Debunking fuel conservation myths...

[nmgolfer]

The one thing you wrote that rings true....

Originally Posted by yarrr

I'm too lazy to check.

Seems.. you're clueless.

About "Data" from supposedly trusted "accredited" sources....

Processed, smoothed, interpolated, and extrapolated? Data extension? Data integration? No actual data? Making atmospheric measurements that will facilitate a predetermined conclusion?

Greenhouse Gas Observatories Downwind from Erupting Volcanoes

By Andrew Walden

Problems in the collection of atmospheric CO2 data parallel other absurdities in the global warming fraud. The Climategate scandal is exposing the massive and systematic fraud behind the fabrication of the worldwide temperature record necessary to make the case for global warming. But what about the record of atmospheric CO2?

The U.S. NOAA openly admits to producing a CO2 record which "contains no actual data." NOAA temperature stations sited in ways that artificially inflate temperatures have been exposed over the past two years. CO2 observatories have similar flaws. Two of the five NOAA "baseline" stations are downwind from erupting volcanoes. All five are subject to localized or regional CO2 sources.

Climategate collaborator Dr. Andrew Manning worked with Dr. David Keeling, founder of the Mauna Loa Observatory, where atmospheric CO2 is measured. Manning, whose name appears in 37 Climategate emails, tells BBC: (emphasis added)

The goal behind starting the measurements was to see if it was possible to track what at that time was only a suspicion: that atmospheric CO2 levels might be increasing owing to the burning of fossil fuels.



To do this, a location was needed very far removed from the contamination and pollution of local emissions from cities; therefore Mauna Loa, high on a volcano in the middle of the Pacific Ocean was chosen.


Without this curve, and Professor Keeling's tireless work, there is no question that our understanding and acceptance of human-induced global warming would be 10-20 years less advanced than it is today.



Mauna Loa has been producing a readout which supports Manning's predetermined goal by showing steady growth in atmospheric CO2 concentrations since 1959. This record, highlighted in Al Gore's discredited movie An Inconvenient Truth, is known as the Keeling Curve. A graph of the curve is engraved on a bronze plaque mounted at the entrance to the Observatory’s Keeling Building, 10,000 feet above sea level on the rocky north flank of Mauna Loa. According to the Observatory website: "The undisturbed air, remote location, and minimal influences of vegetation and human activity at MLO are ideal for monitoring constituents in the atmosphere that can cause climate change."

For some reason, they fail to mention the erupting volcano next door.


In the world of global warming climate modeling, massive volcanic explosions are tied to short periods of regional or even global cooling caused by the injection of volcanic gases and particulates into the upper atmosphere. For instance, Mt. Pinatubo's 1991 explosion shot twenty million tons of sulfur dioxide into the upper atmosphere, deflecting as much as 12% of the sun's warming rays.


Just thirty miles from the observatory, Kilauea's Pu`u O`o vent sends 3.3 million metric tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year. That's enough to change local CO2 concentrations without producing the kind of SO2 volumes needed to have worldwide temperature effects. Pu`u O`o has been erupting continuously since 1983. Since 2008 it has been joined by a second eruption even closer to the Observatory -- from Halema`uma`u Crater at the top of Kilauea.


The Nature Conservancy estimate of CO2 produced by human activity is roughly 5.5 tons from each of the world's six billion people. (If you exceed this amount, the Nature Conservancy will "offset" your excess carbon for a tax-deductable $20-per-ton contribution.) Pu`u O`o sends into "the undisturbed air" near "the remote location" the equivalent to yearly CO2 production from an average city of 660,000 people. Air trajectory charts show that most of the air reaching Mauna Loa Observatory first passes over Pu`u O`o and Halema`uma`u.

A USGS fact sheet produced in 2000 describes the effect of "volcanic air pollution" from Pu`u O`o. "On the Island of Hawai`i, the trade winds blow the vog from its main source on the volcano to the southwest, where wind patterns send it up the island's Kona coast. Here, it becomes trapped by daytime (onshore) and nighttime (offshore) sea breezes. In contrast, when light 'Kona' winds blow, much of the vog is concentrated on the eastern side of the island, but some can even reach Oahu, more than 200 miles to the northwest."


Volcanologists have measured CO2 concentrations as high as 48.9% at the Kilauea summit hotspot. After Halema`uma`u began erupting, the U.S. Department of Agriculture declared the Big Island of Hawaii to be a federal disaster area. Forty-five of the forty-eight protea growers downwind of the eruptions have been wiped out by VOG.


