Do conservatives have to reject global climate change to be conservatives?

[orogenicman]

"How does eliminating domestic oil sources reduce our dependence on foreign oil? Or do you also not care about our "dependence" on foreign oil?"

Who said anything about eliminating our domestic oil sources? I certainly didn't. But the fact is that all our combined reserves don't put a dent in how much we have to import every single day to keep our economy going. The only way to reduce our dependence on as much oil as possible (it will run out eventually) is to start using using alternative energy sources along with conservation. You are a conservative, aren't you (as opposed to simply being a capitalist who feels the need to waste resources in the name of the almighty dollar)? I would think that conservation would be right up your alley.

 

[orogenicman]

"CO2 is a pollutant only when emitted by human sources... Nature's production of CO2 is not a pollutant, but human production of CO2 is. Again, just wan to be perfectly clear exactly what you believe concerning CO2."

I didn't say that nature's production of CO2 is not a pollutant, did I? The human body recognizes that CO2 is a pollutant. It is why we exhale, dude; to get rid of the excess CO2 and other unwanted gases. But can't control all natural sources of CO2, nor do I think we need to. We do need to control the amount we emit. We can do that.

 

[Gipper]

"You complained there weren't enough people driving hybrids... Exactly how many people need to drive hybrids before you stop b*tching?"

This does not answer my question as to whether you have a problem with conservation, does it? Or maybe it does, eh?

Hey Gen do you have a problem with conservation??? Oh my my...oh how could that be????

I am sure our little lib friend believes ALL conservatives have a PROBLEM with conservation....don't all conservatives want to pollute the planet???...that is what his leaders tell him...so it must be true...

Gen just proved that alternative energy sources are NOT VIABLE. To a LIB, that means you have a problem with Conservation.

It is impossible to debate some libs. It is similar to trying to talk sense to a screaming two year old.

 

[orogenicman]

"Bottom line is, wind and solar are not cost effective."

The bottom line is that fossil fuels is hugely damaging to the planet. The bottom line is that regardless of what we do, energy is going to cost more in the future. The only question is whether or not we have the cahones to choose our energy sources wisely.

 

[orogenicman]

"Name one scientist who opposes AGW that you consider to be qualified as offering legitimate opposition..."

Can you?

 

[orogenicman]

Hey Gen do you have a problem with conservation??? Oh my my...oh how could that be????

I am sure our little lib friend believes ALL conservatives have a PROBLEM with conservation....don't all conservatives want to pollute the planet???...that is what his leaders tell him...so it must be true...

Gen just proved that alternative energy sources are NOT VIABLE. To a LIB, that means you have a problem with Conservation.

It is impossible to debate some libs. It is similar to trying to talk sense to a screaming two year old.

No Gipper, I do not believe that all conservatives have a problem with conservation. For instance, one of the most astute conservatives of the last century was a very strong advocate of conservation. His name was Teddy Roosevelt. Too bad more conservatives don't look to his example. Gen appeared to have a problem with conservation, though I wasn't sure. Which is why I asked. Capiche?

 

[orogenicman]

"Gen just proved that alternative energy sources are NOT VIABLE."

No, he just posted statistics on our current energy usage. That says nothing about the potential for alternative energy.

 

[Gipper]

"Gen just proved that alternative energy sources are NOT VIABLE."

No, he just posted statistics on our current energy usage. That says nothing about the potential for alternative energy.

Yeah there is potential. Maybe some day.

Problem is its not VIABLE now. Get it?

 

[orogenicman]

Yeah there is potential. Maybe some day.

Problem is its not VIABLE now. Get it?

Certainly it is, though it has a long way to go before it will substantially replace fossil fuels. No time like the present to begin, I always say. Nothing is going to happen overnight. It is going to take decades. Get it?

 

[GenSeneca]

"You complained there weren't enough people driving hybrids... Exactly how many people need to drive hybrids before you stop b*tching?"

