Can the US presidential candidates justify their use of fossil fuels?

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

All the candidates are racing across the country campaigning for their party's nomination. Sometimes they campaign in one location, while their proxies campaign on their behalf in other states. While they all have energy plans that call for the reduction of dependence on fossil fuels and the cutting of emissions. Yet all this travel with large entourages does nothing if not waste fuel and increase greenhouse-gas emissions. Not to mention the energy consumed by various offices, HQ, PR machines.

http://www.grist.org/feature/2007/07/06/candidates/

Not much info out there on just how much is consumed. Why not? Can they really justify all that waste while preaching reductions and efficiency?

[Bones]

That's a good one eel.

Sounds like your spin of DoctorP's thread.

You know, the one about "Greenpeace"?

NBTP:rolleyes:

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

So Bones, you're saying it's too much to ask or expect a leader (or one who hopes to lead) to do so by example?

[The_Zach2681]

If you can eat coal, you get my vote!

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

Well Zach, Barack and Hillary are both supporting CTL (coal-to-liquid) fuel. Romney does too. Some call it a "clean" energy source, but the critics claim it releases more greenhouse-gases than refining oil.

[DougP]

Although it is a spin off thread its still a good question. I often wondered the same thing about other presidential candidates and celebrities. Especially the ones who are always serving two table spoons of environmental awareness in their speeches. In all fairness, anyone in a position to make policies, protect them or campaign/lobby for them should lead from the front.

[DoctorP]

Al Gore definitely needs to be added to this list. Good topic eel!

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

Al Gore definitely needs to be added to this list.
He certainly does. His personal practice and what he preaches are two different things. I find it difficult to respect those who don't walk like they talk. It has come to be expected in politicians, but really, should it be?

[Crazysix]

Eel you forgot mention, that they even all take separate corporate Jets to each event, you are right they should be leading by example, but then again unfortunately leaders never do

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

Yeah C6, you are right. Obama was taking separate jet (not sure if he still is, as he took some heat over it), Billary was for a while, but recently made a big deal of using only one 737, and the list goes on. Then there's their personal vehicles (Chrysler 300C in Barack's case, getting maybe 20 mpg). Their mansions. The forests of paper they use. I'm sure there are many more ways they are wasteful, while at the same time trying to force you to conserve.

[TheNoNamedOne]

Not much info out there on just how much is consumed. Why not? Can they really justify all that waste while preaching reductions and efficiency?

Interesting OP off from Docp's thread.

I think it can be justified. I would say so because it is the nature of their livelihood. They are politicians, and the nature of politics now still requires that they campaign for the next election or criss cross across the country in building support for their ideas.

Sure, in the future when more advanced styles of communications makes it possible that they do not need to, or that their constituents and voters will accept that, then it would not be necessary. But still yet, supporters, or those on the fence about candidates or those pushing ideas, want to have a chance to observe the person in person.

I really can't comment on the entourage size, because I have no idea how large of one is really necessary.

But, let's look at Gore and his carbon footprint due to his jetting across the land to preach his gospel of global warming. Now, keep in mind, I am not getting into the argument of whether global warming is happening or all the arguments about that. I am just examining the carbon footprint in the form of justifying it if it at all really does matter.

Let's say Gore as a non-activist has a base carbon footprint (cf) of 20. But, as a globtrotting activist using all that jet fuel and taxis and electricity in the halls that are lit up for his presentations earns a cf:1000.

Whoa! Gore, has gone from a cf20 to a cf1000. He sure could help the earth by going back to his cf20 lifestyle, that is for sure.

But, what of investment and return? Sure, he has incurred a cost to the earth of cf1000, but isn't there a return on that?

Let's say here are individual units of the average person invested in:


1 average person = cf10
500 persons attend each presentation given by Gore.
Let's say only 50% of those persons take his message to heart and work to lessen their cf by 10%.
That would be 1cf for 250 persons in each lecture.
So, that would be a cf250 gain for each lecture.
Let's say Gore does 25 in one year.
That would be cf250 X 25 ---> cf6,250.
Subtract Gore's cf1000 investment ---> cf5,250.
A net gain return on the investment is clearly seen.


Now, consider that within each lecture there are a few reporters receptive to his message that go back and write columns that convince a percentage of their readers who are fans of this particular writer. Consider that some of those in the audience are teachers and professors that go back to their schools and universities and incorporate some points into their lessons that result in a certain percentage of students taking a few steps to knock off a few points from their cf.

I think the strong message of leaders on issues can justify numerically their investment they on the surface seem to acquire as a debt, but in the end can be viewed as one with returns in the black.