In spite of the claims about "undisturbed air," there is a clear difference between eruption years and non-eruption years in the rate of growth of Mauna Loa CO2 readings.


During the 1969-74 Mauna Ulu eruption, also in Kilauea’s East Rift, Mauna Loa set two records for CO2 increase.
Kilauea’s East Rift again erupted in 1977, expelling 32 million cubic meters of magma -- and the 1977 rate of increase at Mauna Loa Observatory set another record.
In seven of the 25 years of continuous eruption since 1983, annual CO2 growth rates measured at Mauna Loa exceeded those of all previous years.
Average CO2 concentration increase for the 17 non-eruption years is 1.00 ppm.
Average CO2 concentration increase for the 33 eruption years is 1.62 ppm.


It wasn't always easy to win funding for Mauna Loa. Climategate collaborator Manning explains: "Dave Keeling suffered many sleepless nights, even as late as in the 1990s, being forced again and again to justify continued funding of his programme." A chapter of Spencer Weart’s 2008 book The Discovery of Global Warming lionizes Keeling’s efforts. Its title: "Money for Keeling: Monitoring CO2 Levels."

But the funding did start to roll in, and Mauna Loa is no longer alone. A "global network" of over one hundred CO2 stations is now headed by Mauna Loa and four other "baseline" observatories. Their readouts are used to produce a worldwide CO2 readout called GLOBALVIEW CO2.



If localized volcanic activity is affecting CO2 measurements at Mauna Loa, why would the "global network" be following along? Perhaps it's because all of the CO2 stations -- including the NOAA's other baseline stations at the South Pole; American Samoa; Trinidad Head, CA; and Pt. Barrow, AK -- are subject to localized, and in some cases regional, CO2 influences.

The American Samoa observatory is about 150 miles downwind from where the one-mile wide Nafanua volcano has emerged. The undersea volcano is described by University of Sydney marine scientist Dr. Adele Pile as producing an undersea environment with an acidic pH of 3 (similar to vinegar), carbon dioxide bubbling up "like champagne," and extremely hot venting water so toxic that "any life swimming into this pit immediately dies, except these amazing scavenging worms." Woods Hole oceanographers report they "discovered that hot, smoggy water from the crater was spilling over the top or through breaches in the crater rim and billowing outward. It formed a halo around the rim that was hundreds of feet thick and extended more than 4 miles." In addition, Samoa's lush tropical vegetation is a big daytime consumer of CO2 thus dropping CO2 levels sharply during the day and raising them sharply at night.
Trinidad Head Observatory is on a Northern California peninsula jutting into the Pacific about twenty miles north of Eureka, CA. Like Samoa, Trinidad Head is subject to substantial vegetation-driven changes in CO2 levels from the surrounding temperate forests and wetlands. The prevailing winds come in off the Pacific, which are influenced by coal-happy China.
The South Pole Observatory is just yards away from a power plant which burns jet fuel 365 days a year to provide electricity and heat for Amundsen Station. (Researchers claim that prevailing winds come from the opposite direction.) It is also about 800 miles from Antarctica's Mt. Erebus volcano, which has continuously erupted since 1972. Because the atmosphere's ability to carry water vapor is cut approximately in half by every ten-degree-C drop in temperature, the extremely low temperatures at the South Pole mean that only trace amounts of water vapor are in the atmosphere. CO2 mixes with water vapor in the atmosphere to form H2CO3 (carbonic acid), giving rainfall a slightly acidic pH and washing CO2 from the air. The uniquely dry and cold conditions of the South Pole prevent this from occurring, thus altering the natural atmospheric carbon elimination process and magnifying the effect of CO2 sources. Amundsen Station personnel and emissions from the 12,000-foot Mt. Erebus volcano are also implicated in the 1990s ozone hole scam.

The Observatory at Point Barrow, Alaska is about 170 miles downwind from the Prudhoe Bay headquarters of the North Slope oil industry. It is therefore subject to a localized increase in man-made air pollution, including CO2 emissions. Coincidentally, of course, the Barrow Observatory was established in 1973 -- just before construction began on the Trans-Alaska Pipeline. Barrow is also annually subject to several months of "Arctic haze," which University of Alaska Geophysicist Ned Rozell indicates is from ex-Soviet and new Chinese "iron, nickel and copper smelters and inefficient coal-burning plants."

