The dangers of Oil

a big threat too, is running out of oil in the USA before we transition to alternatives, if we run out before other countries, it is gonna get ugly

advancements in solar and batteries are badly needed

 

Well, we are sure going to bank the largest economy of the world on your "expertise" in this matter -- not.

 

Im not opposed to all regulations. We could, for example, use our coal to make synthetic gas. It would not be cheaper than the shallow sweet crude from the ME, but we would be paying our own people for it. Keeping the money 'in house' (in our own communities) rather than paying foreign dictators for it. This would actually require regulation...

 

Great, so since fossil fuels are NON-RENEWABLE, civilization will end once they run out. You tell that to your grand kids, that we are sacrificing their future so that YOU can keep driving your gas guzzler. I am sure they will be thrilled.

 

'someones gonna control (and profit from) it, might as well be us!' That sort of moral ambiguity never ends well. Thats what turns the good guys into the bad guys.

 

also ...is there anything you dont wanna make illegal?

 

An N-95 will filter particulate but it doesn't filter the gases in smoke, and cloth filters are as worthless against smoke as they were against COVID.

You say you are pro renewable, are pro expanding hydroelectric and water projects?

 

The future does not look that bleak. We can continue to use fossil fuels. As technology permits we can switch to carbon based fuels using carbon conversion processes. In the meantime we can also develop solar and wind systems. The biggest mistake we can make is to allow ourselves to be forced into switching over to solar and wind prior to being completely prepared.

 

exactly, oil is a finite resource and won't last forever, though some might try to tell us it will

 

Oil does more good than harm. Frankly billions of people will die in starvation and cold without it. Our whole society would collapse.

Sure invalidating oil by creating better energy sources that are not so finite would create a better world, but that doesn't mean that oil is evil. That's just the leftist religious idiology speaking and it provides no real benefit to human progress.

 

Never met anyone who made that claim. The argument is that when it's less available, supply and demand will naturally push us toward alternative resources and that government intervention isn't necessary.

 

They predicted EVERY possibility. They’re wrong as often as they’re right because when you guess everything you’re never really wrong. Seriously, global cooling was a really big thing!! Remember? Probably not. FL coasts were supposed to be underwater decades ago. WRONG!!

They predicted increased Hurricane activity for over a decade and were WRONG, then eventually we had a few years of more hurricanes and these IDIOTS dared to pat each other on the backs. SORRY!!! No. You don’t get to ignore every time your wrong and celebrate when you’re right. A blind monkey can toss darts at a dart board and guess as accurately as all our climate scientists.

They’re about as accurate as Hurricane track spaghetti models. Guess EVERY track and when one is correct they do back flips. 1 always has to be correct morons. Show 2 models and bet your careers on it. If you’re wrong you’re fired forever. If you’re right you get another year to run random predictions.

 

you betcha. and exxon ain't gonna like it.

 

Oh, and you're the expert everyone should listen to?...lol

 

no one said we should 100% give up oil, diversity is what we want, if there is an oil shortage, we have an infrastructure set up where we can use alternatives too

we can reduce usage for sure

if I lived off grid, I would want solar and a gas powered generator for backup as an example, I would not put all my eggs in one basket

as you said, we need oil, so why use it all up, why not save some for future generations

 

Carbon conversion processes can make oil using various plant and fungus. It has been used to power USAF aircraft.

 

"the stone age did not end because we ran out of rocks"
barry commoner

the burning of synthetic fuels is at least as harmful as"real" petroleum.

i'm not saying "don't do it," i am saying "don't depend on it."

the bottom lune on climate change is that exxon knows as much about it as anyone, they have determined that it will be profitable to melt the icecaps, and they pay enough lobbyists and pr people to pull it off.

 

There is a tiny little problem with this: The TOTAL biomass available in the world (that's the total amount, not the annual growth) is only 10 times what is needed for total annual world energy production. And that's assuming that the biomass to fuel conversion process is 100% efficient, which it is not. So, you'll see that we'd quickly deforest the world if we were to try to rely on biomass for all of our energy needs. Yes, math can be a pesky thing in the light of partisan political feelings.

 

The biggest threat may be oil companies making hundreds of dollars net profit per second.

 

Let me recap your positions. Don't continue the use of non-renewable. Don't count on depend on carbon conversion fuels. That leaves solar and wind power. You might as well shut down the airlines, because the technology is not there to fly thousands of miles with several hundred passengers. Additionally, it will stop the use of trains and seriously restrict long haul trumping.

We need to do it all and we better figure out how to make it work.

 

That is really an ignorant argument. That money is divided among millions of stockholders.

 

no one at any level, and certainly not me, has said to stop using fossil fuel immediately. i would like to stop subsidizing the use of gasoline, which, with continued improvements and advances, might result in eventual sustainability.

aurcraft? sure, but how much travel is unnecessary? most business can be handled instantaneously using modern communications.

 

There would be no long distance flights.

The major "subsidizing" of the use of gasoline is the depletion allowance. That is the same as depreciation which is used in all businesses.

 

NOAA's HURDAT database shows that there has been no increase in the frequency of hurricanes or major hurricanes (Category 3 and over) since the start of the record in 1851. Three Category 5 hurricanes have hit the US mainland: the Labor Day hurricane in 1935, Camille in 1969, and Andrew in 1992. On Sept. 8, 1900, Galveston, Texas, braved a storm of biblical proportions, the deadliest natural disaster ever to strike U.S. territory when 6000 people died. The devastating death toll of the Great Hurricane of 1780 exceeds even that of Hurricane Mitch when an estimated 22,000 people perished between Oct. 10 and 16 in the eastern Caribbean,

The single worst wild fire in U.S. history, in both size and fatalities, is known as the Great Peshtigo Fire which burned 3.8 million acres (5,938 square miles) and killed at least 1,500 in northern Wisconsin and the Upper Peninsula of Michigan in 1871. The worst wild fire in western history and the 2nd largest overall in the United States was the Great Fire of 1910. The largest (and deadliest) wild fire in Canadian history as well as in the northeast of the U.S. was the Miramichi Fire of October 7, 1825.

The worst drought in American history was the Dust Bowl of the 1930s.

The point is this shows zero correlation between global warming and hurricanes, fires, and droughts.

Credible scientists include 95% of climatologists with PhDs and the like who actively work in the field. Even the alarmist Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) acknowledged in its Fifth Assessment Report in 2013 that there has been little change in long-term hurricane activity: The non-credible part comes from the few bona fide scientists that have succumbed to the alarmists side and claim global warming is the cause of increasing hurricanes and such.

 

What the hell is your point? So WHAT if "the enterprise" (whatever enterprise that is... unless it's Captain Kirk's.... which I agree was politicized against the Klingons) has been politicized? That's not going to stop Global Warming. I read your whole post about the Ice Age and 4.5 billion years ago and... all the crap that is absolutely IRRELEVANT to AGW