Ecofascist Disasters

[Bunz]

Ah yes the Sacramento River. Proof that mass industrialization is very tough on rivers. Not only do you have this smelt, but also a massive collapse of salmon stocks from that drainage. But yeah, humans ruin a river and potentially make entire species extinct and then it is the "ecofacists" fault.
A perfect example of why industry needs regulation.

 

[top gun]

It's most likely a Barack Obama would tell a straight story to the American people and not play the silly fake ya out games like "a gas tax holiday".

America needs a comprehensive approach across the board. No coddling the big corporations or people that don't see the problem and think things will somehow just go back to the days of cheap oil.

Here's a list of safe, realistic, positive PROGRESSIVE steps:

Raise the Café Standards so all new vehicles by 2012 are mandated get at least 25 mpg city - 35 mpg highway. Move that up to 30 city - 40 highway by 2020 (allowing verified documented exemptions for trucks used in business) Keep in mind Europe has had Café standards far above ours for years and that we right now have cars that can get this higher mileage. High quality four passenger non-hybrids cars like the Toyota Corolla 26 City - 36 Highway. Hybrids of course even much better.

Extend & increase tax credits & rebates for those purchasing hybrids

Mandate all lubricants used in motor vehicles be synthetic

Remove all subsidies currently given to the oil companies and redirect those funds. Devote that money to fast track research and development of alternative fuel and technology. There are many things out there... Bio diesel... sea grass & algae ethanol... electric... hydrogen fuel cell... advanced hybrids. Think how much oil is saved if just every city bus & school bus were able to be switched over to Bio desiel.

It's not impossible that there could be a couple more US oil drilling sites opened up but that oil would not be gasoline for 8 to 10 years even if we agreed to do it today. Hopefully by then a gallon of gas would stretch 35 or 40 miles. It's not just about how much gas costs... it's about how far it goes.

Comprehensive means we attack the problem by a number of different ways. We're America. We can do it if we devote ourselves to it!

 

[Coyote]

No, YOU are doing the avoiding of the issue raised in the OP, which is that environmentalist wackos who think they have everything figured out use their friends in congress to implement their ill-thought out solutions (understatement) to create havoc, from deadly light cars, to starving people around the globe because they thing burning food would be a great idea. There was a case in California I'm trying to find a link to: some people in a rural area wanted to cut down brush within 100 feet of their houses as per fire district recommendations, but the government told them, at the behest of envirowackos not to because there was some kind of endangered rat species on the land. Do I really have to tell you what happened? Next fire season, the houses AND rats burned to the ground. Want to hear the latest in California? They are probably going to impose water rationing on the WHOLE STATE this summer because of one crummy 3-inch long fish in the sacramento delta:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/09/01/MNPCRT83Q.DTL

Water rationing has more to do with an unrealistically increasing urban populations in traditionally water poor areas competing with agricultural interests. Add to that salinization of deltas, decreased Seirra snowpack and drought, and a decline of a fish that is an indicator of a healthy ecosystem (along with a whole host of other larger more commercially important fish)- then it does with preserving the habitat of a 3-inch fish. But you conservatives were never keen on objective truth eh?

www.calwatercrisis.org/pdf/San Jose Mercury News 9.5.07.pdf
http://www.tradingmarkets.com/.site/news/Stock News/1491584/

 

[Libsmasher]

Ah yes the Sacramento River. Proof that mass industrialization is very tough on rivers. Not only do you have this smelt, but also a massive collapse of salmon stocks from that drainage. But yeah, humans ruin a river and potentially make entire species extinct and then it is the "ecofacists" fault.
A perfect example of why industry needs regulation.

A perfect example of ecofascist lunacy. Is a little fishy endangered? No problem, ration water to tens of millions of people, let crops fail. The world has changed tremendously for billions of years, millions of species come and go - but ecofascist theology holds that everything should remain static from now on, even if forest fires wipe out hundreds of houses, even if people go thirsty, even if tens of millions of people are thrown out of work. Perfection to an ecofascist could only be achieved if every human being would die - then no tree would be cut down, not a weed would be stepped on, and the little smelts could swim and have a good day at the beach.