Now, I am not saying that their investments do end up in the black; I am just giving a model as to how their investments can be justified.

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

But TP, that logic could also be applied to things like conservationists out trying to prevent whaling. Sure, they could just stay in some cozy office somewhere and put up websites and make TV commercials about the destruction of the environment and the slaughter of threatened species. Or, they could go out and try to do something to prevent actions that may lead to a species becoming endangered or extinct. The return on their use of fossil fuels could be more whales (or at least a consistent number) that are able to continue migrating past Australia to the Southern Ocean, and thus feed the burgeoning whale-watching economy there. If the cost of fuel for one voyage is equal to or less than the revenue gained by more tourists going to Aus to watch whales, and those tourists getting firsthand experience at the results of conservation, then it's all good, right.

[TheNoNamedOne]

EXACTLY, E!

Actually, I wasn't sure if I should have posted the model/argument adopted for this thread's OP or DocP's OP in his Greenpeace thread. It could go on either. Just thought I'd rather give your thread the boost to the top of the stack.

But, I'll probably also add something to his thread -- perhaps a little different addressing his OP. But, yes -- my post above could easily graph onto his thread and answer his question, too.

[DougP]

So this is basically the old argument of "gotta break a few eggs to make an omelet" gotcha.:)

[TheNoNamedOne]

Yeah, strange how some who question GP's actions forget arguments that are still valid -- despite the age of the argument.

Your comment was rather not clear on the point of whether or not you could see the justification as valid. Well?

[DougP]

To me its that same argument of the ends justifying the means. Now if I were in support of something and the ends were beneficial to my cause, like in Gore's case then yes, I can understand the logic in it. I just don't agree with it. I don't think the results he has gotten or supposedly achieved justify the means. To him and you perhaps they do. We are in a new day and age and I don't think Al Gore needs to be using his private jet as much, if at all. You can reach people out there by other means, organize concerts and travel like the rest of humanity if you have to fly. Otherwise get to swimming. I also remember this argument was brought up(iirc) during the animal research thread. And the fact that synthetic insulin could not have ultimately been developed without it. And so to many, many people out there the ends have justified the means. But just as you agree that Gore is justified and animal research is not it goes to show this is yet another subjective topic.

[Asshat]

Yeah, strange how some who question GP's actions forget arguments that are still valid -- despite the age of the argument.

Your comment was rather not clear on the point of whether or not you could see the justification as valid. Well?

Valid to those who agree with the argument. You still subscribe to the "ends justifies the means" dogma of a moral relavitist.

On the other hand, I see extremists who use a particular "cause" to justify the enjoyment or peace or pursuit of what turns them on.

Wanna be a real powerful person? Run for office! Yes, I wont listen to anyone who doesn't drive a fuel hog! They just don't look "important" enough.

Wanna be a pirate? Sign up for whale hunter whale hunters, and have fun in a tax-free environment harrasing people.

Wanna go to heaven? Get guns and make war on the non-believers with your new tax-free program.

See? There are plenty of people breaking eggs. Not everyone enjoys the particular brand of omlette, and not everyone even needs to eat one.

Talk about the duogong and the damage of an airbase, but DON'T mention the decades of over-fishing! Protest the bases, but eat more fish than any other nation!

So it is up to the individual to decide if the arguments are valid. Look at Al Gore's lifestyle in his Tennessee home. Forget the traveling he does. Same conclusion?

[DougP]

Also I suppose that in going along with that logic I could drive around in a car that gets 8 gallons to the mile and leaves a hefty cf. That is if I'm campaigning for a greener earth.

[Fonze]

The only justification I see from there points of views is, how will somebody vote for me if i dont shake hands and show up in front of them. Plus lets say obama said im doing it all online and going to cut fossil fuel use, do you think he would win as many votes as if he were there in person?

[Asshat]

The only justification I see from there points of views is, how will somebody vote for me if i dont shake hands and show up in front of them. Plus lets say obama said im doing it all online and going to cut fossil fuel use, do you think he would win as many votes as if he were there in person?

You are correct Fonze. But does he need to have a gas hog car and use a personal jet to do it with?

[Fonze]

That just proves that we need to move away from fossil fuels faster and or start drilling our own oil. It also proves how much lies politicians tell us. Do as I say ad not as i do.

