On Mar 26, 11:12 am, "calderh...@yahoo.com" <calderh...@yahoo.com
wrote:

If the average American citizen knew all the true facts about the
possibility of drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife
Refuge, they would be very angry at Congress and the so-called
"environmental lobby" for opposing it. See all the pertinent and
laughable facts at ...

some snakeoil site

It took you a while, but you finally got to the top of your agenda --
the global polluters cartel agenda. Let's vandalise the arctic
wilderness to people can drive their guzzling outsized cars more
cheaply.

Ha ... 'biofuel hoax' indeed!

Fran

On Mar 26, 5:14 pm, Yer Pal Al <Caddyshack...@gmail.com> wrote:





On Mar 25, 10:33 pm, Fran <Fran.B...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Mar 26, 4:12 pm, Yer Pal Al <Caddyshack...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Mar 25, 7:50 pm, Fran <Fran.B...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Mar 26, 11:12 am, "calderh...@yahoo.com" <calderh...@yahoo.com
wrote:

If the average American citizen knew all the true facts about the
possibility of drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife
Refuge, they would be very angry at Congress and the so-called
"environmental lobby" for opposing it.  See all the pertinent and
laughable facts at ...

some snakeoil site

It took you a while, but you finally got to the top of your agenda --
the global polluters cartel agenda. Let's vandalise the arctic
wilderness to people can drive their guzzling outsized cars more
cheaply.

How many cartpoolers do you drag behind your ox?

What's a cartpooler? I have no ox.

They make great hamburger. Sorry that you'll never know that - and
thankfully you won't hold it against me - because fortunately you have
no ox to grind.

That's true.

You've taken a position against exploration for new oil. I was asking
you how you get to work that is petroleum free.

That's wrong on at least two counts.

1. I haven't 'taken a position against exploration for new oil'. I've
taken a position against messing with the Arctic wilderness.

2. Even if I had taken a position against exploration for new oil,
there'd be no logical contradiction between that position and fuelling
my car with fossil oil derived products.

It might be my view that one
should use crude oil while it's available.

If it had been my view that everyone everywhere should stop combusting
fossil fuels immediately, then you'd be entitled to wonder how I was
going to fuel my car.

Of course, my view is that policies that foster
sharp downward pressure on demand for fossil fuels should be
instituted. This would almost certainly mean that the cost to the end
user per unit of fossil fuel energy would rise, and thus encourage
more careful consideration befoe using energy, and also make renewable
or non-fossil based energy sources  more economically viable.

Hence my sarcastic comment: "Let's vandalise the arctic
wilderness to people can drive their guzzling outsized cars more
cheaply."

An ox cart is one of
the few options and the riders you pick up to share the ride wouldn't
be "carpoolers" they'd be "cartpoolers."

If you think there are few options, you're egregiously underinformed.
Mass transit, especially powered by electricity is an excellent
option.

So too are PHEVs and PEVs.

So is biodiesel from algae and
butanol from sugar cane or switchgrass.

Nuclear, wind, hydro and
geothermal are also possibilities. Effectively, 100% of Iceland's
stationary power comes from renewables.

Ha ... 'biofuel hoax' indeed!

Maybe we can ferment tundra?

In depends on what you mean by 'tundra'. How is this relevant anyway?

Tundra is composed of shrubs, grasses, moss and lichens. It's probably
not a good source for biofuels but it is organic and Alaska's tundra
region is larger than most countries.

That's possible, but almost certainly undesirable.

Wouldn't it be ironic if it were
a viable source for biofuel?

Not so much ironic as astonishing.

Instead of a postage stamp sized scar in
the earth it would be 800K square kilometers.

One good oil spill would be bigger than that.

And you're also
forgetting the port facilities and road infrastructure.

calderh...@yahoo.com wrote:
If the average American citizen knew all the true facts about the
possibility of drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife
Refuge, they would be very angry at Congress and the so-called
"environmental lobby" for opposing it.  See all the pertinent and
laughable facts at:

http://home.att.net/~meditation/ANWR.html- with pictures, maps, and
info links

--- pasted below----

The costly symbolism of ANWR

The United States is in serious energy crisis today, in part because
of the triumph of symbolism over substance in the United States
Congress.  Our political pundits have elevated the 19.6 million acre
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, better known as ANWR ...