CO2 produced by China's massive and growing reliance on coal is being used to justify CO2 controls on the U.S. and Europe. The Pacific bias of these five "baseline" locations is hard to miss. If one were seeking CO2 increases, downwind of China would be the place to go find them.

The NOAA's preference for warm maritime CO2 collection sites on ocean waters between 30 degrees north and 30 degrees south -- including many reached only by boat -- means that "flask network" collections are primarily conducted in highly humid areas. When the flasks are returned to Mauna Loa, the water vapor is removed by heating. This process breaks H2O out of the carbolic acid, leaving behind the CO2 to be measured in the dry air sample. Besides the South Pole, few CO2 flasks are sent to low-humidity desert areas with less airborne carbolic acid to measure as CO2. All of these variables create the opportunity for mischief.

Local CO2 consumption by photosynthesis can produce a profound daylight decline and nighttime increase in CO2 concentrations. Calculations to account for these and other local or regional fluctuations create a lot of room for "hiding the decline," "fudge factors," and the other CRU-style techniques characteristic of politically-driven "post-normal" science.

As the Copenhagen talks approach, the November 23 AP headline blares: "Mauna Loa Observatory's carbon dioxide readings near worst-case scenario." In the midst of the Climategate revelations, the AP replicates global warming front-man Geoff Jenkins' 1996 Climategate scam by releasing "projected" CO2 concentrations of 390 ppm early -- the "highest for the past million years" -- "for the silly season."

In 2008, Mauna Loa readings of 387 ppm were supposed to be "The highest in 650,000 years," according to the U.K.'s Guardian. Can't they make up their minds?

Of course, neither the AP nor the Guardian makes note of the fact that the latest CO2 increases come in the midst of a climatic cooling cycle. Nor are the "paleo"-records of CO2 "for the past million years" questioned, even as "paleo"-temperature records are completely discredited as being the fraudulent work of politically motivated hacks at the East Anglia CRU.


Instead, AP-readers are expected to trust "[t]he Mauna Loa researchers [who] extend their measurements through their 'flask network' -- containers sent to dozens of places around the world each week or carried on commercial ships so people can fill them with air and send them back to be measured for CO2 and other gases."

The National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) boldly announces the methodology behind its worldwide CO2 chart created from these "Flask Network" readings:


GLOBALVIEW-CO2 is derived using the data extension and data integration techniques described by Masarie and Tans [1995].



The impetus for the work done by the many cooperating organizations and institutions is to make atmospheric measurements of trace gas species that will facilitate a better understanding of the processes controlling their abundance. These and other measurements have been widely used to constrain atmospheric models that derive plausible source/sink scenarios. Serious obstacles to this approach are the paucity of sampling sites and the lack of temporal continuity among observations from different locations. Consequently, there is the potential for models to misinterpret these spatial and temporal gaps resulting in derived source/sink scenarios that are unduly influenced by the sampling distribution. GLOBALVIEW-CO2 is an attempt to address these issues. ...


In case readers don't get the point, the NOAA also explains (emphasis in original):


GLOBALVIEW-CO2 is derived from measurements but contains no actual data. To facilitate use with carbon cycle modeling studies, the measurements have been processed (smoothed, interpolated, and extrapolated) resulting in extended records that are evenly incremented in time.


Processed, smoothed, interpolated, and extrapolated? Data extension? Data integration? No actual data? Making atmospheric measurements that will facilitate a predetermined conclusion?

[jambo101]

Sure hope you copied and pasted all that,
Would have said why not just post the link but it seems all links have to be approved by photodu.de these days
Wikipedia eh, A veritable bastion of reliable info
http://www.google.ca/#hl=en&safe=off...da1a6f71d89fd6

[nmgolfer]

Originally Posted by jambo101

Sure hope you copied and pasted all that,
Would have said why not just post the link but it seems all links have to be approved by photodu.de these days
Wikipedia eh, A veritable bastion of reliable info
http://www.google.ca/#hl=en&safe=off...da1a6f71d89fd6

Ya I copy/pasted Some people are too LAZY to click on links as as for the witchesfoot as a reliable source... don't get me started.... Well seems and independent panel has excoriated the frauds and charlatans at the IPCC today...