[DougP]

The picture I'm getting when I see these politicians in action is that I have to be more conservative. And they on the other hand do not. It would be as if Al Gore came up to me himself with a jet pack on reminiscent of The Rocketeer and told me to stop driving my gas powered car. Then he would siphon the gas out of my car and into his jet pack because he was more deserving of it. In fact only him and the rest of the "Superfriends" can waste our natural resources. We mere mortals cannot. Doesn't exactly drive home the "We're all in it together" message.:rolleyes:

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

I wonder why we don't here more about geothermal power?

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/earth/4245896.html

[Fonze]

Or Nuclear power?

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

Or Nuclear power?

There are fewer risks involved with geothermal power, and no waste to dispose of.

[Fonze]

It still shouldn't be pushed aside as unviable.

[Asshat]

I'm scratching my head wondering how politicians spewing their bullshit environmental stances are going to power their huge cars and planes with geothermal or nuclear power.

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

Japan relies heavily on nuclear power to generate electricity, but has a history of accidents and cover-ups.

[Fonze]

but they dont over pollute as other countries without as much Nuke power. Plus with technology im sure it can be safer with less risk of accidents.

[Asshat]

but they dont over pollute as other countries without as much Nuke power. Plus with technology im sure it can be safer with less risk of accidents.

Yeah Fonze, but one little nuke accident can be one hell of an accident!

[Fonze]

:D but in the long run more people will suffer from the status quo:D

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

but they dont over pollute as other countries without as much Nuke power. Plus with technology im sure it can be safer with less risk of accidents.
What happens to the spent nuclear fuel rods, and other radioactive waste?

[Fonze]

Yucca mountain. dont make it sound like there isn't ways to dispose of it.

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

Oh, there are ways to dispose of nuclear waste. I do wonder just how safe & reliable they are. I also have concerns over waste from many countries being sent to the few equiped to deal with it, making the receivers in effect radioactive waste dumping grounds.

[Fonze]

Okay but the point is there are ways to deal with it. Its your view if its safe enough. I also believe if a million scientist said it was safe there would also be those that make it an exxagerated overblown issue. I also wonder if the same scientist that say global warming is as bad as they say it is would believe them if they said Nuke enrgy is safe? probably not.

In the end I would like it checked out to be safe but let's not stand in the way of alternative energy.

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

Then there's the potential of nuclear material to be weaponized. Are you with us, or with the terrorists Fonze?

[Fonze]

Were talking about America not some unstable terrorist sponsoring countries eel. Lets stay on topic eel and not go that way.

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

Were talking about America not some unstable terrorist sponsoring countries eel.
You steal that line from Colbert? Classic:thumbup1:

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

Remind me where Iraq, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and all the other peaceful, America-loving countries get their weapons? Or, where the third-party arms dealers who sell to countries the public doesn't need to know about get theirs?

[Asshat]

Remind me where Iraq, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and all the other peaceful, America-loving countries get their weapons? Or, where the third-party arms dealers who sell to countries the public doesn't need to know about get theirs?

Pakistan gets them from the US...no R&D required. The rest of the countries get them from the former USSR. Iraq got their nuclear parts from France, SA doesn't have them just like Israel doesn't, and Afghanistan only has hashish and aging AK's.

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

Weapons, my boy, weapons. Not nukes, just plain old weapons. The point was the US does not withhold weapons from other countries. But, that was just a sideline from the real point that Fonze seemed confused that nuclear material is shipped to the US from other countries for final processing and disposal, and could be intercepted en route.

[DougP]

Aside from the US I'd say Europe and China have been a big contributor since the 90's after Russian imports fell off. Countries like Belarus and European companies such as BAE have sold quite a bit of weaponry to that region. A lot of countries other than the US have their hand in that cookie jar now.

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

Marketing Tomorrow's Weapons:

The threat comes from U.S. technology that's been transferred in these arms sales largely illegally because the defense contractors are totally unscrupulous, U.S. defense contractors are totally unscrupulous about how this stuff is transferred.

In other words, we get a situation where, yes, we can sell to Italy or France and so one of the major contractors sells stuff to Italy and France. Then suddenly, it turns up in Libya or some Third World country. How does that happen? It happens because there is no real way to put export controls on this stuff and the technology disappears. And so what happens? Five years later, we're in a war in Iraq and the technology's being showered upon our fighting people.

http://www.cdi.org/ADM/1103/Trento.html

[Bones]

As posted by eel:

So Bones, you're saying it's too much to ask or expect a leader (or one who hopes to lead) to do so by example?

No, eel, I'm not saying that at all. On the other hand, since it's campaign season they have to travel all over the country to get their points across to the voters. So they are going to be increasing their carbon footprints for a while. It's a necessary evil.