What kind of 'fact' is this? ANWR will make little difference in the
bigger picture. Reserves are estimated at 100 days of world demand. If
the 'average American citizen' were to bother to understand our
condition, they would see that this haggling over ANWR is meaningless.

"typical white person" <avg@white.band> wrote in message
news:909ju3l2onnfgidcjthspdov8reicqdt0a@4ax.com...
On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 17:12:02 -0700 (PDT), "calderhome@yahoo.com"
calderhome@yahoo.com> mumbled:

If the average American citizen knew all the true facts about
Your whackadoodle perverted Buddhism website...

Wow. What a well developed, scientific rebuttal.

"typical white person" <a...@white.band> wrote in
messagenews:909ju3l2onnfgidcjthspdov8reicqdt0a@4ax.com...

On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 17:12:02 -0700 (PDT), "calderh...@yahoo.com"
calderh...@yahoo.com> mumbled:

If the average American citizen knew all the true facts about

Your whackadoodle perverted Buddhism website...

Wow. What a well developed, scientific rebuttal.

Brutus

yet somehow more meaningful than any Brutus post, ever.

On Mar 26, 12:53 am, Fran <Fran.B...@gmail.com> wrote:



snip

That's true.

You've taken a position against exploration for new oil. I was asking
you how you get to work that is petroleum free.

That's wrong on at least two counts.

1. I haven't 'taken a position against exploration for new oil'. I've
taken a position against messing with the Arctic wilderness.

Why? If you are concerned about the environment why not drill in the
middle of nowhere? Other alternatives in the US include offshore a few
kilometers from urban centers and fisheries.

2. Even if I had taken a position against exploration for new oil,
there'd be no logical contradiction between that position and fuelling
my car with fossil oil derived products.

Most people, and I assume this of you, resent petroleum because of
what it does to the environment. These people try to restrict it to
force a demand for alternative, environmentally friendly fuel sources.
It's incongruous and hypocritical to take this stance and then consume
fossil fuels which increase the demand for fossil fuels.

It might be my view that one
should use crude oil while it's available.

It's available in the ANWR and offshore. It's going to available long
past our grandchildren's lifetimes.

If it had been my view that everyone everywhere should stop combusting
fossil fuels immediately, then you'd be entitled to wonder how I was
going to fuel my car.

If you want to decrease fossil fuel demand I'm wondering what is your
role is in decreasing demand?

Of course, my view is that policies that foster
sharp downward pressure on demand for fossil fuels should be
instituted. This would almost certainly mean that the cost to the end
user per unit of fossil fuel energy would rise, and thus encourage
more careful consideration befoe using energy, and also make renewable
or non-fossil based energy sources  more economically viable.

However, fossil fuels power the industry that will make alternative
fuels available. You can't expect industry to flourish if you cut its
legs out from under it. Industry flourishes when the prices of natural
resources are low. If the free market doesn't demand alternative fuels
the government can encourage their creation with tax incentives.

Hence my sarcastic comment: "Let's vandalise the arctic
wilderness to people can drive their guzzling outsized cars more
cheaply."

I get it, sarcasm is a second language to me.

An ox cart is one of
the few options and the riders you pick up to share the ride wouldn't
be "carpoolers" they'd be "cartpoolers."

If you think there are few options, you're egregiously underinformed.
Mass transit, especially powered by electricity is an excellent
option.

Don't be a dill. Australia, right? 80% of your electricity comes from
coal:http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf64.html

I'll ask you again. Are you driving an ox cart or do you realize that
fossil fuels are necessary?

So too are PHEVs and PEVs.

Same thing. Fossil fuel plus electricty generated by fossil fuel.

So is biodiesel from algae and
butanol from sugar cane or switchgrass.

Biofuel created using energy from fossil fuel.

Nuclear, wind, hydro and
geothermal are also possibilities. Effectively, 100% of Iceland's
stationary power comes from renewables.

How likely is that any worthwhile percentage of the world's population
will move to geothermic regions to take advantage of free energy?

One good oil spill would be bigger than that.

Not on land. Familiarity with the ANWR would suggest the obvious that
the oil would be transported by pipeline.

Yer Pal Al wrote:

It's available in the ANWR and offshore. It's going to available long
past our grandchildren's lifetimes.

Peak oil is about capacity to produce, not that it will be produced.

If you want to decrease fossil fuel demand I'm wondering what is your
role is in decreasing demand?

Oil is peaking now. We are seeing serious demand destruction in Africa
today.

