Posted: Sat Apr 18, 2009 6:09 pm
Fair enough.Who is like God arbour wrote:I didn't want to debate weapons law.
So if you're familiar with embodied energy, and the extent of fossil fuel usage, and the time it will take to effect the conversion to renewables we both want, why exactly are we arguing? The only concrete timetables I saw in those articles are 2050 and 2090, both of which are believable, unlike Al Gore's 2020 timetable to convert the US grid fully to solar. Hell, 2090 is more than generous.Who is like God arbour wrote:I'm aware of the fact, that a product needs energy to be produced. That does not only mean the energy for the manufacturing process but also the energy for the mining and fabrication of the basic materials and their transportation around the whole world.Cocytus wrote:My statement was hyperbole, WILGA, but the proof is in the very article you posted. "With the exception of cellulose, most bioplastic technology is relatively new and is currently not cost competitive with petroleum-based plastics" and "Many bioplastics are reliant on fossil fuel-derived energy for their manufacturing"
[...]
Fossil fuels are in use at every scale of construction, transportation, in every commercial venue, at every point in our daily lives. Against that, overarching government laws would be not only inadvisable, they would be impotent. Some want people to suspend their use of fossil fuels while our generation and manufacturing methods are converted. It cannot happen that way. Only when the solution is in place and operable can fossil fuels be abandoned.
But if these energy is renewable energy - and I have given enough examples for renewable energy plants - that's no problem.
I'm also aware, that it is impossible to shut off all not renewable energy plants at once because there are not already enough renewable energy plants. But it should be the ultimate goal, that there are enough renewable energy plants in the near future, that energy plants, depending on fossil fuels, are no longer necessary.
And it is with the today's technology already possible to power the whole world with renewable energy [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. But that would mean, that a lot of investments have to be made and that the opposition from operating companies of conventionally plants has to be overcome.
WILGA, I'm on your side here. But you have to understand the mentality of many people in the United States. Consensus in and of itself is not proof, nor is a preponderance of evidence. And the fact that it is not proven is an open door to people who want to discount it. I myself accept anthropogenic global warming, and while I may consider global warming deniers foolish, the fact is they still vote. I can't sway them with moral arguments, so I'll sway them with monetary ones. There are some who will simply not be swayed. Their hearts are hardened. But in the last year, we had a major oil mogul come out on our side (T. Boone Pickens, take a look at his plan) and we elected an Administration sympathetic to our cause. These are major steps forward, and barring another terrorist attack or economic collapse, I feel confident in projecting 8 years of the Obama Administration. Things are going to get done, but it's pointless to get worked up over the people we can't sway. They can't be forced to think the way we do, they must be free to make their own decisions, as misguided as you and I may feel those decisions to be. I'm out there, working and voting to make the change I believe in happen. There are some who would deride me as naive, doe-eyed, a traitor, unAmerican, whatever. LET THEM. I wouldn't deprive them of their right to say that, however empty and meaningless I think their words are, because that would be unAmerican.Who is like god arbour wrote:A risk assessment is no fallacy.Cocytus wrote:And finally, the rationale of "better to believe and be right, then not believe and be wrong" is a fallacy employed by both ends of the political spectrum, from global warming to Iranian nukes. They threaten us with either a 20-foot sealevel rise, or a mushroom cloud over an American city, to make us act out of fear rather than sound judgement. I do not accept this fallacy for action against Iran, so I cannot expect conservatives to accept it for action against global warming.
And we don't speak of »believe« like in »believe in a god«. There is no evidence for the existence of god and to believe in a god is illogical because, if there is no objective reason, why one should believe, that a god exists, but nevertheless believes in god, one could as well believe in all other things for which existence there is no evidence.
But that does not apply to a scientific theory, that may still not be proven, but where for their existence are at least evidence. It is not as if climatologist have made up their theories out of the blue. They have observations and mathematical models and see, that their observations are confirming their mathematical models and conclude, that this shows, that the models are correct. And if they are correct, then the projections made with these models, are likely also correct. And until it is shown that the models are not correct or at least a reasonable doubt is cast, it is plausible to assume, that the prognoses made with the models are correct.
And concerning Iranian nukes: that is not a question, if they are trying to build them, but a legal question and an example of double standard. Don't understand me wrong. I don't like, that the Iran is likely trying to build nukes. But I also don't like, that the USA (and other nations) have already nukes. And what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. As the US citizens have to live with the risk of a mushroom cloud over an American city from a Iranian nuke, the rest of the world have to live with the risk of a mushroom cloud over their cities from an American nuke. Such a risk is no reason to start an illegal war of aggression.