I've read the article that you've posted about the Esperanza, and how it was outfitted to be environmentally safe. Greenpeace is burning up loads of petroleum products because they want to, not because they have to.

Also, the average consumer back in the states, or Canada, wastes far more fossil fuels than our politicians.

NBTP

[DoctorP]

I disagree NBTP...the candidates do not need to travel to get their vote or their points across. There's TV news, interview shows, newspapers, magazines, billboards, internet...a whole slew of ways to get the word out without traveling all over the country using a jet.

[DoctorP]

But, let's look at Gore and his carbon footprint due to his jetting across the land to preach his gospel of global warming. Now, keep in mind, I am not getting into the argument of whether global warming is happening or all the arguments about that. I am just examining the carbon footprint in the form of justifying it if it at all really does matter.

Let's say Gore as a non-activist has a base carbon footprint (cf) of 20. But, as a globtrotting activist using all that jet fuel and taxis and electricity in the halls that are lit up for his presentations earns a cf:1000.

Whoa! Gore, has gone from a cf20 to a cf1000. He sure could help the earth by going back to his cf20 lifestyle, that is for sure.

But, what of investment and return? Sure, he has incurred a cost to the earth of cf1000, but isn't there a return on that?

Let's say here are individual units of the average person invested in:


1 average person = cf10
500 persons attend each presentation given by Gore.
Let's say only 50% of those persons take his message to heart and work to lessen their cf by 10%.
That would be 1cf for 250 persons in each lecture.
So, that would be a cf250 gain for each lecture.
Let's say Gore does 25 in one year.
That would be cf250 X 25 ---> cf6,250.
Subtract Gore's cf1000 investment ---> cf5,250.
A net gain return on the investment is clearly seen.


Now, consider that within each lecture there are a few reporters receptive to his message that go back and write columns that convince a percentage of their readers who are fans of this particular writer. Consider that some of those in the audience are teachers and professors that go back to their schools and universities and incorporate some points into their lessons that result in a certain percentage of students taking a few steps to knock off a few points from their cf.

I think the strong message of leaders on issues can justify numerically their investment they on the surface seem to acquire as a debt, but in the end can be viewed as one with returns in the black.

Now, I am not saying that their investments do end up in the black; I am just giving a model as to how their investments can be justified.


Why couldn't Gore use commercial travel? Considerably cutting down his own footprint. I myself am way under the average footprint. I installed solar panels just this fall, so I provide my own electricity, in fact come summertime I will be "back feeding" the grid. When my new house is built, I will be using next to zero electricity provided by the local plants. I've seen the work Gore did on his "plantation" and he is nowhere close to being a true environmentalist.

[DoctorP]

But TP, that logic could also be applied to things like conservationists out trying to prevent whaling. Sure, they could just stay in some cozy office somewhere and put up websites and make TV commercials about the destruction of the environment and the slaughter of threatened species. Or, they could go out and try to do something to prevent actions that may lead to a species becoming endangered or extinct. The return on their use of fossil fuels could be more whales (or at least a consistent number) that are able to continue migrating past Australia to the Southern Ocean, and thus feed the burgeoning whale-watching economy there. If the cost of fuel for one voyage is equal to or less than the revenue gained by more tourists going to Aus to watch whales, and those tourists getting firsthand experience at the results of conservation, then it's all good, right.

Your logic is flawed...instead of chasing them all around the ocean, perhaps they could encircle them using two or three ships...or wait! Sailboats! Rowboats, floaties on their arms! There you go! Millions of supporters floating in the ocean, surrounding the whalers..what a message that would send!

Seriously though, why not replace the diesel engines with one atomic one? They have the funding for it, and that would send one hell of a message!

[Bones]

As posted by DoctorP:

I disagree NBTP...the candidates do not need to travel to get their vote or their points across. There's TV news, interview shows, newspapers, magazines, billboards, internet...a whole slew of ways to get the word out without traveling all over the country using a jet.

That's true enough Doc.:cool:

On the other hand, they need to raise funds for their campaigns. In order to raise serious money, that means attending fund raisers, kissing babies, photo opportunities with their constituents. People with real money in their pockets want to have a picture of themselves posing with their candidate. Smart voters, will not accept anything in print anywhere (web, papers, t.v, etc...).

They want to look into their candidates eyes, when they ask them a question.

They want real-time feedback, and the tactile feel of a handshake, or autograph.

NBTP

[DoctorP]

I wonder why we don't here more about geothermal power?