However, fossil fuels power the industry that will make alternative
fuels available. You can't expect industry to flourish if you cut its
legs out from under it. Industry flourishes when the prices of natural
resources are low. If the free market doesn't demand alternative fuels
the government can encourage their creation with tax incentives.

There is only one other reasonable alternative to liquids and that is
CTL. So, when do we start?

On 26 mar, 02:50, Fran <Fran.B...@gmail.com> wrote:





On Mar 26, 11:12 am, "calderh...@yahoo.com" <calderh...@yahoo.com
wrote:

If the average American citizen knew all the true facts about the
possibility of drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife
Refuge, they would be very angry at Congress and the so-called
"environmental lobby" for opposing it.  See all the pertinent and
laughable facts at ...

some snakeoil site

It took you a while, but you finally got to the top of your agenda --
the global polluters cartel agenda. Let's vandalise the arctic
wilderness to people can drive their guzzling outsized cars more
cheaply.

Ha ... 'biofuel hoax' indeed!

Fran

God is not on your side :)

------------------------------
*God* said (Genesis 1:)

snip :)

26  Then God said, "Let us make humans in our image, in our likeness.
Let
them rule the fish in the sea, the birds in the sky, the domestic
animals all
over the earth, and all the animals that crawl on the earth."

27  So God created humans in his image.
In the image of God he created them.
He created them male and female.

28  God blessed them and said, "Be fertile, increase in number, fill
the earth,
and be its master. Rule the fish in the sea, the birds in the sky, and
all the
animals that crawl on the earth."

29  God said, "I have given you every plant with seeds on the face of
the
earth and every tree that has fruit with seeds. This will be your
food. 30I have
given all green plants as food to every land animal, every bird in the
sky, and
every animal that crawls on the earth--every living, breathing animal."
And
so it was.

31  And God saw everything that he had made and that it was very good.
there was evening, then morning--the sixth day.

snip
-------------------------------
(the verses differ somewhat from a Bible to another but all contain
these)

I am an atheist,

On Mar 26, 3:15 pm, mergatroid <heav...@to.org> wrote:
On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 20:14:11 -0700 (PDT), Fran <Fran.B...@gmail.com
mumbled:

On Mar 26, 2:03 pm, mergatroid <heav...@to.org> wrote:
On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 19:50:52 -0700 (PDT), Fran <Fran.B...@gmail.com
mumbled:

Let's vandalise the arcticwilderness

See many Alaskans complaining about it?

Hint - jobs.

I wonder what they'll say after the first major oil spill?

I get my paycheck.

What will they say about the loss of their ports as sea levels
continue to rise?

Fuck the  increased solar radiation.

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2003/0313irradiance...


http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/images/content/93620main_sun5m.jpg

You should look at your own graphs. The pattern is cyclic, and cannot
possibly explain the pattern of warming seen. And while we can do
nothing at all about the irradiance of the sun, we can do something
about how long it stays around to warm the troposphere, and the extent
to which this heat forces undesirable changes in albedo as ice melts.

NASA STUDY FINDS INCREASING SOLAR TREND THAT CAN CHANGE CLIMATE

Since the late 1970s, the amount of solar radiation the sun emits,
during times of quiet sunspot activity, has increased by nearly .05
percent per decade, according to a NASA funded study.

"This trend is important because, if sustained over many decades, it
could cause significant climate change," said Richard Willson, a
researcher affiliated with NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies
and Columbia University's Earth Institute, New York. He is the lead
author of the study recently published in Geophysical Research
Letters.

"Historical records of solar activity indicate that solar radiation
has been increasing since the late 19th century. If a trend,
comparable to the one found in this study, persisted throughout the
20th century, it would have provided a significant component of the
global warming the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports
to have occurred over the past 100 years," he said


And indeed, the IPCC considered this to acount for about 20-25% of
warming.

Without an environment, 'jobs' are a chimera.

Do you have one?


Yes, as it goes.

Fran

On Mar 26, 5:14 pm, Yer Pal Al <Caddyshack...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mar 25, 10:33 pm, Fran <Fran.B...@gmail.com> wrote:





On Mar 26, 4:12 pm, Yer Pal Al <Caddyshack...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Mar 25, 7:50 pm, Fran <Fran.B...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Mar 26, 11:12 am, "calderh...@yahoo.com" <calderh...@yahoo.com
wrote:

If the average American citizen knew all the true facts about the
possibility of drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife
Refuge, they would be very angry at Congress and the so-called
"environmental lobby" for opposing it.  See all the pertinent and
laughable facts at ...

some snakeoil site

It took you a while, but you finally got to the top of your agenda --
the global polluters cartel agenda. Let's vandalise the arctic
wilderness to people can drive their guzzling outsized cars more
cheaply.

