Lemme spin you fossil fuel lovers

I see a coalition. Environmentalists, who want to stop the destruction of our habitat (novel idea I know) and people who don't care what happens to the earth who just want cheaper energy. Diverse coalitions, who may arrive at the same conclusion in different ways, can sometimes be strong.

 

This is certainly a plausible conspiracy theory, but I haven't seen a shred of evidence supporting it. There are two serious problems which do not allow the plausibility of the theory to be practical:

1) Car companies are in competition with one another to gain customers. If such collusion was attempted, the car company with the smallest market share would immediately move to increase fuel efficiency in their cars to gain popularity.

2) Oil companies are in competition with one another to gain customers. If such collusion was attempted, the oil company with the smallest market share would immediately move to lower their prices to gain market share.

Competition prevents what you're worried about. Just understand the nature of a competitive business environment.

 

No I don't think we should tax it, and yes it's probably our most valuable resource.

Would you say that government does indeed meddle with corporations?

Well, we do need Big Oil like a heroin addict needs heroin-can't live with it, can't live without it!!

 

Well, it's obvious that you're working for either a car or oil company, or get kickbacks from them.

^^ That's about as evidenced as when people say that people who don't like relying on oil companies, don't like relying on them because of anything other than the fact that we don't wanna rely on any company, government or anyone else for anything, more than necessary

 

No doubt.

Of course, but we 'need' most industries - that's why they exist. None of this, though, gets to the heart of my decision to take you on in this thread: you make a rather scurrilous claim that I find irresponsible and off-target, and I want to get to the bottom of it.

A couple of my clients are in the Oil business. I can absolutely tell you that there is no collusion in that industry. Most of these companies hate each other's guts.

Oil prices are set in the futures markets more than anywhere else.

 

Neither. I simply have a couple clients in that industry, so I've gotten to know it.

I don't see the value in this statement. We need oil, and we will for the foreseeable future.

Our economy converted from coal to oil as the primary fuel source right after 1900. We didn't need a mandate from the Government to do it; oil presented itself as a cleaner more convenient and less expensive source for fuel, so we adapted.

The same will happen in the future when a superior energy source appears. We don't need Government to do that; it will happen on its own due to market forces which are ever present - as is human nature.

 

Just in case you didn't know it, 40 years ago they made carbeuraters that allowed for 100 miles a gallon, and engines that could get it. Why is it that that technology has gone backwards?

 

You would hate big gov't, if you knew why your gas costs so much.

_

 

The overall point is that I don't think we should have to be dependent on fossil fuels, and people are being too lazy than to invest in alternatives, and we should get people to realize all this, the sooner the better.

Actually, for this thread, the overall point is that whenever someone like me has these opinions, people accuse them of nonsense such as a couple of the options in poll, and I'm going to retaliate by accusing fossil fuel lovers of nonsense, in return.

 

HAHAHAHAHA ok whatever, just refer to my previous post.

 

We go to the pump hoping for lower prices because the "Big Oil" companies do have us at their mercy but it goes further than me agreeing that fossil fuels are the answer.

Obama had moritoriums placed on drilling off of the shores of the U.S. because of the B.P. debacle. He decided to put on a show to his supporters and cover his ass because of his delayed response and sluggard inaction to the crisis. He could have let us drill and we have oil reserves right now that could be tapped into. We don't hear much from this administration about doing more ourselves but they did put a stop to the "Keystone" project for what reason, I still cannot figure out.

This administration stands behind new ways of improving our environment and that is what's important. I was against this in the beginning. Watching the innovation that science has discovered taking even cooking oil and breaking it down to fuel trucks and also found a way to use the last of the sediment. It is recycling and the reactors that scienctists have invented are going to be necessary in saving us grief in the future with the uncertainty we have with our overseas oil giants. Fossil fuels have to be one of our priorities like having a plan "B". We must not think that alternatives are a negative but a positive because we can only help our nation and the world, and not give into the hands that would bite us and not feed us. We need to feed ourselves by investing in fossil fuel projects.

Btw, I don't work for them nor will I ever.

 

If there was more industry competition we would already have a GPS controlled driverless car that runs on hybrid solar/biofuels or biodiesels/electricity. Hopefully in the future it will happen and then you wont be "gouged" at the pump. But don't expect it until industry sees a profit in it...

There is no profit in giving the consumer a good, sustainable product. There is a profit in selling you garbage that needs to be constantly fixed and replaced.

 

Um...I'm gonna need some substantiation on that one, as what appears to have gone backwards isn't technology, but your imagination.

 

I'm not going to be able to fix you. You actually think that people aren't investing in alternatives because they're lazy.

Billions have been spent - both by our Government (and they shouldn't have spent our tax money on that), and by private industry - on alternative energy sources, as well as refining our existing technologies to improve efficiency.

As is the case with everything in this life, what motivates these gains are financial and personal reward.

You are not going to speed that up by wishing for it; you're not going to speed it up by mandating billions more be spent.

When a better technology arrives, it will be implemented.