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/earth/4245896.html

Did you mean hear? Good point though. There is a big movement to use seawater to help produce power too, but we have to do it without posing more problems for the environment (such as heating the ocean).

[DoctorP]

As posted by DoctorP:



That's true enough Doc.:cool:

On the other hand, they need to raise funds for their campaigns. In order to raise serious money, that means attending fund raisers, kissing babies, photo opportunities with their constituents. People with real money in their pockets want to have a picture of themselves posing with their candidate. Smart voters, will not accept anything in print anywhere (web, papers, t.v, etc...).

They want to look into their candidates eyes, when they ask them a question.

They want real-time feedback, and the tactile feel of a handshake, or autograph.

NBTP

Why do we need all of those funds? Why should it cost $$billions to run for President? Does that seem right in a "free" country? Is it fair that the only black man that can run for President has access to crazy amounts of money?

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

Seriously though, why not replace the diesel engines with one atomic one? They have the funding for it, and that would send one hell of a message!
Could you point me to a company or refitter that can/will do that? From what I've seen, there's only been one or a few "showcase boat(s)" demonstrating atomic engines are possible. But, no use outside of some country's navies...

http://www.atomicengines.com/ships.html
http://www.atomicinsights.com/jul95/nuke.prop.html

[DoctorP]

Could you point me to a company or refitter that can/will do that? From what I've seen, there's only been one or a few "showcase boat(s)" demonstrating atomic engines are possible. But, no use outside of some country's navies...

http://www.atomicengines.com/ships.html
http://www.atomicinsights.com/jul95/nuke.prop.html

With the amount of money that GP has, they could easily get it done. Hell they bought their ships from the Russians right? Why not buy an old Russian nuclear powered battle cruiser and retrofit it for your job...wouldn't that be ironic...buying a battleship and then using it for a peaceful mission!

Ohh...A viking ship...and have the crew man the oars!:thumbup: There I just kept you in operation, saved you millions of $$ and helped your image and cause all at once!

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

I wonder why we don't here more about geothermal power?

http://www.popularmechanics.com/scie...h/4245896.html (http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/earth/4245896.html)

Did you mean hear? Good point though. There is a big movement to use seawater to help produce power too, but we have to do it without posing more problems for the environment (such as heating the ocean).
Glad someone catches the subtle digs now and then.

[Bones]

As posted by DoctorP, in response to TP:

Your logic is flawed...instead of chasing them all around the ocean, perhaps they could encircle them using two or three ships...or wait! Sailboats! Rowboats, floaties on their arms! There you go! Millions of supporters floating in the ocean, surrounding the whalers..what a message that would send!

Seriously though, why not replace the diesel engines with one atomic one? They have the funding for it, and that would send one hell of a message!

And I would just like to point out one other thing. It doesn't matter which activist site that you log on to, they have a store. You have a lot of people who would like to support their particular cause. Cups, t-shirts, hats, buttons, etc...

In regards to Greenpeace, their web site states something along the lines of some other company produces their items, but they can not positively state, the items used in the manufacture of the selling item, is 100% environmentally friendly. They claim to be working with the manufacturers of those items, etc...

Still, once the thrill of actually having a cup, button, or whatever else fades for the people who have purchased those items, where do they end up?

In the trash, that's where. The trash is collected and ends up in landfills.

So in a very real sense, aren't these activists perpetuating the problem that our ecology is facing? Or are they saying that the trash that we sell to the public, isn't really "trash, since it supports our cause"?

NBTP

[DoctorP]

Glad someone catches the subtle digs now and then.

Well...when TP isn't here someone has to!:D

[some_guy]

With the amount of money that GP has, they could easily get it done. Hell they bought their ships from the Russians right? Why not buy an old Russian nuclear powered battle cruiser and retrofit it for your job...wouldn't that be ironic...buying a battleship and then using it for a peaceful mission!

Ohh...A viking ship...and have the crew man the oars!:thumbup: There I just kept you in operation, saved you millions of $$ and helped your image and cause all at once!

Don't underestimate the power of the norsemen! Perhaps with some time displacement device we could sally forth a band of truculent Danes to decapitate oil execs who display a disregard for the environment!

BTW, check your PM's, DocP.

[Fonze]

You know what gets me about politicians and the alternative energy. Sorry to make this partisan but that fat slob elitest liberal telling everyone he wants renewable energy yet he doesn't want it in his backyard just someone alses. Ill try and find the article where he opposed building windfarms of his yuppie estates view.

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

You mean the Kennedys not wanting a wind farm a few miles off the coast in front of their compound in Hyannisport, Maine?

