Debunking fuel conservation myths...

[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!

[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!

[PhotoDu.de]

Originally Posted by daf62757

How about the harmful effects that morons have on society!

What about them? Non sequitur much?

[daf62757]

Originally Posted by PhotoDu.de

What about them? Non sequitur much?

Well yes I do.....but not in this case!

[docB]

What about shale oil? The US has more oil stores this way then 2-3 OPECs. Why can't we just use it while we wean off of fossil fuels? This has been known since the early 1990's.

[PhotoDu.de]

Originally Posted by docB

What about shale oil? The US has more oil stores this way then 2-3 OPECs. Why can't we just use it while we wean off of fossil fuels? This has been known since the early 1990's.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...ilstudy01.html

We can, but it's a lot harder to get than most of OPEC's oil.

[fmicle]

Originally Posted by PhotoDu.de

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...ilstudy01.html

We can, but it's a lot harder to get than most of OPEC's oil.

+1

I read a very interesting article a few years back about what it takes for oil to make it from Kuwait into my gas tank. And the guy was saying the same thing, not only is desert oil very light, which makes it good quality (IIRC), but it also comes out at the right pressure, without any help. It's pretty much like this: stick a pipe in the ground with a tap at the upper end and open the tap...

[daf62757]

Originally Posted by docB

What about shale oil? The US has more oil stores this way then 2-3 OPECs. Why can't we just use it while we wean off of fossil fuels? This has been known since the early 1990's.

Because this is about making as much profit as possible. Both political parties are controlled by big oil and they won't do anything to change the price of oil. You could be paying a lot less for gas if it weren't political influence of the democrats and republicans.

[PhotoDu.de]

Originally Posted by daf62757

Both political parties are controlled by big oil and they won't do anything to change the price of oil.

Except promoting renewable energy policies, not that we do it every well.

[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

[mryaris]

The reason gas is higher in Canada & Britain has more to do with taxes than anyting else. Thank your socialist government for that one!

Oil would have to be over $200/barrel for it to hit $8/gallon. While I understand your thinking, if the US taxed gas to the extent that other countries do then our economy would fall apart and one heck of a world wide recession would happen.....one vastly worse than what we're experiencing right now. Nobody wants that, so while raising gas prices would certainly reduce consumption it would have such a bad effect on the economy that the total cost to society would be too high. In effect, it is cheaper and better in the long run not to conserve oil/gas.

[STC]

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!

If the US Government was serious about conservation and forced Americans to pay $8 a gallon, you would see some conservation with those who get it, but unfortunately most others would gripe and then happily dish out money and further place themselves in debt, never changing their selfish narcissistic habits. Oh, and meanwhile the US Government would probably create a program to entitle gas credits to middle a lower income classes to further place people to suck on the hind tit of government (financial dependence/modern serfdom) and keep them spending just as much for gas when gas was under $4! LOL! Hypocricy at its best...

And where would the tax money go if this was the case? To strengthen the economy? create industry? infrastructure? Nope to the corporate pluto/crimeocacy of wealth and privelage...

[daf62757]

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!

If it weren't for government intervention, we would be paying about a dollar or so less for gas. That is my theory. The cost is artificially inflated and the government is encouraging it because they are owned by the special interests. That is my theory. Just to make sure you aren't misinterpreting my theory and attempting to blow my theory out of context!