Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Moderator cut: edit Do you really believe all that garbage? Where did you learn such nonsense?
Which part would you consider nonsense?
It is widely known that Ethanol can be created from any carbohydrate... for instance beer, wine, & spirits. Ethanol is the alcohol created via fermentation of carbohydrates with yeast in an anaerobic solution. So I don't think that statement was the one you thought was nonsense.
Perhaps you dispute the statements about #2 Yellow Corn... there are so many sources of that information that I will just point you to the USDA, FSIS, ARS, EPA, EREN, and DOE and APHIS... they have all generated reports within the last 20 years stating overproduction of corn and the uses of corn for animal feed, etc. There are also several non-US agencies and research centers that confirm this data, as well as the risks of mono-culture farming and feeding corn and animal by-products to animals that evolved to eat grass.
In case it's about the inefficiency of Ethanol production, here's a good USDA report http://www.usda.gov/oce/reports/ener...gy_balance.pdf which shows 1.06 gallons of oil for every gallon of ethanol produced (without secondary considerations) and 1.68 gallons of oil for every gallon of ethanol produced (including secondary considerations).
The cost of food, or the inability of people to get the food that is produced, causes starvation... not a lack of production of food. This was postulated by Amartya Sen, Trinity College (1998) and he was awarded the Nobel Prize in Economics, for his contributions to welfare economics. His contribution and thesis is now widely accepted as verifiable fact by ALL governments. In fact, in the 90's, in Argentina (after the gov't froze middle class bank accounts) the entire country went into starvation mode and the population rioted for food that had been readily produced (in abundance), just not affordable.
As to our artificially cheap grain prices and independent farmers being put out of business... you need only look at the New Deal Agricultural Subsidization programs that have been instituted and modified in our country since the 20's and the USDA market reports.
Or, perhaps, you refute my statement that our food supply is extremely vulnerable due to it's centralized nature. Administrative members of OUR OWN GOVERNMENT were quoted as saying along the lines "why didn't they just hit the food supply?" after the 9/11 attacks. Any strategist, economist, financial advisor, tactician, or reasonably intelligent human would agree that centralization of a critical commodity makes it inherently vulnerable because it has many points of entry and exit, but a single central point of failure in the system.
Last edited by riveree; 08-04-2008 at 08:18 PM..
Reason: previously edited quote
So, you are saying ... what? That these industry scientists, experts in their field, don't know what they are talking about, and you do? So, what are your credentials?
Personally, I have always thought that the theory that oil came from dead dinosaurs was ridiculous! They must have been all over the place, by the billions, and even under the ocean.
Sorry, but that theory makes no sense at all. The belief that the Earth itself produces it, by what ever process, does.
Why would you reject the possibility that oil is constantly being created. Based on what evidence would you reject such a theory? I would sooner trust the people who are in the industry, who have the background. They have been studying oil for many years. And you?
No, I'm saying that no scientist has ever said that oil is a renewable resource and the the author of that post is just repeating what he hears on Fox News.
I think you'd be hard pressed to find a scientist that says that oil comes from dinosaurs too. I wonder where that myth is from.
Anyways, oil comes from decomposed algae and bacteria. MILLIONS of years worth of decomposition. As in, in the 60 years that we've been using a lot of oil, maybe a drop extra has been made to "replenish" the supply.
This is something that you can learn more about in any 6th grade science textbook.
I spoke with a representative of my electric company a couple of weeks ago about my electric bill to see why it seemed to be higher than normal for the warm months. In the discussion she told me one way to reduce my usage (This is important, because it refutes the conventional wisdom) was to not turn lights, computers, TV, etc on and off. If you are leaving a room, and intend to return shortly, leave the light on. Leave your computer on standby instead of turning it off and then back on again when you come back.
Every time you turn an appliance or light on, it creates a surge, which increases your bill. She told me your better off to leave things on (yes, even the TV) if your not leaving for an extended amount of time.