How many cartpoolers do you drag behind your ox?

What's a cartpooler? I have no ox.

They make great hamburger. Sorry that you'll never know that - and
thankfully you won't hold it against me - because fortunately you have
no ox to grind.


That's true.

You've taken a position against exploration for new oil. I was asking
you how you get to work that is petroleum free.

That's wrong on at least two counts.

1. I haven't 'taken a position against exploration for new oil'. I've
taken a position against messing with the Arctic wilderness.

2. Even if I had taken a position against exploration for new oil,
there'd be no logical contradiction between that position and fuelling
my car with fossil oil derived products. It might be my view that one
should use crude oil while it's available.

If it had been my view that everyone everywhere should stop combusting
fossil fuels immediately, then you'd be entitled to wonder how I was
going to fuel my car. Of course, my view is that policies that foster
sharp downward pressure on demand for fossil fuels should be
instituted. This would almost certainly mean that the cost to the end
user per unit of fossil fuel energy would rise, and thus encourage
more careful consideration befoe using energy, and also make renewable
or non-fossil based energy sources more economically viable.

Hence my sarcastic comment: "Let's vandalise the arctic
wilderness to people can drive their guzzling outsized cars more
cheaply."

An ox cart is one of
the few options and the riders you pick up to share the ride wouldn't
be "carpoolers" they'd be "cartpoolers."


If you think there are few options, you're egregiously underinformed.
Mass transit, especially powered by electricity is an excellent
option.

So too are PHEVs and PEVs. So is biodiesel from algae and
butanol from sugar cane or switchgrass. Nuclear, wind, hydro and
geothermal are also possibilities. Effectively, 100% of Iceland's
stationary power comes from renewables.

Ha ... 'biofuel hoax' indeed!

Maybe we can ferment tundra?

In depends on what you mean by 'tundra'. How is this relevant anyway?

Tundra is composed of shrubs, grasses, moss and lichens. It's probably
not a good source for biofuels but it is organic and Alaska's tundra
region is larger than most countries.

That's possible, but almost certainly undesirable.


Wouldn't it be ironic if it were
a viable source for biofuel?

Not so much ironic as astonishing.


Instead of a postage stamp sized scar in
the earth it would be 800K square kilometers.


One good oil spill would be bigger than that. And you're also
forgetting the port facilities and road infrastructure.

Fran

On Mar 26, 5:17 pm, Yer Pal Al <Caddyshack...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mar 25, 10:31 pm, Fran <Fran.B...@gmail.com> wrote:





On Mar 26, 3:15 pm, mergatroid <heav...@to.org> wrote:

On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 20:14:11 -0700 (PDT), Fran <Fran.B...@gmail.com
mumbled:

On Mar 26, 2:03 pm, mergatroid <heav...@to.org> wrote:
On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 19:50:52 -0700 (PDT), Fran <Fran.B...@gmail.com
mumbled:

Let's vandalise the arcticwilderness

See many Alaskans complaining about it?

Hint - jobs.

I wonder what they'll say after the first major oil spill?

I get my paycheck.

What will they say about the loss of their ports as sea levels
continue to rise?

Fuck the  increased solar radiation.

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2003/0313irradiance...

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/images/content/93620main_sun5m.jpg

You should look at your own graphs. The pattern is cyclic, and cannot
possibly explain the pattern of warming seen. And while we can do
nothing at all about the irradiance of the sun, we can do something
about how long it stays around to warm the troposphere, and the extent
to which this heat forces undesirable changes in albedo as ice melts.

NASA STUDY FINDS INCREASING SOLAR TREND THAT CAN CHANGE CLIMATE

Since the late 1970s, the amount of solar radiation the sun emits,
during times of quiet sunspot activity, has increased by nearly .05
percent per decade, according to a NASA funded study.

"This trend is important because, if sustained over many decades, it
could cause significant climate change," said Richard Willson, a
researcher affiliated with NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies
and Columbia University's Earth Institute, New York. He is the lead
author of the study recently published in Geophysical Research
Letters.