IPCC climate change panel needs transparency, review panel finds
The IPCC climate change advisory panel, stung by criticism that it ignored dissenting views, underwent an independent review of its management. Observers have called the report 'remarkably hard-hitting.'

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/env...e-science.html

If climate science were conducted the way science is supposed to be conducted there would likely be no concerns about global warming and it would certainly be clear that there is NO CONSENSUS...

... But there's no profits in that for the controllers and they need their impending global catastrophe to further empower the non-elected totally unaccountable undemocratic supra-national collectivist UN. And the beat goes on...

[bkrownd]

Clearly scientists have failed to account for the CO2 that comes from UFO tail pipes! How do you think those Motherships and their Swarm stay up in the air? They are producing ENORMOUS plumes of exhaust, and the mind-control machines are doubtless massive energy hogs! Where is the accounting of these pollution sources in the scientific data? Missing? HIDDEN?!? Can you say "coverup"?!?!!

[PhotoDu.de]

Originally Posted by jambo101

Sure hope you copied and pasted all that,
Would have said why not just post the link but it seems all links have to be approved by photodu.de these days
Wikipedia eh, A veritable bastion of reliable info
http://www.google.ca/#hl=en&safe=off...da1a6f71d89fd6

I'm sorry I like things from credible and reviewed sources. Did you even look at the results that came up on Google? The first three were a Yahoo! Answers thread in which they discuss how most errors are quickly removed, the Wikipedia article "Errors in the Encyclopædia Britannica that have been corrected in Wikipedia," and then an article about how Wikipedia fights vandalism.

Originally Posted by HTM Yaris

Just imagine what would be happening if the US would not have made marijuana illegal in 1937 . We would have an endless and renewable source of ethanol .
You don't think really think marijuana is illegal b/c it is bad for you , ...do you ? Oil companies realized long ago that marijuana would put them out of business and then successfully lobbied against marijuana .

Wait , did I just throw a monkey in somebody's wrench .....awww snap .

It wasn't the oil companies but DuPont who wanted it illegal. However, they did it to protect their interest in plastics which you need oil for.
Also, the Federal Bureau of Narcotics released propaganda that misrepresented the effects of Marijuana.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_h..._United_States

Vote yes on prop 19!

[fmicle]

Well, if CO2 is a pollutant, you better never try to revive anyone by giving them rescue breaths. After all, you'd be "poisoning them with your CO2".

I recently learned about this "Snowball Earth" theory; about 650 million years ago, the Earth was completely frozen. They say it's estimated that the CO2 levels needed to thaw that were 250 times the levels of today. So where did all that CO2 go? It must still be here somewhere...

How about Mt. Pinatubo eruption? Didn't that lower global temperatures for like 2 or 3 years because of all ash in the atmosphere?

I hate pollution because I don't want to get cancer, but I don't think we can do much about the warming, other than move a bit farther north. Personally, I've always wanted to check out Montana...

Another piece of bad news: the sun will be entering a new phase of peak activity in its 11 year cycles, so prepare for more toasty times...

[PhotoDu.de]

Originally Posted by fmicle

Well, if CO2 is a pollutant, you better never try to revive anyone by giving them rescue breaths. After all, you'd be "poisoning them with your CO2".

You also exhale oxygen. CO2 is a pollutant because it makes the air more dense, not because it is toxic.

[fmicle]

Originally Posted by PhotoDu.de

You also exhale oxygen. CO2 is a pollutant because it makes the air more dense, not because it is toxic.

Really? daaaym

Dictionary definition for "pollutant": any substance, as certain chemicals or waste products, that renders the air, soil, water, or other natural resource harmful or unsuitable for a specific purpose.

I don't see how "denser air" is harmful or unsuitable for a specific purpose Besides, plants need to live too, CO2 is good for them...

[PhotoDu.de]

Originally Posted by fmicle

Really? daaaym

Dictionary definition for "pollutant": any substance, as certain chemicals or waste products, that renders the air, soil, water, or other natural resource harmful or unsuitable for a specific purpose.

I don't see how "denser air" is harmful or unsuitable for a specific purpose Besides, plants need to live too, CO2 is good for them...