I refuse to buy into this so-called "carbon footprint" garbage. This is just nonsense, a foolish idea dreamed up buy a lunatic (Al Gore). Why should we listen to someone who should be institutionalized? Carbon footprint? Give me a break! Does he think we are all stupid? Apparently, he does, and a lot of people are buying this B.S.
Hybrid cars are mega expensive, so only a small few can afford them, but I do hear that the new GM hybrids are great.
For the record, I drive a 1994 Dodge Grand Caravan with 321K miles on it, and it still runs great! Buy Chrysler products! No, I don't have stock in the company.
Gas powered vehicles are going to be with us for a long time, and there is no shortage of oil, so it doesn't matter (we just need to produce more of our own, and build more refineries). Autos today don't pollute near as much as they did many years ago, and I question if they contribute much of anything to air pollution these days. Perhaps in L.A.!
It was the so called "green" crowd that forced us to use these darn plastic shopping bags that don't hold anything worth a darn. I'm so tired of groceries spilling out all over my car, and having to carry twice as many smaller bags in the house — the paper bags held more, and contained the items so they didn't spill out. Grocery clerks were actually trained how to "bag" items, so your bread wasn't crushed by cans, and your fruit didn't get bruised. Today, they just toss stuff in those da_n plastic bags. Besides, the plastic bags are all over the place, in the trees and brush, in the streams and lakes. Give me a break! Is that "green"? Thanks, wackos. Paper is more environmentally friendly, and the paper mill people can have their jobs back.
Same goes for real wood pencils. I hate the phony ones. They don't sharpen easily with my utility knife on the job (I'm a tile guy). I only buy real wood pencils.
Besides, timber is a renewable resource, and trees are grown specifically for the "forest products" that we want and need. A managed forest matures quickly, and is replanted after the timber is harvested.
I had trees cut on my property several years ago, and sold the timber. Got about $14 K or $15 K. The new trees that have come up volunteer, are all over the place, and growing like weeds. It's pretty dense again already. Maples, black walnuts, oak.
I prefer to refer to "the planet" as the Earth. I can't stand these asinine euphemisms of the "politically correct" and "environmentalist" bunch. I'm not going to kowtow to these people in my living or in my choice of words.
You are right about leaving items on stand-bys , I did mean for longer period of time BTW. A lot of people I know have pretty much every single item of electrical equipment on standby constantly because they can't be bothered to switch them off.
We managed to reduce our electricity bill by just over a third in the last year so we must be doing something right. And our bill was pretty small to begin with.
As for carbon footprint the name might be a "trendy" one from the fashionable so called "green" crowd but the principle remains that every action we take does have an effect.
I have tried to be more responsible since I was a kid in the early 70s so it was somewhat long before Al Gore ever made it to the screens.
Being "greener" is not stupid it is common sense.
There is no sense in wasting any resources, whether food, fuel, natural resources. It's simple good husbandry to look after the Earth ( which is a planet so I am not sure what the problem was with my calling it so).
Common sense dictates we behave in a responsible manner . Why waste when we don't have to ? I just do not get it.
I do not pretend to be green at all, if I was I would be living in a field somewhere in the middle of nowhere living a sustainable lifestyle as my great-grand-mother did.
I am too selfish to be green and still expect a modicum of comfort and modern facilities. However if I can do my bit and reduce waste, recycle and be a better consumer when it comes to my daily choices then I really don't see what is wrong with that.
I use neither plastic nor paper bags by the way, re-usable canvas ones are stronger and way more practical in my opinion. I also have extremely strong plastic/fabric insulated ones for perishable items and they have so far lasted over 15 years and are still in perfect condition. What exactly is the point in wasting all that paper or plastic when I don't have to ?
I hate waste, I hated is as a child and I hate it now. It is one of the most obscene thing when wasting is not something we need to do.
I don't expect to think or live as I do but I am not quite sure why trying to be a better consumer and earth resident makes you a target for being berated ?
I was doing all this long before it became fashionable so please do not put me in the PC crowd or Hollywood fashionistas group of "green" people.
