[QUOTE=Glaber;23508690]Now that I'm thinking about it more, if we want' to be carbon negative, we have to go after China. Otherwise, our efforts will be for naught.
[url]http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/jun/19/china.usnews[/url][/QUOTE]
This is a known problem. We are making efforts in doing this. Developing countries like China and India are a major target for reform, hopefully we can prevent them from getting stuck in a similar rut to the one developed nations are in.
[editline]11:57PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=Zeke129;23508724]You are not a scientist, stop talking like one.
You are also not an economist or historian, keep these in mind for other threads[/QUOTE]
this leads me to something I've been wondering.
What [i]do[/i] you do, Glaber?
[QUOTE=Glaber;23508690]Now that I'm thinking about it more, if we want' to be carbon negative, we have to go after China. Otherwise, [b]our efforts[/b] will be for naught.
[url]http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/jun/19/china.usnews[/url][/QUOTE]
Ahem. I would of figured the bolded part would imply that the US would be taking actual working steps at the same time.
I was, and may still be this fall term, a college student who listens to talk radio and primary took an interest in politics because my Parents were tired of me talking about video games all the time.
Some times, I begin to wonder what attracted me to this section in the first place.
[QUOTE=Glaber;23508752]Ahem. I would of figured the bolded part would imply that the US would be taking actual working steps at the same time.[/QUOTE]
Okay, nice work not responding to anything anyone said.
This is a known problem, efforts we are trying to take include negotiations with China.
Also, with this sort of thing, something is better than nothing at all. Even if just the Western developed world reforms, it would mitigate some of the more unpleasant outcomes of AGW.
[QUOTE=Glaber;23508752]Ahem. I would of figured the bolded part would imply that the US would be taking actual working steps at the same time.[/QUOTE]
FYI it's would have, not would of. And it's breathe, not breath.
[QUOTE=Kagrenak;23508776]Okay, nice work not responding to anything anyone said.
This is a known problem, efforts we are trying to take include negotiations with China.
Also, with this sort of thing, something is better than nothing at all. Even if just the Western developed world reforms, it would mitigate some of the more unpleasant outcomes of AGW.[/QUOTE]
We still would have to do so at the right pace, go too fast, rolling black outs. Go too slow, higher temps than now. It's not like we can just quit oil cold turkey.
[QUOTE=Glaber;23508852]We still would have to do so at the right pace, go too fast, rolling black outs. Go too slow, higher temps than now. It's not like we can just quit oil cold turkey.[/QUOTE]
No one is suggesting that.
[QUOTE=Glaber;23508852]We still would have to do so at the right pace, go too fast, rolling black outs. Go too slow, higher temps than now.[B] It's not like we can just quit oil cold turkey.[/B][/QUOTE]
:confused:
You keep bringing up these strawmans, who ever says we should just dump oil instantly? Of course we can't, petrochemicals make up a HUGE part of our manufactured goods, in addition to our energy needs.
[QUOTE]a college student[B] who listens to talk radio[/B][/QUOTE]
:ms:
[QUOTE=Xen Tricks;23508882]:confused:
You keep bringing up these strawmans, who ever says we should just dump oil instantly? Of course we can't, petrochemicals make up a HUGE part of our manufactured goods, in addition to our energy needs.[/QUOTE]
Petrochemicals are exactly why we need to stop using Oil for energy. It's the most massive waste of such a wonderful substance.
it would be easiest to stop being so wasteful
[QUOTE=Kagrenak;23508895]Petrochemicals are exactly why we need to stop using Oil for energy. It's the most massive waste of such a wonderful substance.[/QUOTE]
Yea, it's a poor use of it. My point was just that it's such a currently integral part of manufacturing that cutting it out instantly would cripple our industry.
[QUOTE=Kagrenak;23508895]Petrochemicals are exactly why we need to stop using Oil for energy. It's the most massive waste of such a wonderful substance.[/QUOTE]
And people like Obama seem to wan't to force us off the stuff. (See Gulf Coast moratorium) And we don't even have sufficient replacements yet.
It would be nice if we did and it was affordable.
[QUOTE=Glaber;23508960]And people like Obama seem to wan't to force us off the stuff. (See Gulf Coast moratorium) And we don't even have sufficient replacements yet.
It would be nice if we did and it was affordable.[/QUOTE]
Wow.
The moratorium has nothing to do with AGW. At all.
We can do these things, by making sensible regulations and adoption of new technology.
[QUOTE=Glaber;23508960]And people like Obama seem to wan't to force us off the stuff. (See Gulf Coast moratorium) And we don't even have sufficient replacements yet.
It would be nice if we did and it was affordable.[/QUOTE]
Because stopping a section of our production temporarily is "forcing us off the stuff"
Not like we have wells anywhere else in the world
[QUOTE=Glaber;23508960]And people like Obama seem to wan't to force us off the stuff. (See Gulf Coast moratorium) And we don't even have sufficient replacements yet.
It would be nice if we did and it was affordable.[/QUOTE]
A temporary moratorium of [b]deep-sea drilling[/b] is not a permanent ban of all of it. And he is not "trying to force us off the stuff." Has the huge influx of noise from the talk radio hosts made you forget the huge support of oil and drilling he had right before the ban? When you burn your house down playing with matches it's not wise to continue playing with matches.