This does not answer my question as to whether you have a problem with conservation, does it? Or maybe it does, eh?

You are the one who complained that not enough people drove hybrids. When asked how many would have to drive them to satisfy you, you respond by asking me if I have a problem with conservation... That's a Red Herring attempt to divert attention away from the question you were asked.

How many must drive hybrids before you think enough people are driving them?

I'll consider answering your question about conservation if, and only if, you answer my question.

 

[GenSeneca]

How has geothermal maxed out when very few people are using it?

Very few people get their electricity from geothermal plants because the current technology limits the areas where such plants can operate.

It should be noted that most alternative energy sources have barely begun to be tapped

That's been the claim for over 100 years now and despite massive government subsidies, decade after decade of expensive research, forced government mandates, we have seen very little progress.

Nuclear is also an option that hasn't seen it's full potential, but personally I don't like that option.

It's the only viable alternative to traditional power sources currently available. If you're in a hurry to drastically reduce our use of carbon based fuels, nuclear is the only viable option.

 

[GenSeneca]

So you are only interested in the bottom line, not necessarily what is good for the country.

How exactly do you arrive at that conclusion from my statement that I don't care about our "dependence" on foreign oil?

Moreover, who says that what's good for the country has to hurt "the bottom line"?

who said that the free market can't sustain alternative energy?

If we took away all the government grants, subsidies, and mandates that support alternative energy, it would produce an even smaller percentage of our energy than it currently does.

If you think government grants, subsidies, and mandates are part of the free market, then you have no idea what a free market is.

 

[GenSeneca]

Who said anything about eliminating our domestic oil sources? I certainly didn't.

You said we can't afford any more BP oil "disasters", the moratorium on offshore drilling imposed as a result of that incident has reduced our domestic oil sources... Increasing our dependence on foreign oil.

But the fact is that all our combined reserves don't put a dent in how much we have to import every single day to keep our economy going.

Don't care...

The only way to reduce our dependence on as much oil as possible (it will run out eventually) is to start using using alternative energy sources along with conservation.

Let the free market work and that is exactly what will happen. Trying to force it to happen through the power of the government is creating more problems than it solves.

You are a conservative, aren't you

I agree with some of what conservatives believe, libertarians too, but I am first and foremost a Capitalist.

(as opposed to simply being a capitalist who feels the need to waste resources in the name of the almighty dollar)?

From our point of view it is you, the lovers of big government, who waste valuable resources in the name of the greater good.

Individuals working in the private sector and within the free market are far more productive and efficient than any government bureaucracy could ever be.

I would think that conservation would be right up your alley.

It is... You should read my blog post about carbon credits. I conserve, reuse, and recycle wherever and whenever it's in my economic self interest to do so. For example, I changed all the lightbulbs in my house over to CFL's because doing so saved me 30% on my electric bills, not because I was diluted enough to think my actions would help to "save" the planet.

 

[GenSeneca]

The human body recognizes that CO2 is a pollutant.

Vegetation does not recognize CO2 as a pollutant, they require CO2 to live. Higher CO2 concentrations cause plant life to flourish, which in turn scrubs more CO2 from the air and replaces it with oxygen.

It is why we exhale, dude; to get rid of the excess CO2 and other unwanted gases. But can't control all natural sources of CO2, nor do I think we need to. We do need to control the amount we emit. We can do that.

I've said all along, if the AGW crowd just stopped exhaling, human CO2 emissions would be drastically reduced worldwide. It's just a matter of having the courage of your convictions.

 

[GenSeneca]

The bottom line is that fossil fuels is hugely damaging to the planet.

Says the AGW crowd.

The bottom line is that regardless of what we do, energy is going to cost more in the future.

That's certainly going to be true under the kind of command and control economy you seek to put in place.

The only question is whether or not we have the cahones to choose our energy sources wisely.

By "we" you mean the government because you think only government, not the free market, can make "wise" decisions that are in the best interest of the country.