 

[Libsmasher]

Water rationing has more to do with an unrealistically increasing urban populations in traditionally water poor areas competing with agricultural interests. Add to that salinization of deltas, decreased Seirra snowpack and drought, and a decline of a fish that is an indicator of a healthy ecosystem (along with a whole host of other larger more commercially important fish)- then it does with preserving the habitat of a 3-inch fish. But you conservatives were never keen on objective truth eh?

Actually, the sierra snow pack was 13% above normal this past winter, Mr."Truth". Ecofascists are more interested in the "health" of their little fishies than they are in the health of human beings. The only "drought" on the horizon is the one in the works artificially created by the ecofascists.

 

[Andy]

I agree. It's not a capitalist issue, or a left/right issue. As near as I can tell, it's a matter of special interests overcoming common sense.

For fourty years I've been listening to politcians of both parties badmouth the annual farm bills that everyone agrees creat artificial imbalances. Yet year after year we do exactly the same things. Year after year, everyone but the farmers agree what a stupid bill we just passed, and the next year we pass another one just like it.

I really don't understand how anyone could see this as a left/right issue. Perhaps it's just human nature to see those whom we perceive as our political opponents, as the cause of all problems.

After the 1995 budget battle, the Congress under control of the right, eliminated farm subsidies. Under control of the left, after 2000, reinstated them so Ted Turner could get money for leaving fields empty.

 

[top gun]

Actually, the sierra snow pack was 13% above normal this past winter, Mr."Truth". Ecofascists are more interested in the "health" of their little fishies than they are in the health of human beings. The only "drought" on the horizon is the one in the works artificially created by the ecofascists.

Well you need to contact the GOP because they probably will be shocked to know they are now Ecofascists.

Babbling Bush... Grampy McCain all now on board that there is definitely a climate change problem caused by man. Granted they don't want to do anything much about it... their track record shows they're fine with disasters.

I think the only one still living on a river called de-nile is neo-con crazy radio show talker Glenn Beck... and he brags he'll never even own an energy efficient light bulb... go figure.

 

[Andy]

I live in Alaska, not on the moon. Of course I know about Chernobyl. There was concern that some of that fallout came over the pole and landed in Alaska. But you really are comparing apples and oranges IMHO. One will only know what horrors will be unveiled when China opens more.

I would guess, not much. China has lived in the stone age for 50 some odd years. Their backward screwed up county didn't have enough money to screw much up. Like the joke, running water in China is "granma, mor water chop chop!"

Of course now that they are skyrocketing economy, they may get into trouble, but then they already are opening up... so it would seem difficult to hide it now.

We'll see.

 

[Andy]

I'm sure you enjoyed swimming in the wake of the Exxon Valdez spill too

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if I remember correctly... wasn't the reason that Oil had to be put on a ship to begin with is because some fruity eco-nutz didn't want a pipeline built? Btw, oil cleans up naturally. Most of Valdez was cleaned up by nature. Oil is naturally consumed by micro organisms.

 

[Andy]

Holy geez the sky is falling. 35mpg, what a horrible idea! With energy prices through the roof, high demand, and no end in sight. Plus they have at least 12 years to do it, more likely 20 years.

Umm... physics again. Do you know what happens when the CAFE standard is raised? It's not like GM walks out with a magic wand and ZAP! Hey 35 MPG! Wow!

It takes (F) amount of fuel in order to (move W amount of weight) times (Z distance at a S speed). You can't just change the laws of physics because "Well golly I wanna fuel effin vichic-el!!".

In 1980 GM built a car that could get 100+ MPG (112 I believe) on the highway. It was the "Saturn Project" before Saturn became a separate name brand. They never built it because, yeah it was great on gas, but it couldn't even begin to survive safety standards.

So, something has to give. Here are the options. Reduce performance (speed) and then since no one, or very few, like to drive slugs, you lose customers. Reduce weight by using stronger lighter more expensive materials, which since people don't want to pay that much, you lose customers.

Or, by far the most popular, reduce weight by making the car out of light weight weak materials and just hope no one sues because your more likely to die in it. It's a fact, that as cars weight less to get better milage, they are less safe. But hey, what the government does against those 'evil corps' is in your best interest. Just believe that... it's safer that way.

So much for your "corporate puppeteers" theory.

Yeah those damn Iowans, Id hate for them to get the highest price they can for thier crops. I am begining to think your a closet lib.

They get subsides for empty fields. That and wind mills that do nothing of any value.