[Fonze]

Yes thats the one. What is there a good reason for not having it?

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

Dunno exactly...

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/04/27/kennedy_faces_fight_on_cape_wind/

Some BS about navigational, environmental, and tourism troubles.

[Fonze]

Thanks for the link E. I hope we can push this dependence soon and hope whoever wins the presidency or even the Congress helps the country out.

[kombu_kid]

I'm a little late to this party, but this subject seems ridiculous to me. It's the President of the United States for cryin' out loud! Every single day, there are millions of people sitting in their cars alone, in bumper to bumper traffic, using (wasting) fuel in a blatant way. To ponder having these presidential candidates flying or driving less-than-economical cars is just a waste of breath and time. It's just a necessary evil. But Al Gore, yeah, that's worth mentioning or pondering.

How many MAC flights run around empty for training or to pick up a small group of people who are training here and there? The amount of fuel used by these candidates doesn't even approach a drop in the bucket, especially considering the importance of the office they're running for.

[DoctorP]

I'm a little late to this party, but this subject seems ridiculous to me. It's the President of the United States for cryin' out loud! Every single day, there are millions of people sitting in their cars alone, in bumper to bumper traffic, using (wasting) fuel in a blatant way. To ponder having these presidential candidates flying or driving less-than-economical cars is just a waste of breath and time. It's just a necessary evil. But Al Gore, yeah, that's worth mentioning or pondering.

How many MAC flights run around empty for training or to pick up a small group of people who are training here and there? The amount of fuel used by these candidates doesn't even approach a drop in the bucket, especially considering the importance of the office they're running for.

You are kidding right kk? One jet is a huge waste of fuel when compared to one person in a car. Candidates shouldn't need to go to each state. Why not have a proxy to stand in and speak for you...deliver your message to the people...kinda like Moses. Worked for GOD, and he has quite a following!

[kombu_kid]

I'm not kidding. I compared the amount of jet fuel to millions of commuter cars' fuel use DAILY! How about the amount of jet fuel used to shuttle families to vacation destinations? Waste! Driving an SUV cross-country? Waste! How about the number of lawn mowers running across the U.S. DAILY? Waste! People drive around for leisure, ride their Harleys across the U.S., take their private planes out for fun, dirt bikes, jet skis, ski boats, 4X4s, heat their pools, jacuzzis......need I go on?

[DoctorP]

....need I go on?

sure!...go ahead

[kombu_kid]

Okay, "the public" loves to jump on the "you candidates are hypocrites" bandwagon, but just let the gov't try to limit the public's freedom to use fuels as they please. Tell the public they can only take 2 long distance trips per year, 1 dirt bike outing every quarter, or have the gov't looking over your shoulder about how often you can cut your grass, etc. You'd see everybody freak out in one hot second.

But let me just say that I don't think it's a bad idea to have the candidates do a cyber-townhall meeting thing, as opposed to flying to every state....(I do a little devil's advocating now and then)....I'm basically saying, there is such a God-awful amount of fuel wasted DAILY on dumb sh**, to ponder the amount of jet fuel used by these candidates is not even worth mentioning.

[Asshat]

I'm basically saying, there is such a God-awful amount of fuel wasted DAILY on dumb sh**, to ponder the amount of jet fuel used by these candidates is not even worth mentioning.

Then the candidates need to stop harping their environmentall spin. Maybe they need to tell us "people" that we are wrong for our fossil-burning entertainment.

Remember, their job is to "govern" not to get "elected." Case in point is the current Congress' lack of.....anything. Too worried about political fall-out to make a decision.

[DougP]

I can only hope that within my lifetime we can steer away from fossil fuels. Not just for environmental reasons. Just think if we had done away with our dependency of oil ten years ago would we be in the mess we're in right now?
The sooner the better. Also alternative forms of transportation are within reach, we just need the infrastructure to support them, be it bio-diesel, electric etc.
http://www.teslamotors.com/
http://www.biodieselnow.com/

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

I'm not kidding. I compared the amount of jet fuel to millions of commuter cars' fuel use DAILY! How about the amount of jet fuel used to shuttle families to vacation destinations? Waste! Driving an SUV cross-country? Waste! How about the number of lawn mowers running across the U.S. DAILY? Waste! People drive around for leisure, ride their Harleys across the U.S., take their private planes out for fun, dirt bikes, jet skis, ski boats, 4X4s, heat their pools, jacuzzis......need I go on?
This is just excellent! I can see why the good Doc(P) is concerned about this line of thinking. It really makes his Greenpeace using fossil fuels question moot as well. One activist ship trying to save a threatened species vs. all the cruise ships out for nothing more than pleasure and hedonism, all the merchant ships transporting rubber dog shit out of Hong Kong for your personal pleasure, all the...things that make ya go hmmm.

