Quote:
Originally Posted by pshrynk
I agree with the sentiment stated above that the time for replacing fossil fuels is nigh. Not only because of the pollution and the possible effect on climate change, but also for political reasons. Let's stop paying countries who don't like us. Even a yellow dog Democrat like myself can see the folly in financing the enemy.
Also, eventually the fossil fuels will run out. I don't think it will be as rapidly as the chicken littles are predicting, but it will happen and I, for one, would rather have something in place than to suffer the econmic upheaval that would have to take place if there is not a new scheme. I really don't like horses all that much and would be loathe to have to use one to get around, to be honest.
|
You have identified the biggest threat we have concerning the use of oil, which is that we are sending tons of money to our enemies for something we have plenty of right here in the US, if only we could overcome the greens who don't want us to drill for it. The problem is not only that our enemies use it to finance jihad, not to mention slavery in places like Dubai, but it also represents a huge economic threat.
Problem is, the only other feasible source for any significant replacement of fossil fuels is nuclear. And nuclear is abhorred by approximately the same subset of people who are against domestic drilling. Nuclear is one area in which the Europeans (except the Germans, or have they come to their senses?) have it right.
The net result in the US is stalemate, and continued shipping of our money to the Middle East.
(Back after 9/11, my own personal foreign policy concerning the terrorists was to tell the Middle East oil barons that unless they put a stop to the Islamic fanatics who were attacking us, we'd destroy all their oil wells. This not only as a threat, but on the theory that it either way, it would cut off the money supply to the terrorists. At the time, I was unaware that I might also solving a significant economic problem as well. Had I known that, my policy would not have been optional.)
BTW, does everyone remember the Ozone Hole Panic of the 90s? The one where fluorocarbons were accumulating in the atmosphere, and causing this Big Bad Hole in the atmosphere, giving us all skin cancer? So we outlawed fluorocarbons in products & behold, the Ozone Hole is shrinking. Result: Antarctica might have it's own version of REAL warming:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news...-1225806099928
Hmmm.
Also, for those old enough to remember the Global Cooling Hysteria of the 70s, remember the scheme about fighting Global Cooling by spreading ashes over the North Pole? This was supposed to keep the heat on, & melt the Arctic ice. Don't ask me where they were going to get all those ashes. Above my pay grade. But just think for a minute - what if we had actually carried out that scheme? By now, ALL the Arctic ice would have melted, pouring tons of fresh water into the Gulf Stream, keeping it from surfacing over by Europe, sending Europe into an Ice Age.
http://solveclimate.com/blog/2009111...western-europe I'm against this, even if it happens to the French...
More Hmmming.
The bottom line for me is that I don't think we don't know what we are doing when it comes to climate change. Whatever is going on right now might be entirely within the range of normal, and fighting it might tip things in an entirely unpredictable direction.
Besides, I live in Chicago. Global Warming sounds like a good idea along about this time of the year, when the wings of the Hawk begin to stir, and the dog starts hiding when it's time to go out for his walk.