 

[Andy]

Lib, you continually avoid the issues surrounding the raise of the ecology movement.
Which came as a result of people getting tired of having thier air water and soil polluted here in America. Most of which is done by large corporations as I pointed out earlier.

We arent talking about preventing more corn from being grown. We are talking about a percentage of it being used in another way.

I would propose all the corn syrup currently used in soda in America be moved instead to the production of ethanol.

I wasn't sure before, and if you already know this, sorry to repeat. Corn that is made into Ethanol, is not at all like the corn you eat. In fact, they are incompatible. Ethanol corn, it not edible. Edible corn, is not refine-able.

It's not like they can just call up the truck and say "oop we need those for the market, come back from the refinery". At the start of the year, the farmers must choose what they will harvest, and once sown, it is what it is.

Also, your view of the scope of the Ethanol effect, seems limited. Ethanol does not simply effect the price of corn. Corn is a primary livestock feed. The cost of feed for cattle, chicken, pig, other, all of them are increasing, and the price of all those, and the by product foods like milk, are all increasing because of Ethanol. Also the price of other grown foods are increasing because farms are growing Ethanol corn instead soy beans and other veggies. Lastly, there has even been a growing trend of cotton farms changing to Ethanol Corn. Although it hasn't resulted in a jump in clothing costs yet, if the trend goes on, it will. (supply and demand, the supply is going down)

Point being, the effects of the Ethanol scam is far reaching.
Some quick facts FYI

1. Ethanol is horrendously expensive. Currently, it goes for about $3/gallon. However, that is including government subsidies offsetting the true cost, plus tax breaks to (evil corporate puppeteers), plus a sales tax exemption at the pump. Without our tax money, and without unfair tax breaks that oil companies do not get, Ethanol would likely be at least double the price, if not more.

2. Ethanol has a part in increasing the cost of gasoline because it was mandated by government to replace chemical additives originally used that were a fraction of the price. That cost is of course passed on to us. Go hug your liberal congressman for their help.

3. One acre of land only makes 50 gallons of Ethanol.

4. The equipment used to plant, spray, harvest, transport, and refine the corn, burn far more gasoline, than is replaced by the 50 gallons of Ethanol.

5. If we were to replace gasoline, gallon for gallon, with Ethanol, it would require all the land in the entire United States that is currently used for growing food, and then require more on top.

6. Even if this were possible, it would not be enough because 1 gallon of Ethanol ≠ 1 gallon of gas. (physics again) Ethanol chemically has about 2/3 the energy of oil. Therefore, if your car currently gets about 30 MPG, running on Ethanol it would get around 20 MPG. You would need one 3rd more Ethanol to go the same distance you currently do in your auto. So would everyone else. So we'd need all the currently crop land, plus more crop land, and then a good chunk of Canada or Mexico to make enough corn, to make enough Ethanol to think about replacing Oil based gasoline.

Of course... by then thousands would die.... because obviously we aren't growing any food at all in the entire country. But it's a mute point anyway because if we eliminated gasoline, it would take all the Ethanol produced, to cultivate the corn to make the Ethanol, so there wouldn't be any fuel...

Ethanol is a liberal scam. That's it. Nothing more. Just a scam.

 

[top gun]

Andy;36501]Umm... physics again. Do you know what happens when the CAFE standard is raised? It's not like GM walks out with a magic wand and ZAP! Hey 35 MPG! Wow!

Raising Cafe' Standards is way overdue. In Japan they boast an average of 45mpg. It's not that GM can't do it. It's that they can still sell without doing it so they're happy to sell what they already have. This is so obviously a case were regulation helps the consumer and the environment in the long run.

It takes (F) amount of fuel in order to (move W amount of weight) times (Z distance at a S speed). You can't just change the laws of physics because "Well golly I wanna fuel effin vichic-el!!".

Come on dude... CVT transmissions... VVT variable valve timing... not to mention hybrid technology. You know there's tons of innovation that can greatly increase gas mileage. I have a Lexus that gets 20 city... 30 highway for Christ sake.

In 1980 GM built a car that could get 100+ MPG (112 I believe) on the highway. It was the "Saturn Project" before Saturn became a separate name brand. They never built it because, yeah it was great on gas, but it couldn't even begin to survive safety standards.