"Historical records of solar activity indicate that solar radiation
has been increasing since the late 19th century. If a trend,
comparable to the one found in this study, persisted throughout the
20th century, it would have provided a significant component of the
global warming the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports
to have occurred over the past 100 years," he said

And indeed, the IPCC considered this to acount for about 20-25% of
warming.

Without an environment, 'jobs' are a chimera.

Do you have one?

Yes, as it goes.

What do you feed it?

The same as its partner.

Fran

On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 13:35:25 -0700 (PDT), Fran <Fran.B...@gmail.com
mumbled:





On Mar 27, 5:29 am, Yer Pal Al <Caddyshack...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mar 26, 12:53 am, Fran <Fran.B...@gmail.com> wrote:

snip

That's true.

You've taken a position against exploration for new oil. I was asking
you how you get to work that is petroleum free.

That's wrong on at least two counts.

1. I haven't 'taken a position against exploration for new oil'. I've
taken a position against messing with the Arctic wilderness.

Why? If you are concerned about the environment why not drill in the
middle of nowhere? Other alternatives in the US include offshore a few
kilometers from urban centers and fisheries.

Actually, it would be better to drill in places that are already
seriously trashed by drilling, or places where the damage could be
minimised.

New drilling pad technology drastically minimizes impacts.

http://www.api.org/aboutoilgas/sectors/explore/newtechnology.cfm

Since the Prudhoe Bay field on the North Slope of Alaska was developed
in the mid-1970s, technological innovations have dramatically changed
the scope of operations. According to the U.S. Department of Energy,
if Prudhoe Bay was developed with today's technology, its footprint
would be 64% smaller, the drilling impact area would be 74% smaller,
roads would cover 58% less surface area, and operating facilities
would take 50% less space.

Ice Roads and Ice Drilling Pads
Directional/Horizontal Drilling
Coiled Tubing Drilling
3-D Seismic Technology
Grind-and-Inject Technology

2. Even if I had taken a position against exploration for new oil,
there'd be no logical contradiction between that position and fuelling
my car with fossil oil derived products.

Most people, and I assume this of you, resent petroleum because of
what it does to the environment. These people try to restrict it to
force a demand for alternative, environmentally friendly fuel sources.
It's incongruous and hypocritical to take this stance and then consume
fossil fuels which increase the demand for fossil fuels.

I disagree. A person who resents the damage caused by fossil-based
petroleum products but recognises that they are, for the moment,
integral to contemporary life can argue, as I do, that resort to them
should be moderated, that per capita usage, and ultimately, absolute
usage should steadily decline, and that policies making this likely
should be adopted. Since some important activities may for a time,
demand combustion of such fuels, it makes sense to put a premium price
on combusting the fuels, precisely to create a space for developing
alternatives. If the activities really are important, and there really
is no good alternative, then people will pay the charge, and if
not ...

It's not merely about what we do as individuals that counts, but what
we humans do in large numbers. My individual impact is trivial, but
add up all the impacts of all the individuals and you get a very large
number.

The greatest threat to the planet is not energy production, it's
energy consumption and THAT is directly a function of OVERPOPULATION.

It might be my view that one
should use crude oil while it's available.

It's available in the ANWR and offshore. It's going to available long
past our grandchildren's lifetimes.

Doubtful. I've seen numbers from both sides of the spectrum.

Irrelevant, it has no military cost attached.

If it had been my view that everyone everywhere should stop combusting
fossil fuels immediately, then you'd be entitled to wonder how I was
going to fuel my car.

If you want to decrease fossil fuel demand I'm wondering what is your
role is in decreasing demand?

I limit the days on which I drive to work. I car pool. I consolidate
trips. I drive a comparatively fuel efficient car. I avoid short trips
where car usage isn't necessary, either walking or rding a bicycle.

Bully, have you also been careful not to replicate?

Of course, my view is that policies that foster
sharp downward pressure on demand for fossil fuels should be
instituted. This would almost certainly mean that the cost to the end
user per unit of fossil fuel energy would rise, and thus encourage
more careful consideration befoe using energy, and also make renewable
or non-fossil based energy sources more economically viable.

However, fossil fuels power the industry that will make alternative
fuels available. You can't expect industry to flourish if you cut its
legs out from under it. Industry flourishes when the prices of natural
resources are low. If the free market doesn't demand alternative fuels
the government can encourage their creation with tax incentives.

Hence my sarcastic comment: "Let's vandalise the arctic
wilderness to people can drive their guzzling outsized cars more
cheaply."

