So here's the thing: Oil, Coal and Gas are Natural elements of the earth. So it is natural energy

For a long time, when it comes to my Energy Policy and my thoughts on how to supplement energy for America in the 21st century, I've been rather straightforward and simple(not everything needs to have some grand ideology embedded in it): Mixed energy supply. Some wind, some solar, some electric, some nuclear and some oil/gas. There's nothing wrong with a single source of human energy, all of them have their various merits and all of them can power our electrical grid sufficiently but especially together.

Because let's face it with wind/solar: The wind isn't always powerful enough and there's such a thing as sun rest. With nuclear energy reactors, we just need to have them secure, the workers vetted and to keep them as far off a fault line/active volcano site as possible.

But really, the point I wanted to make is to prove that oil/coal/gas(ie: Traditional sources of energy) are natural resources of energy, because the whole Liberal argument is essentially the idea of 'going green' and 'transitioning' away from these energy resources, which as we've all seen is a massive foreign policy and domestic policy mistake for the United States.

https://www.britannica.com/science/coal-fossil-fuel Britannica refers to not only Coal as a Natural energy resource, but so is gas. So what about Oil?

https://energyeducation.ca/encyclopedia/Natural_resource Yes indeed, oil is also a natural energy resource. So when these modern day hippies complain about fracking and the like, just reference them to these links. The reality is, the traditional means of energy are every bit as natural as the sun, wind, etc. Where the greenies go wrong, is the idea that you have to exclude traditional energy resources, for new ones. That's not true.

Okay, so most of the funding is for traditional sources and yes, our grid is geared towards these sources but that doesn't mean the new energy sources can't be a part of that. And in fact, they are better equipped for a reserve role anyway. They perform best as supplements to traditional energy, not as the main supplier.

And I completely reject the idea that we're destroying the planet, because the hippies said that as early as 1969, we're still here. And maybe we will go boom one day, but it won't be because of decisions we made in the 21st century. It'll be a natural cycle of things, we humans weren't the first origin on the planet and we may not be the last.

 

We will never destroy the planet, but we only exist on the outer crust and it is entirely within our power to destroy the environment we rely on to survive. Between pollution, forest reduction(and therefore, oxygen production), and climate change, we can easily affect things to the point that life becomes a lot more difficult. It would take a pretty focused effort to actually wipe out all human beings, but there's a hell of a lot of room between complete extinction and where we are now, and sliding in any degree towards the former is not good.

Also, nobody said that we need to use "natural" energy. And the whole point of "green" energy is not that it is natural, but that it is more nature-friendly in it's use. There is no energy source that is not "natural". Even nuclear power relies on elements that came from the supernovae, the creation of the solar system, and the geologic processes within the Earth.

I will agree that with the exception of hydro power on large dams, geologic power(where feasible for larger scale energy production), and nuclear power, alternative energy sources are better suited as a supplement than a replacement for fossil fuels. But the problem is that the decisions about what power we use and how we take care of the environment are largely being made to appease owners and shareholders. We can't discount the role that finances play when it comes to energy, but nor should we be making national energy policy based on protecting the wealth of a select few.

 

Go into space, plenty of sun.

 

"So here's the thing: Oil, Coal and Gas are Natural elements of the earth. So it is natural energy"

they are a finite resource, not a renewable resource

 

urinating is natural too, but anyone been to San Diego on a homeless strip knows... natural doesn't always mean good

 

That’s a good analogy, however we have to have oil. If we got 100% away from oil for transportation it will cause the prices of all other oil based products to sky rocket. Things like shingles, asphalt, rubber, plastic will all go sky high because they will become more rare. Oil production will slow to dang near a halt if we quit burning it. Making all those byproducts the main product but at a lower supply.

 

Ever heard of the term "Refinery", once "oil" has been through one it's no longer "Natural".

 

Three things
Reduce consumption
Bioplastic - Wikipedia
Biofuel - Wikipedia

 

All the above are forms of solar energy and bio energy. They are most certainly renewable. If they weren’t we would have to say they are fairy dust or unicorn flatulence. Of course we have developed into a society addicted to instant gratification so we say they are not renewable to cover for the fact we just don’t want to wait long enough.

 

Bio fuel still puts off emissions and sometimes even more. The bio plastic is new to me. I will admit I was not aware of that. That however doesn’t solve asphalt, shingles, or rubber

 

That's what R&D is for.

 

I do not think anyone thinks we can get 100% away from oil, but we can reduce our use some and make our finite resource last much much longer

 

not in our lifetimes, if we use them up, they are gone

 

would sliding from 8 million population to a little more manageable 6 billion be ok?

 

Ironically if ocean levels rise coal formation would increase exponentially.

 

yeah, I admit in am not sure if coal was created because trees evolved before fungi or if other ways to create coal

 

The fungi hypothesis has been supplanted by the Pangaea hypothesis I believe.

https://www.pnas.org/doi/abs/10.1073/pnas.1517943113

 

And arsenic is found naturally in foods.

The CO2 we are emitting by burning fossil fuels was safely stored away by ancient algae and other plants and processes millions and millions of years ago, and that eventually made life for humans possible.

We are reversing that process at the speed of light - millions of times faster than it occurred naturally.

Any questions?

Maybe what is natural is for us to become extinct...very soon.

 

Isn't CO2 a critical component of both water/oxygen, which is needed for us to live? I've heard of the fairly elementary details of the ozone layer hole and other things of that nature, as far as I'm aware the reforms we did there helped to patch up that damage, so shouldn't that have been the end of the discussion?

 

No, CO2 isn't in H2O, which is water. CO2 is in the atmosphere.

When you add CO2 to water like the oceans, which we are doing by loading up the atmosphere with CO2, they become acidic.

We evolved with a certainly level of CO2 in the atmosphere. That in turn was critical to the characteristics of the climate and life on earth. We are converting the earth back to conditions that did not support human life; not life as we know it.

 

It's embarrassing that this has to be explained to Trumpers.

 

Well, gee, not everyone is in the field of science. It's embarrassing that people who are supposedly educated, lack the kindness and decency towards others that they demand to receive.

 

It's embarrassing that your ego and arrogance get in the way of effective communication.

Yeah talk down to people.... That's a very effective communication technique..... Do they teach that in PhD level courses?

 

Is planned obsolescence natural?

How much CO2 in the atmosphere is the result of unnecessary manufacturing due to planned obsolescence?

Is it natural for economists to ignore the depreciation of durable consumer goods?

They don't say much about Net Domestic Product, NDP, much less that their equation only applies to capital goods.

 

Condescension alert.