I think that's the same thing they said about the Steal Bomber back in the 80's isn't it?
Oh that's right we've come a long way with strong light weight metals, carbon fiber, crumple zones, air bags. Funny how that Prius is up like 38% in sales last year, passed every test and gets great mileage. How does that happen I wonder?

So, something has to give. Here are the options. Reduce performance (speed) and then since no one, or very few, like to drive slugs, you lose customers. Reduce weight by using stronger lighter more expensive materials, which since people don't want to pay that much, you lose customers.

I guess we're just the only country that can't pull it off... HUMMM?

Or, by far the most popular, reduce weight by making the car out of light weight weak materials and just hope no one sues because your more likely to die in it. It's a fact, that as cars weight less to get better milage, they are less safe. But hey, what the government does against those 'evil corps' is in your best interest. Just believe that... it's safer that way.

I would have sworn that GM came out with a hybrid Yukon. Oh wait they did. Looked the same size as the old one... very strange.

So much for your "corporate puppeteers" theory.

Ditto... I guess if you really really want to stay in vehicles that get 10-15 mpg with gas at $4.00 a gallon and up that's your choice. I have to say I think there's smarter decisions to make though.

They get subsides for empty fields. That and wind mills that do nothing of any value.

Farmers are business men. They try and do what makes them the most money. The farmers aren't the problem. As far as the windmills I can see you must be against any clean technology. If a windmill only generated enough power to supply that particular farm... or part of the farm. What a good thing. It doesn't have to light up New York City.

Come on get on the new technology green team a little. It'll be fine.

 

[Libsmasher]

Well you need to contact the GOP because they probably will be shocked to know they are now Ecofascists.

Babbling Bush... Grampy McCain all now on board that there is definitely a climate change problem caused by man. Granted they don't want to do anything much about it... their track record shows they're fine with disasters.

I think the only one still living on a river called de-nile is neo-con crazy radio show talker Glenn Beck... and he brags he'll never even own an energy efficient light bulb... go figure.

OF COURSE Bush, McCain etc are on board the Ecofascist Express Train to Nowhere - the only people opposing it are conservatives.

 

[Coyote]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if I remember correctly... wasn't the reason that Oil had to be put on a ship to begin with is because some fruity eco-nutz didn't want a pipeline built?

Nope. Still would need to ship oil - a pipeline won't carry it everywhere and the oil in Alaska will only meet a fraction of our needs. Pipelines also run underwater and when they burst or leak, cause havoc equal to tankers.

Yummy.

Btw, oil cleans up naturally. Most of Valdez was cleaned up by nature. Oil is naturally consumed by micro organisms.

That is grossly inaccurate or perahps product of too much koolaid. The effects of Valdez are ongoing. Yes, there are bacteria that consume oil - but they are very limited and take a very very long time.

However, I'm sure it makes people feel better to subscribe to that belief rather than face reality because...well, facing reality woud mean facing the need to change wouldn't it? Much better to blame the ecofascists.

Exxon Valdez ten years later: www.fws.gov/contaminants/Documents/ExxonValdez.pdf

The Exxon Valdez Oil Spill: How Much Oil Remains?
http://www.afsc.noaa.gov/Quarterly/jas2001/feature_jas01.htm

The 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill (EVOS) in Prince William Sound, Alaska, released a minimum of 11 million gallons of Alaskan crude oil into one of the largest and most productive estuaries in North America. During the summer of that year, the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) estimated that 149 km of shoreline in Prince William Sound were heavily oiled and 459 km were at least lightly oiled. A year later a survey showed oiling had decreased 73 percent. Two years later in 1991 an interagency survey estimated only 1.4 km of shoreline were estimated to be heavily oiled. By 1992 the estimate of heavily oiled shoreline was only 0.2 km. After 3 years of unprecedented efforts to clean the polluted beaches and subsequent surveys showing declining contamination, it was expected that natural processes would disperse any remaining oil.

However, in 1993 the EVOS Trustee Council funded an additional survey that estimated 7 km of shoreline were still contaminated with subsurface oil. Smaller-scale studies dealing with continued clean-up efforts and restoration of oiled mussel beds conducted between 1995 and 1999 showed that oil was surprisingly persistent and often in a relatively unweathered state, containing high concentrations of toxic and biologically available polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH). Long-term monitoring in the oiled areas has also shown that fauna from higher trophic levels such as sea otters and sea ducks still have not recovered. It now appears the remaining oil deposits may have become a chronic source of low-level oil pollution within the spill-affected area.