I already talked about how denser air retains heat better and how that is harmful to the environment. I also found this article that also mentions the definition of pollution:

http://www.wunderground.com/education/cei.asp

"The definition of pollution in Webster's dictionary is "to make physically impure or unclean: Befoul, dirty." By that definition, carbon dioxide is not pollution. However, Webster's also has the definition: "to contaminate (an environment) esp. with man-made waste." Carbon dioxide is a waste gas produced by fossil fuel combustion, so can be classified as man-made waste."
This article continues to go on to talk about the negative effects CO2 has on the oceans.

This is also a nice article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/NA_WSJ...515830975.html

[daf62757]

Originally Posted by PhotoDu.de

I already talked about how denser air retains heat better and how that is harmful to the environment. I also found this article that also mentions the definition of pollution:

http://www.wunderground.com/education/cei.asp

"The definition of pollution in Webster's dictionary is "to make physically impure or unclean: Befoul, dirty." By that definition, carbon dioxide is not pollution. However, Webster's also has the definition: "to contaminate (an environment) esp. with man-made waste." Carbon dioxide is a waste gas produced by fossil fuel combustion, so can be classified as man-made waste."
This article continues to go on to talk about the negative effects CO2 has on the oceans.

This is also a nice article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/NA_WSJ...515830975.html

How about the harmful effects that morons have on society!

[ChilliwackGuy]

You know what? I've never really had a good pickle!

[yarrr]

He's a nukular physicist AND a meteorologist. I'm impressed.

Yessss the "magic bullet" of "said thorium" (wait where did I say it before? or is it throium? you'd think I'd learn to use spell check some time on my way to becoming a world renowned scientist with respected views). What's with those stupid electric companies setting up multi billion dollar wind and solar farms. Why don't they just use this free energy?



And yes, I agree with you fmicle. If a few people would just stop breathing this whole global warming thing would be solved.

[nmgolfer]

More on the thorium cycle reactor and the energy independence your loving government (NOT) will not let you have...

http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?singlepost=2139398
Energy: Are You A Pig - And A Bigot?

There are a huge number of what some on the right call "Limousine Liberals" that preach all sorts of BS about "energy efficiency", "global warming" or "alternative fuels."

I have yet to see one with actual resources - one who is not reasonably wealthy or better - that is not a hypocrite or worse, exploiting people and playing on fear for their ECONOMIC benefit and to your detriment.

Let's deal with some facts. I will not provide the references, but I do have them. You will do your own homework if you care to. If you don't, just skip to the next Ticker, as I'll provide you with fair warning here and now - if you come into the forum to run some sort of claptrap you'll only do it once, as my tolerance for the nutball lefties on this subject (including the jackasses who showed up on Pensacola's beach to claim "no drilling" but got there in their SUVs) is utterly exhausted.

Facts:

We have a lot of coal in this country. It contains Thorium, which is a natural substance that can be used to build nuclear piles. Said technology was developed and built more than 30 years ago - this is not "pie in the sky" technology.

Each ton of coal we burn up contains 13 times as much energy as that liberated by combustion of the carbon in said Thorium. We could thus receive the same electrical energy we gain by burning the coal through extracting the Thorium and using the nuclear energy to produce power. With the rest of the energy, the other 12/13ths, we could then extract hydrogen from seawater (which we have lots of) and convert the remaining coal to either diesel fuel or gasoline. To put a not-fine-point on this, we throw away more than 100 billion gallons of gasoline (after conversion losses) in thorium tailings alone. That is damn close to all of our existing gasoline consumption - with ZERO oil being drilled. (PS: Those are conservative estimates - mathematically, it's 200 billion gallons!)

We know how to build fast breeder reactors. It is true that we have a limited supply of U-235, because it is a tiny proportion of the natural deposit in terms of isotopes. However, we have a lot of U-238 and we can turn that into Pu-239 in said Breeder Reactor. That produces both more nuclear fuel and electricity.

We like our cars. We like our Air Conditioning. We like our electricity, peak load of which is often generated with natural gas. We like our 3,000 square foot houses, our computers, our bigscreen TVs and other electrical and electronic knick-knacks. All of these require energy to operate.

A growing economy requires a growing energy output. There is no escaping this fact, despite it being inconvenient.

We have a lot of oil and natural gas in various forms in the United States. That includes (but is not limited to) offshore oil and gas, shale on federal lands and more. We don't want to stick the straws in the ground and perform other sorts of mining (including strip-mining), but the energy is there.
Bluntly, "energy scarcity" is artificial. We have every means within this nation - never reaching beyond our own borders - to supply every single bit of energy we need literally for the next several hundred years, and we can make as much of that energy into liquid hydrocarbons (gasoline and diesel) as we wish.