[Asshat]

transporting rubber dog shit out of Hong Kong

Now I am thinking you and I have a shared past. One of the terms we used to use to describe what we were doing for a living.

[DoctorP]

This is just excellent! I can see why the good Doc(P) is concerned about this line of thinking. It really makes his Greenpeace using fossil fuels question moot as well. One activist ship trying to save a threatened species vs. all the cruise ships out for nothing more than pleasure and hedonism, all the merchant ships transporting rubber dog shit out of Hong Kong for your personal pleasure, all the...things that make ya go hmmm.

Two separate threads eele! But I will address it anyway. Greenpees has no legal holding to do what they do, so essentially they are nothing but a cruise ship as well. Do you want to do away with all cruise ships? I am ok with that...let's put them on the same petition with GP!

To use your thinking we should get rid of all teachers as many of them are child molestors...I don't subscribe to that way of thinking.

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

With the amount of money that GP has, they could easily get it done. Hell they bought their ships from the Russians right? Why not buy an old Russian nuclear powered battle cruiser and retrofit it for your job...wouldn't that be ironic...buying a battleship and then using it for a peaceful mission!


Once again - where? By whom? I didn't think you could tell us. If surplus ships from the Russian nuclear navy are for sale, you could easily link us to some examples of sale and purchase...

[DougP]

I'm not kidding. I compared the amount of jet fuel to millions of commuter cars' fuel use DAILY! How about the amount of jet fuel used to shuttle families to vacation destinations? Waste! Driving an SUV cross-country? Waste! How about the number of lawn mowers running across the U.S. DAILY? Waste! People drive around for leisure, ride their Harleys across the U.S., take their private planes out for fun, dirt bikes, jet skis, ski boats, 4X4s, heat their pools, jacuzzis......need I go on?

I would have to say that the dependency on fossil fuels is the real waste. Its the common denominator in all of what you mentioned. I don't think driving cross country or going on vacation in itself is a waste. These days however, it is a waste of fossil fuels and is wasteful solely because of our dependency on them. That is ultimately what needs to change. Simply using less and less of them will only prolong the inevitable and not solve the real problem at hand.

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

To use your thinking we should get rid of all teachers as many of them are child molestors...I don't subscribe to that way of thinking.

Alright, if you would like to sink as low as Fonze when you are unable to respond in an articulate and reasoned manner, so be it. Very unbecoming of someone in your position.

[DougP]

Alright, if you would like to sink as low as Fonze when you are unable to respond in an articulate and reasoned manner, so be it.

Who?:confused: .............

[DoctorP]

Alright, if you would like to sink as low as Fonze when you are unable to respond in an articulate and reasoned manner, so be it. Very unbecoming of someone in your position.

what and who are you talking about? (edit)...oh Greenpees???

[DoctorP]

Once again - where? By whom? I didn't think you could tell us. If surplus ships from the Russian nuclear navy are for sale, you could easily link us to some examples of sale and purchase...

Once again...Greenpeace has the funding and the people to do this work themselves...why do you insist that I need to do it for them? They are not paying me a dime out of the $$billions that they have at their disposal. If you would like to contact them and act as my agent I would be glad to work on their behalf to find a solution for them.

[Asshat]

Alright, if you would like to sink as low as Fonze when you are unable to respond in an articulate and reasoned manner, so be it. Very unbecoming of someone in your position.

So it's only okay to use fossil fuel if it is for a cause in which you believe in?

Recreation should be outlawed if it involves fossil fuel usage. Only environmentalists should be allowed to use fossil fuel to foment their message?

If that were the case, would we need the environmentalists to be out there?

[DoctorP]

Alright, if you would like to sink as low as Fonze when you are unable to respond in an articulate and reasoned manner, so be it. Very unbecoming of someone in your position.

since you edited your post I will reply again. It is an example, just as you provided one. It is articulate and reasoned! As reasoned as yours.

[Asshat]

since you edited your post I will reply again. It is an example, just as you provided one. It is articulate and reasoned! As reasoned as yours.

Yep, and it's wrong to slam Fonze. Moderator! Where is the moderator? I call foul. :D

[DougP]

Good point. Lets not let that happen again:D

[DoctorP]

eele you are getting way too emotional. It is merely a discussion.