I notice an interesting trend here. Neocons love to apply fascist labels to those they don't like. You know, like Islamofascist, Ecofascist. Two important points emerge from this:

1. They haven't a clue what fascism is

and 2. Maybe we ought to start applying some labels here too to liven things up.

Any ideas?

 

[Coyote]

I wasn't sure before, and if you already know this, sorry to repeat. Corn that is made into Ethanol, is not at all like the corn you eat. In fact, they are incompatible. Ethanol corn, it not edible. Edible corn, is not refine-able.

It's not like they can just call up the truck and say "oop we need those for the market, come back from the refinery". At the start of the year, the farmers must choose what they will harvest, and once sown, it is what it is.

Also, your view of the scope of the Ethanol effect, seems limited. Ethanol does not simply effect the price of corn. Corn is a primary livestock feed. The cost of feed for cattle, chicken, pig, other, all of them are increasing, and the price of all those, and the by product foods like milk, are all increasing because of Ethanol. Also the price of other grown foods are increasing because farms are growing Ethanol corn instead soy beans and other veggies. Lastly, there has even been a growing trend of cotton farms changing to Ethanol Corn. Although it hasn't resulted in a jump in clothing costs yet, if the trend goes on, it will. (supply and demand, the supply is going down)

Point being, the effects of the Ethanol scam is far reaching.
Some quick facts FYI

1. Ethanol is horrendously expensive. Currently, it goes for about $3/gallon. However, that is including government subsidies offsetting the true cost, plus tax breaks to (evil corporate puppeteers), plus a sales tax exemption at the pump. Without our tax money, and without unfair tax breaks that oil companies do not get, Ethanol would likely be at least double the price, if not more.

2. Ethanol has a part in increasing the cost of gasoline because it was mandated by government to replace chemical additives originally used that were a fraction of the price. That cost is of course passed on to us. Go hug your liberal congressman for their help.

3. One acre of land only makes 50 gallons of Ethanol.

4. The equipment used to plant, spray, harvest, transport, and refine the corn, burn far more gasoline, than is replaced by the 50 gallons of Ethanol.

5. If we were to replace gasoline, gallon for gallon, with Ethanol, it would require all the land in the entire United States that is currently used for growing food, and then require more on top.

6. Even if this were possible, it would not be enough because 1 gallon of Ethanol ≠ 1 gallon of gas. (physics again) Ethanol chemically has about 2/3 the energy of oil. Therefore, if your car currently gets about 30 MPG, running on Ethanol it would get around 20 MPG. You would need one 3rd more Ethanol to go the same distance you currently do in your auto. So would everyone else. So we'd need all the currently crop land, plus more crop land, and then a good chunk of Canada or Mexico to make enough corn, to make enough Ethanol to think about replacing Oil based gasoline.

Of course... by then thousands would die.... because obviously we aren't growing any food at all in the entire country. But it's a mute point anyway because if we eliminated gasoline, it would take all the Ethanol produced, to cultivate the corn to make the Ethanol, so there wouldn't be any fuel...

Ethanol is a liberal scam. That's it. Nothing more. Just a scam.

I actually agree with much of your reasoning except for a few things.

It is not a liberal scam.

Corn based ethanol is the problem. Using a food crop (and corn raised for ethonal even if it can not be utilized by animals for food - which I'm not at all sure of - is using acerage that would normally produce food) for ethanol is not the only way to make ethanol. It's an industry still in it's infancy and grasses and even trash are looked at as possible sources.

Everyone, particularly in the US jumped on corn.

Why?

Because corn is a powerful agricultural entity in the U.S. That's not a "liberal scam".

The reality is we have to start looking beyond petroleum to meet our energy needs and we have to diversify. We can sit on our asses in our SUV's pretending oil's going to keep on flowing or we can lay the groundwork for new technologies now before we have no choice (and no infrastructure in place) and it's much more expensive. Which option represents forthought?

Another thing to think about. What is driving up food costs? Not just ethonal - that really only affects a certain portion of the market. Rather - the cost of petroleum and a heavy reliance on petroleum based fertilizers.