Notice that nowhere did I include such things as:

Ethanol from corn (or anything else); such is an idiotic waste of good foodstuff and arable land, and is utterly uneconomic unless subsidized, never mind the corrosion and phase-separation problems it presents in fuel systems (both of which are real.)

Biodiesel from blue-green algae. It will work. We have lots of arid, hot and sunny land on which we can build fully-closed systems. Once we have scadloads of power (see above), we might choose to. But we don't need to in order to get where we need to go.

Solar P/E. It only works when the sun shines, it requires rare earth elements, manufacturing calls into question whether you will ever get out what you put in and on a $-per-kw basis it doesn't make much sense. If it ever does unsubsidized, then fine and well.

Any sort of "pie-in-the-sky" sources such as wind (insufficient to provide a meaningful part of the load), wave (nice concept but unproved and not deployable today), tidal (and exactly who's waterway do you intend to dam to do that), lasers (or simple focused sunlight) from space and similar things.
That's because I don't need to. I only need what we know we can make work, right now, right here, today.

Our refusal to be energy independent is political, not practical, thermodynamic, or driven by resource. It is the product of lies and manipulations by those who claim "environmental awareness", which in fact is no such thing - it is instead a demand that "someone else" eat the risks that come with the consumption of energy we demand to enjoy, instead of those risks and costs being accepted by us in the United States.

Now with these facts let me put forward one of my first principles - that is, one of the things that I simply will not compromise on.

We have no right to demand that other people accept pollution and degradation of their environment to further our way of life.

We will start with oil. You can gripe about drilling off the coasts - all of them - and argue for shutting it down, along with arguing AGAINST strip-mining for shale and recovering oil sands and similar. But if you do so you have an obligation to crush your powered vehicles (all of them), get a goat to "mow" your grass and refuse to fly or ride in any conveyance that is not powered by humans, animals or electricity (more on that latter one in a moment.) If you heat your home with natural gas or heating oil you must disconnect both and toss your heating plant in the trash heap, replacing it with something that burns wood (if you'll accept the smoke that doing so produces) or lots of blankets (if not.) You must, right now, go through your home and trash every item made of polymers - that is, plastics and synthetic rubber. This means your computer, your television, your telephone (yes, including your cell), indeed, anything containing electronic components as all have petroleum in them. You also may not use any sort of petroleum lubricant anywhere in your home or business. If you have carpeting in your home, remove it - it was made using petroleum.

If you enjoy your Air Conditioning in the summer time you may not use it whenever the electric company is required to use natural-gas-fired "peaking" plants. This is, incidentally, when it's hot outside.

Next, coal: If you argue against coal-fired power plants you may not use electricity anywhere that it is generated using that coal. Likewise if you argue against nuclear power, against hydro-electric ('cause of all the poor fishies we displace) and similar.

Finally, nuclear: We can build, right now, both thorium-salt based nuclear reactors and fast breeders. The former we have more fuel than we know what to do with and the latter is fuel-cycle positive for both itself and a bunch of pebble-bed ordinary fission reactors. You have no right to consume electricity where there is no coal or hydro-electric available (or if you argue against those!) if you argue against building a nuclear plant next door to your home.

The fact of the matter is that each and every one of the jackasses who I keep reading that argue against our "energy profligacy", along with "environmental damage" refuse to do any of the above.

They want to drive their cars and fly their (often private or chartered) airplanes - but they want the environmental risk and damage, if any, to happen to "those people" - you know, the blacks in Nigeria and the ragheads over in the Middle East? Yeah, "those people." Those "less than" fully-human people that are not entitled to the same environmental protection they arrogate for themselves? Uh huh.

These are the same lefty liberals who type on their Macbooks and iPhones (made in China where they pollute their air, water and earth, never mind the workers at Foxconn who are committing suicide by the busload - apparently due to working conditions) all produced where it's cheap primarily because they have no EPA and thus simply throw out industrial waste instead of recycling or properly reducing it to harmless materials.

The bottom line is that all human endeavor involves risk. You want to enjoy a western lifestyle, this means petroleum and energy production. Period.

