[DMCForum] Re: the EV1... vs Diesel

["jonheese" <jonheese@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

--- In DMCForum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "timnagin" <timnagin@...> wrote:
>>Yeah. It just doesn't "feel" like it's worth much. But I can't show
>>you this quantitatively, it's just a feeling.
> 
> Well, by all means let's trust a feeling instead of actual research
and hard
> numbers.  :-)

You're missing my point here.

Beyond the fact that I don't really see any primary goals being
addressed by drilling in ANWR, the main reason why "actual research
and hard numbers" are not involved in my analysis is that there are
contradictions and disagreements among the research available on the
topic.

When I see the agreed-upon benefits as petty, irrelevant and too
little too late, it doesn't really matter all that much what the hard
numbers are:  it's just not worth it.

>>Ha! Don't buy the more efficient vehicles then! Problem solved.
> 
> That was my exact response to BOB.  If I wanted a higher mileage
vehicle I
> would go buy one.  Don't MAKE me go buy one.

Huh?  I'm not talking about making anyone buy anything.  If done
correctly, there's no reason why you wouldn't want to go buy one
(unless you just wanted to be stubborn).

If we, as a society, determine (with our wallets and pocketbooks) that
more efficient energy sources are the only way to go in the future (as
we've been doing the last 40 years), you really can't blame the people
who spurred the change along the way.  I'm not making you buy the more
efficient car, but don't be surprised if only more efficient cars are
available to buy in 10 years.

>>If everyone fully understood the implications of the looming energy
>>problems, I'm confident that you'd be in the minority with that opinion.
> 
> I am not convinced we have a "looming energy problem".  There was a
movie
> made recently where a politician, not a scientist in any stretch of the
> imagination, tried to convince people of this.  I prefer real, hard
facts
> and data that can be substantiated.  For what it's worth, I would not
> blindly believe any "movie" from someone saying the exact opposite
either.

Yeah, it's clear that you're not convinced. :) It is an uphill battle
to convince stubborn people of what they don't want to believe
(whether it's true or not).

Please don't imply that I'm some Gore-monger blindly following his
movie.  I've studied environmental science and chemistry at Florida
International University and the University of Florida, under *REAL*
scientists!  I've been doing this for over 10 years...  I'm no
bandwagon-jumper.

Gore's political ties are actually making it difficult for those of us
who see the same things he did, because now there's this "anti-global
warming" faction of people who latch on to any information that goes
against the prevailing opinion.  Good scientific research has no
politics or bias, and it still finds plenty of evidence of all the
things we don't want to be true.

>>For the most part, it isn't. The only difference is that we have the
>>chance to either do it or not do it right now. Everywhere else is
>>already done.
> 
> How can anyone possibly predict how much time we have left?  They can't.
> They may have a rough idea, but have you ever heard a report about
something
> where they say, "experts are shocked by this outcome as it was not
what they
> predicted."

What?  That's why they call it a "prediction".  It *is* a rough idea.
 Unless you have a crystal ball, it's pretty much all anyone can go
on, and plenty of totally reasonable, smart people make important
decisions based on these predictions every day.  They've gotten pretty
good at it, you know...

And yes, I have heard that quote plenty of times, in reference to all
nature of topics.  See for yourself:

http://www.google.com/search?q=not+what+the+experts+predicted

I don't see your point here, especially when referenced against my
quote above it.

>>Add to that the concerns of environmental types about the effects of
>>drilling in ANWR, and it seems like a dubious prospect in my mind. A
>>decent "last ditch" effort, but not something particularly interesting
>>to me right now.
> 
> They can go into ANWR and drill with very little environmental
impact.  A
> recent report I read stated the US is actually one of the lower
polluters on
> the planet.  Don't even get me started on China.

I don't really see your point here.  The drawbacks aren't really
material when the benefit is irrelevant.

I'm not sure what a comparison between the U.S. and China's pollution
rates has to do with anything...  It's no secret that LDCs are
polluting at or above the rate of industrial revolution-era MDCs 150
years ago.