[Fonze]

Alright, if you would like to sink as low as Fonze when you are unable to respond in an articulate and reasoned manner, so be it. Very unbecoming of someone in your position.

He made a point eel. And it seems that you must be hiding something since thats what you think of chester. eel you were coming back on my good list but you always got say some stupid shit. Stay on topic JMK.

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

Once again...Greenpeace has the funding and the people to do this work themselves...why do you insist that I need to do it for them? They are not paying me a dime out of the $ that they have at their disposal. If you would like to contact them and act as my agent I would be glad to work on their behalf to find a solution for them.
Thank you for pointing out that you have no idea for yourself. As I stated, you personally do not know and are merely throwing out ideas that as far as you know are not entirely doable at this time. I suspect that if you were to check for such a company, you would find that there is no option to do so at present. A "show-boat" with an atomic engine operated at a loss many years ago, and proved to be less that reliable. If you know of better examples, it would go a long way to demonstrate your point. Is the military now sharing their proprietary nuclear engine technology to make atomic engines safe, reliable, and economical for commercial use?

[Asshat]

Thank you for pointing out that you have no idea for yourself. As I stated, you personally do not know and are merely throwing out ideas that as far as you know are not entirely doable at this time. I suspect that if you were to check for such a company, you would find that there is no option to do so at present. A "show-boat" with an atomic engine operated at a loss many years ago, and proved to be less that reliable. If you know of better examples, it would go a long way to demonstrate your point. Is the military now sharing their proprietary nuclear engine technology to make atomic engines safe, reliable, and economical for commercial use?

Iceland has a goal of complete independance from fossil fuels by 2050. They are having some problems, but it isn't with the tech, it's with the distribution- and the money. There is only one refueling station, and there wont be any more until their are more cars.

Still, if Iceland has made this committment, why haven't the world's most powerful nations done so?

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

Umin, are you lost? That has nothing to do with DoctorP's suggestion that Greenpeace use an atomic engine in their newest ship rather than one that burns diesel. You must be looking for different post to quote, or perhaps another topic.

[Asshat]

Umin, are you lost? That has nothing to do with DoctorP's suggestion that Greenpeace use an atomic engine in their newest ship rather than one that burns diesel. You must be looking for different post to quote, or perhaps another topic.

Not lost at all, I was merely pointing out that other nations are leading the superpowers in R&D.

Sorry, I didn't realize that once again I had walked into another pissing contest.

Carry on.

[okisteve]

Iceland has a goal of complete independance from fossil fuels by 2050. They are having some problems, but it isn't with the tech, it's with the distribution- and the money. There is only one refueling station, and there wont be any more until their are more cars.

Still, if Iceland has made this committment, why haven't the world's most powerful nations done so?

Iceland is sitting on top of a volcano and uses an enormous amount of energy from the big fire below them (geothermal). So they already have a nice free almost infinite energy source. I claim a foul.

About the candidates and the primary circus: now after the nice-nice Demo debate, I am convinced it's all rehearsed in advance anyway, so why not just produce it in a studio (one for each party, but in constant communication), broadcast it digitally so it looks live, and save all the extra expense and jet fuel. The great American audience/public won't give a crap, it's all the same when you're drinking beer in the LaZ-boy.

[DoctorP]

Thank you for pointing out that you have no idea for yourself. As I stated, you personally do not know and are merely throwing out ideas that as far as you know are not entirely doable at this time. I suspect that if you were to check for such a company, you would find that there is no option to do so at present. A "show-boat" with an atomic engine operated at a loss many years ago, and proved to be less that reliable. If you know of better examples, it would go a long way to demonstrate your point. Is the military now sharing their proprietary nuclear engine technology to make atomic engines safe, reliable, and economical for commercial use?


I have contacted a few "aquaintences" in the field. Now if they tell me it is not possible, then I will post as such, but until I get a reply I stand by what I said. Either way GP has the money to use other options...I did not see where they are using biofuel as an option. But hey...I'm no expert.

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

Greenpeace, while encouraging biofuel in principle, has taken issue with the environmental destruction that has occurred in some cases of production.

http://www.greenpeace.org/seasia/en/press/releases/biofuels-not-a-silver-bullet-t
http://www.greenpeace.org/seasia/en/press/releases/booming-eu-demand-for-biofuels

[DoctorP]

Just got back from Nago eel...I will look at the links later.

[Asshat]

Iceland is sitting on top of a volcano and uses an enormous amount of energy from the big fire below them (geothermal). So they already have a nice free almost infinite energy source. I claim a foul.


Geothermal energy doesn't have anything to do with production of hydrogen in automobiles.