You want to know what I consider being "equitable" if you really believe the crap that is spewed by people like Kunstler and Gore - as a maximum resource consumption point? I'll tell you:

One bedroom of of no more than 144sq/ft (12x12) for each cohabitating or married adult couple, plus one 10x10 bedroom for each additional single person (including children.)

One bathroom no more than 10x8, containing one tub/shower, one toilet, and two sinks.

A living room space of no more than 20x20.

An eat-in kitchen no larger than the living room.
This puts the "living space" for a household of 4 persons at about 1100 sqft. That's what I grew up in and it's definitely "middle class" by the definitions of the 70s and early 80s. It is also quite livable and frugal. Now let's continue:

One television, LCD (not plasma), no more than 400w.

Passive cooling only (e.g. basement + fan), no air conditioning.

Solar hot-water boosted with electric (remember, no petroleum - so no gas!) when necessary.

Your computer is a laptop (low-power netbook), and you own only one.

No incandescent lamps, no dishwasher (you have a dishwasher - it's your hands.)

Your clothes are dried on a line outside. The use of a horizontal (low-water and energy) washing machine is acceptable.

No person drives more than 5 miles to work and no petroleum is used to get there and back. Yes, this means you walk, you bike, or you use a plug-in electric bicycle or golf-cart style vehicle or moped.

You do not use, at any time except for bona-fide emergency (e.g. an ambulance ride!) any petroleum-consuming conveyance, including diesel-powered trains, city buses (other than electric trolleys), automobiles or aircraft. Period.
You do that and you can complain about energy profligacy. And before you say that's impossible, no it's not. A lot of people get damn close to it, and I know one such person very well who has the $30 monthly electric bills to prove it. In Florida, where such would be called "impossible" by many. It's not.

Those who argue for a "western lifestyle" but demand that others, whether defined as Chinese, Nigerians, Arabs, Mexicans or anyone else "eat" the risk and pollution that comes from their profligate lifestyles, or who argue for you to live as the above while they have their cars, boats, mansions and planes, are both pigs and bigots.

This means you Mr. Gore, it means you Mr. Kunstler, and it means you <insert your favorite author or politician arguing that we're all gonna die if we don't "go green" right now.> I won't even bother getting into the financial deals many of these people have entered into that will generate huge windfalls if we do have "carbon exchanges" and similar claptrap - I don't need to in order to make my point.

I like my car, my boat, my pool and my house. I like my A/C in the summer and my natural-gas fired heat in the winter.

I therefore support extraction and production of each and every BTU that I desire to consume right here, inside our borders, where the risk of the production of that BTU falls on ME, as part of the collective known as The United States.

And that, my friends, is the name of that tune.

[fmicle]

Originally Posted by yarrr

And yes, I agree with you fmicle. If a few people would just stop breathing this whole global warming thing would be solved.

Don't you think we'd be much better off if they stopped farting instead?

[HTM Yaris]

Just imagine what would be happening if the US would not have made marijuana illegal in 1937 . We would have an endless and renewable source of ethanol .
You don't think really think marijuana is illegal b/c it is bad for you , ...do you ? Oil companies realized long ago that marijuana would put them out of business and then successfully lobbied against marijuana .

Wait , did I just throw a monkey in somebody's wrench .....awww snap .

[TLyttle]

Makes me laugh... The US pays less for fuel than just about any country on the planet! If the US was serious about conservation, they would charge the same for fuel as they do in the UK, or even Canada. (Which kind of blows Big Dave's theory about cheaper fuel; sorry Dave) Pay $8 a gallon, then watch conservation in action!

[fmicle]

Originally Posted by TLyttle

Makes me laugh... The US pays less for fuel than just about any country on the planet! If the US was serious about conservation, they would charge the same for fuel as they do in the UK, or even Canada. (Which kind of blows Big Dave's theory about cheaper fuel; sorry Dave) Pay $8 a gallon, then watch conservation in action!

+1,000,000

[jambo101]

Originally Posted by TLyttle

Makes me laugh... The US pays less for fuel than just about any country on the planet! If the US was serious about conservation, they would charge the same for fuel as they do in the UK, or even Canada. (Which kind of blows Big Dave's theory about cheaper fuel; sorry Dave) Pay $8 a gallon, then watch conservation in action!

At real world prices of $8 a gal watch them big trucks and SUV's disappear fast and get ready to listen to them Americans howl,bitch and complain, something they seem to have taken to a whole new level lately, of course the smart people who bought a Yaris will be laughing