I get it, sarcasm is a second language to me.

An ox cart is one of
the few options and the riders you pick up to share the ride wouldn't
be "carpoolers" they'd be "cartpoolers."

If you think there are few options, you're egregiously underinformed.
Mass transit, especially powered by electricity is an excellent
option.

Don't be a dill. Australia, right? 80% of your electricity comes from
coal:http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf64.html

That's true, and I'm very much against coal-fired power, but ...

if everything runs on electricity, then the speed at which emissions
are reduced will be a function of the speed with which low footprint
generation is rolled out. Solar, wind, wave, tidal, geothermal,
biomass would all be good options. So would nuclear, but most people
in Australia don't favour it.

Typical pommie luddites...

I'll ask you again. Are you driving an ox cart or do you realize that
fossil fuels are necessary?

As I implied above, of course, for the moment, fossil fuels are
necessary ...

So too are PHEVs and PEVs.

Same thing. Fossil fuel plus electricty generated by fossil fuel.

See above

So is biodiesel from algae and
butanol from sugar cane or switchgrass.

Biofuel created using energy from fossil fuel.

Not in the case of algae biodiesel, or butanol, or in the case of
prairie grasses or waste biomass etc

Nuclear, wind, hydro and
geothermal are also possibilities. Effectively, 100% of Iceland's
stationary power comes from renewables.

How likely is that any worthwhile percentage of the world's population
will move to geothermic regions to take advantage of free energy?

Quite likely, because ground heat can supply much of the demand for
power at local level ...

snip

One good oil spill would be bigger than that.

Not on land. Familiarity with the ANWR would suggest the obvious that
the oil would be transported by pipeline.

Hmmm that footprint just got massively bigger.

Nope:

On Mar 27, 5:29 am, Yer Pal Al <Caddyshack...@gmail.com> wrote:





On Mar 26, 12:53 am, Fran <Fran.B...@gmail.com> wrote:

snip

That's true.

You've taken a position against exploration for new oil. I was asking
you how you get to work that is petroleum free.

That's wrong on at least two counts.

1. I haven't 'taken a position against exploration for new oil'. I've
taken a position against messing with the Arctic wilderness.

Why? If you are concerned about the environment why not drill in the
middle of nowhere? Other alternatives in the US include offshore a few
kilometers from urban centers and fisheries.

Actually, it would be better to drill in places that are already
seriously trashed by drilling,

or places where the damage could be
minimised.

2. Even if I had taken a position against exploration for new oil,
there'd be no logical contradiction between that position and fuelling
my car with fossil oil derived products.

Most people, and I assume this of you, resent petroleum because of
what it does to the environment. These people try to restrict it to
force a demand for alternative, environmentally friendly fuel sources.
It's incongruous and hypocritical to take this stance and then consume
fossil fuels which increase the demand for fossil fuels.

I disagree. A person who resents the damage caused by fossil-based
petroleum products but recognises that they are, for the moment,
integral to contemporary life can argue, as I do, that resort to them
should be moderated, that per capita usage, and ultimately, absolute
usage should steadily decline, and that policies making this likely
should be adopted.

Since some important activities may for a time,
demand combustion of such fuels, it makes sense to put a premium price
on combusitng the fuels, precisely to create a space for developing
alternatives. If the activities really are important, and there really
is no good alternative, then people will pay the charge, and if
not ...

It's not merely about what we do as individuals that counts, but what
we humans do in large numbers. My individual impact is trivial, but
add up all the impacts of all the individuals and you get a very large
number.

It might be my view that one
should use crude oil while it's available.

It's available in the ANWR and offshore. It's going to available long
past our grandchildren's lifetimes.

Doubtful. I've seen numbers from both sides of the spectrum.

If it had been my view that everyone everywhere should stop combusting
fossil fuels immediately, then you'd be entitled to wonder how I was
going to fuel my car.

If you want to decrease fossil fuel demand I'm wondering what is your
role is in decreasing demand?

I limit the days on which I drive to work. I car pool. I consolidate
trips. I drive a comparatively fuel efficient car. I avoid short trips
where car usage isn't necessary, either walking or rding a bicycle.

Of course, my view is that policies that foster
sharp downward pressure on demand for fossil fuels should be
instituted. This would almost certainly mean that the cost to the end
user per unit of fossil fuel energy would rise, and thus encourage
more careful consideration befoe using energy, and also make renewable
or non-fossil based energy sources  more economically viable.