I do not pretend to be green, but there is nothing wrong with trying to do what comes painlessly like reducing our wanton waste and our ridiculous use of the earth's resources . Our actions do have consequences. Why should be ignoring that ?
Mooseketeer...this is another great post. Your logic makes perfect sense to me. My thinking on this matter is alot like yours. I'd give you some more rep, but I gotta spread it around.
I think living green is sort of a variation of earlier wisdom that I heard QUITE a bit growing up - "Use it up, wear it out, make it do or do without". My parents, who grew up in the depression, were well aware of the need to be mindful, and it seems to me that it is the mindfulness that was lost somewhere along the way. People became used to having more and more, whether or not they needed it. Mass consumption - conspicuous consumption - became the way to live. It is very hard to take in the concept that for most of us, we have ENOUGH, and in my opinion, recognizing that you have enough is the first step towards living green.
I think living green is sort of a variation of earlier wisdom that I heard QUITE a bit growing up - "Use it up, wear it out, make it do or do without". My parents, who grew up in the depression, were well aware of the need to be mindful, and it seems to me that it is the mindfulness that was lost somewhere along the way. People became used to having more and more, whether or not they needed it. Mass consumption - conspicuous consumption - became the way to live. It is very hard to take in the concept that for most of us, we have ENOUGH, and in my opinion, recognizing that you have enough is the first step towards living green.
This is my favorite post so far.
I've decided that I don't care about global warming -- whether it's happening, why it's happening, who's to blame for it. None of this matters to me.
What does matter to me is living within my means, and that includes living within the means of my environment. The thing is, I'm not sure what the limits of this environment are. Is the world running out of oil? I don't know. Is the earth producing more oil all the time? I don't know. So I just use what I need. Very simple.
I find it interesting that many people who hate the so-called green movement consider themselves conservatives. Yet they seem to have little interest in conservation for its own sake. I consider myself conservative, both in lifestyle and in politics, because I am interested in conservation for its own sake. I don't need or want anyone telling me that I should conserve more. I already want to do it on my own, because it's part of my conservative values.
I do think that "going green" is somewhat of a trend now, and I know companies and advertisers are profiting from it. In this sense, you could say there is a market "conspiracy" behind the green movement. It's called capitalism: capitalizing on opportunity. This is another force that I believe in. It may not always be honest or productive, but part of living in a free society involves learning how to take the good with the bad in everything.
I agree that conservation is essentially only using what you need. Unfortunately, I think we (as a society/culture) have gotten all messed up between what we need and what we want; and what things are essential and what are conveniences. Lots of people act as if I'm a heretical Communist/Socialist nutjob when I talk about voluntary simplicity. But I'm not talking about going primitive and living a harsh lifestyle on the edge of survival, just reducing all the wasteful crap that's collected in my life that are just consuming resources. That's one of the reasons I don't like the term "green"; to me, being responsible and not wasting things is what's important... not the mythos of the movement.
MissingAll4Seasons, I agree. But needs and wants, especially in a free, market-driven society that's based in part on the "pursuit of happiness," are going to be subjective.
I personally couldn't agree with you more on the whole, but I can also see how someone else might define his or her own needs differently. I could say that I "need" to buy my food at a grocery store (that ships its produce from hundreds or thousands of miles away) because I live in a place where I cannot easily grow my own crops. Yet do I really "need" to live where I do? Well, for my own enjoyment and peace of mind, yes, I do "need" to live where I do. Strictly speaking, no, I don't need to live here. I could move next door to a farmers market.
So I agree that needs vs. wants is an important issue that's been largely lost in the fray. But I also think it allows for some individual context. I guess I also should have said in my last post that I'm quite a strong liberal too. This is because I believe in liberty -- the freedom of the individual, as long it does not infringe on other people's liberty. It can be a frustrating balance, as I sometimes wish everyone shared my ideas about conservation, liberty, needs, and wants. But I know it'll never be so.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