You started this thread by lobbing a nonsensical grenade: you accused oil companies of gouging. You haven't offered even one tiny bit of evidence to substantiate the claim, making it reckless and irresponsible.

The remainder of this thread has been devoted to challenging your assertion, and setting you right. One of the largest - if not the largest - investors in alternative energy on the planet are Oil companies. They specialize in energy, and they are both committed to remaining on the cutting edge of that field, and in self-preservation. Each one of these companies understands that they - like horse-and-buggy manufacturers; like telegraph makers; like VCRs producers - know that they are either leading the way in innovation, or being cast aside by progress.

Don't be myopic: these Oil companies are not your enemy. They are providing you critical resources, as well as researching viable alternatives. There's a lot of people who have a lot of growing up to do about this topic: windmills, solar, etc, are not viable/suitable replacements at this time. They have niches, but they're not yet ready - if they ever will be.

People are working on these things. These things take time.

 

Huh! You're saying that if I came up with a good, sustainable product...and my competitor's products were not as good, and not sustainable...

...that I couldn't make money?

 

You are aware that profit takes place AFTER executives have their gold plated commodes installed in the executive bathrooms?

 

You can walk or ride a bicycle.

 

I am old enough to remember acid rain, smog alerts and rivers catching on fire. While I know some of those things aren't from the burning of fossil fuels, some are. While the wisdom of Richard Nixon and the establishment of the EPA has reduced those very visible signs of pollution greatly, there are VERY GOOD ENVIRONMENTAL reasons to wean off of burning stuff for energy entirely.

 

I am all ready to switch to a biofuel engine, running on fuel grown by my fellow American farmers, who I greatly respect (as long as they are not using slave labor). It seems to me to be a perfect fit for the abundant supply of farmland in USA.

Instead of paying farmers not to grow a certain crop, or to compensate them for an over production of some food crop, we instead let them produce fuel for us as well.

This will lower both our transportation costs, as well as military cost to provide naval and air power protection for sea lanes carrying oil on huge tankers from halfway around the world.

It will reduce the necessity to fight any wars around the globe for protection of oil resources.

Of course, eventually, this will lead to the realization that technology could literally provide for all basic needs of humanity, thus completely destroying the concept of : Exploit/Control Resource + force cheap labor = Profit for Few, with trickle down for many.

 

Yeah it kind of already can. And people still starve to death everyday. Ah but that isn't important compared to profit and accumulating stuff. On a world scale, every 3.6 seconds someone dies of hunger. That statistic should humble any person with even half a brain.

 

Let's start with the math. Corn doesn't grow like a weed. Modern corn farming involves heavy inputs of nitrogen fertilizer (made with natural gas), applications of herbicides and other chemicals (made mostly from oil), heavy machinery (which runs on diesel) and transportation (diesel again). Converting the corn into fuel requires still more energy. The ratio of how much energy is used to make ethanol versus how much it delivers is known as the energy balance, and calculating it is surprisingly complex.

The National Renewable Energy Laboratory states that, "Today, 1 Btu of fossil energy consumed in producing and delivering corn ethanol results in 1.3 Btu of usable energy in your fuel tank." Even that modest payback may be overstated. Skeptics cite the research of Cornell University professor David Pimentel, who estimates that it takes approximately 1.3 gal. of oil to produce a single gallon of ethanol.

If the benefits are in doubt, the costs are not. It would take 450 pounds of corn to yield enough ethanol to fill the tank of an SUV. Producing enough ethanol to replace America's imported oil alone would require putting nearly 900 million acres under cultivation—or roughly 95 percent of the active farmland in the country. Once we've turned our farms into filling stations, where will the food come from?

There's a simple reason that ethanol is popular with politicians: money. Substituting corn ethanol for a large fraction of the gasoline we burn will mean sluicing gushers of cash from more populated states to politically powerful farm states. And a lot of that cash will wind up in the pockets of the big agribusinesses, like Archer Daniels Midland, that dominate ethanol processing—and whose fat checkbooks wield enormous influence in Washington.


Read more: Ethanol Review as Alternative Fuel - Pros and Cons of Ethanol - Popular Mechanics

http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/alternative-fuel/biofuels/4237539

 

Not to mention 3 billion people exist on $5 a day or less, yet USA destroys overproduction of food. So its not a problem that technology could be our blessing, its a problem with antiquated religious ideology of work=eat, no work= no eat., which is simply not the environment any more. Only about 3% of population of USA is necessary to provide food production for the other 97%. Thats a much greater ratio compared to 4000 years ago, when it was more like 1:2 ratio of farm labor to food production., if that much.

 

Good post.. someone has thought this thru... In addition to the acerage and cost of fertilizers..fuel for farm equipment.. there is also water usage... which is also an issue re: the extraction of tar sands.

I think we are wrong headed wanting one sweeping solution.. while we should be looking at lots of small solutions.

 

^^^this.

Well stated. Definitive, in fact. Someone just got college credits without paying a dime.

 

You obviously have never set foot in any corporate offices. Aren't myths fun?