However, fossil fuels power the industry that will make alternative
fuels available. You can't expect industry to flourish if you cut its
legs out from under it. Industry flourishes when the prices of natural
resources are low. If the free market doesn't demand alternative fuels
the government can encourage their creation with tax incentives.

Hence my sarcastic comment: "Let's vandalise the arctic
wilderness to people can drive their guzzling outsized cars more
cheaply."

I get it, sarcasm is a second language to me.

An ox cart is one of
the few options and the riders you pick up to share the ride wouldn't
be "carpoolers" they'd be "cartpoolers."

If you think there are few options, you're egregiously underinformed.
Mass transit, especially powered by electricity is an excellent
option.

Don't be a dill. Australia, right? 80% of your electricity comes from
coal:http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf64.html

That's true, and I'm very much against coal-fired power, but ...

if everything runs on electricity, then the speed at which emissions
are reduced will be a function of the speed with which low footprint
generation is rolled out. Solar, wind, wave, tidal, geothermal,
biomass would all be good options.

So would nuclear, but most people
in Australia don't favour it.

I'll ask you again. Are you driving an ox cart or do you realize that
fossil fuels are necessary?

As I implied above, of course, for the moment, fossil fuels are
necessary ...

So too are PHEVs and PEVs.

Same thing. Fossil fuel plus electricty generated by fossil fuel.

See above

So is biodiesel from algae and
butanol from sugar cane or switchgrass.

Biofuel created using energy from fossil fuel.

Not in the case of algae biodiesel, or butanol, or in the case of
prairie grasses  or waste biomass etc

Nuclear, wind, hydro and
geothermal are also possibilities. Effectively, 100% of Iceland's
stationary power comes from renewables.

How likely is that any worthwhile percentage of the world's population
will move to geothermic regions to take advantage of free energy?

Quite likely, because ground heat can supply much of the demand for
power at local level ...

One good oil spill would be bigger than that.

Not on land. Familiarity with the ANWR would suggest the obvious that
the oil would be transported by pipeline.

Hmmm that footprint just got massively bigger.

Yer Pal Al wrote:
On Mar 26, 10:54 am, Dan Bloomquist <publi...@lakeweb.com> wrote:
calderh...@yahoo.com wrote:
If the average American citizen knew all the true facts about the
possibility of drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife
Refuge, they would be very angry at Congress and the so-called
"environmental lobby" for opposing it.  See all the pertinent and
laughable facts at:
http://home.att.net/~meditation/ANWR.html-with pictures, maps, and
info links
--- pasted below----
The costly symbolism of ANWR
The United States is in serious energy crisis today, in part because
of the triumph of symbolism over substance in the United States
Congress.  Our political pundits have elevated the 19.6 million acre
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, better known as ANWR ...
What kind of 'fact' is this? ANWR will make little difference in the
bigger picture. Reserves are estimated at 100 days of world demand. If
the 'average American citizen' were to bother to understand our
condition, they would see that this haggling over ANWR is meaningless.

If this were true, why would the oil companies bother? If you haven't
noticed, these guys know how to make money.

If 10 billion barrels, that's a trillion bucks. Your, 'If this were
true', makes no sense.

Including private lands, there are between 15.6 and 42.3 billion
barrels of oil in the 1002 area. At our current consumption that 10%
of our supply for the next 21 to 58 years.

I don't see a cite. Where do you get this number? Consensus is more like
10 billion barrels from what I read.

Oil is fungible. 'Our use' has no meaning.

If the average American citizen knew all the true facts about the
possibility of drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife
Refuge, they would be very angry at Congress and the so-called
"environmental lobby" for opposing it. See all the pertinent and
laughable facts at:

http://home.att.net/~meditation/ANWR.html - with pictures, maps, and
info links

--- pasted below----

The costly symbolism of ANWR

The United States is in serious energy crisis today, in part because
of the triumph of symbolism over substance in the United States
Congress. Our political pundits have elevated the 19.6 million acre
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, better known as ANWR ...

Also see "The biofuel hoax is causing a world food crisis!" at:
http://home.att.net/~meditation/bio-fuel-hoax.html

Christopher Calder
-----
Christopher Calder is an ordinary American citizen who does not own
any energy related stocks and does not work for any energy related
business. He supports the use of oil until synthetic fuels can be
manufactured through energy from truly "green" carbon free nuclear
power.