Just because the U.S. ranks low on the world polluter list doesn't
give us some kind of free pass to ignore the environment to save a few
bucks.  If anything, it sets a precedent, and illustrates a need to
set an example, and at least to attempt to offset rising pollution in
other countries.

>>Sorry to say it, but I think this attitude is pure BS. First of all,
>>why do we always feel it necessary to make everything into a contest
>>for jobs, economy, etc. among the nations of the world? From the dawn
>>of civilization we've been warring with neighboring clans, and
>>frankly, it's stupid. I know it sounds very hippyish and trite, but
>>if there's any problem that should bring the nations of the world
>>together in finding a solution, it's this.
> 
> It's not BS.  Contest and competition are what drives innovation. 
All sorts
> of things have been invented that didn't have a use only to later
find a use
> for them.  You want to change what nature has created for millions
of years?
> On a very simple level, people fighting is what makes us more strong -
> survival of the fittest.

It seems like we're wandering off-topic here.  Competition for the
sake of innovation is one thing.  I don't see anything innovative
about drilling in ANWR.  Same sh*t, different locale.

>>Secondly, again, this is putting the cart before the horse. Just
>>because you're sure that alternate energy sources will turn into
>>another Big Oil, we should be less interested in pursuing them?
> 
> Nope.

I'm glad to hear that.

>>Most alternate energy sources don't have these same inherent dirty
>>qualities.
> 
> There is still waste from manufacturing that will exist.  Maybe one
day it
> won't be that way.

Inherent, inherent, inherent.  The reason manufacturing is dirty is
because of the inherent dirtiness of fossil fuels.  Has nothing to do
with the cleanliness of the alternate sources themselves.  Does this
make sense?

>>Plus ethanol is renewable.
> 
> Not if you are using it faster than it can be renewed.  :-)

Correct.  And we are most certainly not doing that.

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2007/biofuels.html
http://www.ethanolrfa.org/resource/facts/
http://www.iowadnr.com/energy/renewable/ethanol.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bioethanol#Renewable_resource
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol#Cellulosic_ethanol

>>Sure, but you wouldn't argue that a junkie shouldn't bother with rehab
>>because of the effects of withdrawal, would you? Solar, wind, water
>>and nuclear energy are NOT dubious in terms of their promise and
>>cleanliness. There is no gamble involved here.
> 
> This is not a valid comparison.  Being a junkie does not in anyway
produce
> anything positive, other than lining the pockets of the dealers.

I was trying to make my point that you are cutting off your nose
despite your face if you're saying that we can't dump dirty fossil
fuels because it would take more dirty fossil fuels to kickstart the
new energy technologies.

I can see I'm not getting this point through.  Can anyone else help?

>>I'm not talking about developing electric cars and ignoring coal-fired
>>power plants. I'm talking about a paradigm shift to cleaner,
>>renewable energy sources. There is no great chasm to jump into; the
>>technology is very solidly proven, and estimates are very reliable. I
>>just don't think there is as much doubt as you make it sound like.
> 
> Some people do, even expert scientists.

Our subject matter has ranged quite a bit in this thread.  Which
alternative energy technologies are doubted to be cleaner than fossil
fuels by expert scientists?

>>It is rather difficult for me sometimes to put together answers to
>>some of your points because I've honestly never heard anyone try to
>>argue that fossil fuels are not dirtier than alternate energy sources,
>>or that they are renewable. Still, I enjoy the challenge and thinking
>>outside of the box.
> 
> I don't think I ever stated oil was cleaner than any alternative energy
> source.  I believe I stated I could find something "dirty" in an
alternative
> energy source.

Yes, and I think that's a moot point, if I can find something
"dirtier" in fossil fuels.

Regards,
Jon Heese



 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DMCForum/

<*> Your email settings:
    Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DMCForum/join
    (Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
    mailto:DMCForum-digest@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
    mailto:DMCForum-fullfeatured@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    DMCForum-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/