[editline]12:16AM[/editline]
[QUOTE=Xen Tricks;23508984]Because stopping a section of our production temporarily is "forcing us off the stuff"
Not like we have wells anywhere else in the world[/QUOTE]
Fuck ninja'd.
[QUOTE=Glaber;23508176]That's the summed up version.
Extended version: So, CO2 is a pollutant, right?
And humans are a major player in that, right?
So would it no make sense to get rid of any major contributors of Co2?
Humans drive cars that pollute, make disposable items that pollute , make factories that pollute, [B]Breath out the very pollutant[/B], etc.
So shouldn't the best answer be to kill all humans and animals? We don't want any More CO2 now do we? So a world with no CO2 producer should cause CO2 levels to go down and cool down the planet. Too bad no one will be left to appreciate it when we're all done, but that's the price for "Saving the Planet"[/QUOTE]
Humans breath out C02 in minuscule quantities. A person breathes out nowhere near as much as even the most fuel efficient moped. The earth can handle a certain amount of C02, but we are putting more c02 into the air than the earth can handle.
It's not hard to understand. The earth can handle humans breathing. It can't handle humans driving SUVs and burning garbage
[QUOTE=Xen Tricks;23508984]Because stopping a section of our production temporarily is "forcing us off the stuff"
Not like we have wells anywhere else in the world[/QUOTE]
Sure seems like it.
Oh, you're talking about other humans not just the US.
Also, on a side note, if you still wondering about me, I'm autistic.
[QUOTE=Glaber;23509045]Sure seem like it.
[/QUOTE]
It's not. The gulf wasn't providing all of the U.S.'s oil, only a tiny percentage of it.
[QUOTE=Glaber;23509045]Sure seem like it.
Oh, you're talking about other humans not just the US.
[B]
Also, on a side note, if you still wondering about me, I'm autistic[/B].[/QUOTE]
No, talking about the US. I meant we have wells elsewhere, obviously. Or wells we get our stuff from.
Bold: Now you're just makin up shit :colbert:
EDIT: Though it would explain a bit...
Do you get your news from anywhere else other than talking heads and fox news? I mean, i'm not one in a great position to judge, I keep up to date through blogs (ScienceBlogs, but still), though I usually read the source articles as well. Well, and the newspaper.
[QUOTE=Glaber;23509045]Sure seems like it.
Oh, you're talking about other humans not just the US.
Also, on a side note, if you still wondering about me, I'm autistic.[/QUOTE]
Quit fucking trolling please
[QUOTE=Glaber;23509045]Sure seems like it.
Oh, you're talking about other humans not just the US.
Also, on a side note, if you still wondering about me, I'm autistic.[/QUOTE]
How at all does it seem like it? We don't get that much of our oil from deepwater drilling.
[QUOTE=Sigma-Lambda;23509057]It's not. The gulf wasn't providing all of the U.S.'s oil, only a tiny percentage of it.[/QUOTE]
It would help if there was a list online of where the US does have wells. (I tried google and the oil spill articles got in the way)
[QUOTE=Glaber;23509045]Sure seems like it.
Oh, you're talking about other humans not just the US.
Also, on a side note, if you still wondering about me, I'm autistic.[/QUOTE]
You are a disrespect to autistic people everywhere.
[QUOTE=Glaber;23509104]It would help if there was a list online of where the US does have wells. (I tried google and the oil spill articles got in the way)[/QUOTE]
The US gets most of it's oil from the middle east, this is common knowledge. Hell, a conservative should support us getting off oil so we won't be indebted to the middle east (hint: most conservative politicians are in the pocket of big oil so they don't support that)
[QUOTE=Sigma-Lambda;23509139]The US gets most of it's oil from the middle east, this is common knowledge. Hell, a conservative should support us getting off oil so we won't be indebted to the middle east (hint: most conservative politicians are in the pocket of big oil so they don't support that)[/QUOTE]
He's talking about where the U.S. gets most of its domestic oil.
they also get a decent amount from canada
[QUOTE=Sigma-Lambda;23509139]The US gets most of it's oil from the middle east, this is common knowledge. Hell, a conservative should support us getting off oil so we won't be indebted to the middle east (hint: most conservative politicians are in the pocket of big oil so they don't support that)[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Lambeth;23509197]they also get a decent amount from canada[/QUOTE]
Uh-oh guys
You're both wrong
The US imports the [b]majority[/b] of its oil from Canada.
[url=http://www.energyrefuge.com/archives/where_oil_comes_from.htm]Source[/url]
[QUOTE=Zeke129;23509296]Uh-oh guys
You're both wrong
The US imports the [b]majority[/b] of its oil from Canada.
[url=http://www.energyrefuge.com/archives/where_oil_comes_from.htm]Source[/url][/QUOTE]
No we don't.
[url]http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_impcus_a2_nus_epc0_im0_mbblpd_a.htm[/url]
1,938 thousand barrels/day is the most of any one country, but it is nowhere near the majority of our oil.
-snip- I read your post wrong.
[QUOTE=Lambeth;23507223]Glaber do you not believe in climate change?[/QUOTE]
It doesn't matter if you believe in Climate Change or not. Climate Change just is regardless of what a crazy gook like Glaber has to say.
[QUOTE=Zambies!;23504196]Gotta give bachmann credit for being a Republican in MN. If I state I am republican, I get lynched.[/QUOTE]
COMPLETELY different where I live. Everyone and their cousin is conservative.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
