Flare Sci-Fi Forums: It's offical! W is truly a whore to the oil biz!

This is topic It's offical! W is truly a whore to the oil biz! in forum The Flameboard at Flare Sci-Fi Forums.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://flare.solareclipse.net/ultimatebb.php/topic/11/650.html

Posted by MIB on :

I'm all for cutting a few unneccessary things from the national budget, but when I heard that W was going to cut the development of alterative energy sources budget in half, I couldn't help but have my jaw hang wide open. What the hell is W planning for us to do once the last drop of oil has been sucked from the ground??? Last time I heard, if we keep this up we'll be out by around 2050 or 2060. If the middle east decides to play games with us, America could be out of oil FAR sooner than that. I relize you can't just flip the oil switch to the 'off' position and only use solar energy or wind energy, but we can slowly start moveing things toward useing alternatives before the oil is all gone. If we don't, we will be dealing with the energy crises from the deepest depths of hell once the oil is gone and we don't have anything else to generate energy. I wish W could relize that. I guess all that all those jokes about W being an incompetent ideot has some truth to them after all.

------------------
"We have to get drunk immediately."----Gattaca

Posted by Saltah'na (Member # 33) on :

Watch out, MiB, Omega and Fo2 will string you up for saying that.

Why does it always appear that each right-of-centre politician that I've seen so far pander to interests that are detrimental to the environment?

------------------
"In a completely unrelated news story, I have a date tomorrow night."
- Omega, in trying to explain why pigs are now flying, why Microsoft products are now working perfectly, hell freezing over, and George W Bush giving a flawless speech. 04/06/01, 12:17AM

[This message has been edited by Tahna Los (edited April 10, 2001).]

Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :

That's not all he's cutting...

17% off plan to put 100,000 new police officers on the street

$35 million off plan to train paediatricians and other medical staff in children's hospitals

quote:

Bush's budget also would trim environmental and energy-conservation programs, limit Space Station research, and slash programs to help Russian nuclear scientists find civilian work and boost economic development in poor neighbourhoods. It also would cut programs that support ship building and reward energy conservation at American companies.

from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, kingpin of the evil liberal-dominated American media

------------------
"I can be creative when I have a good idea. That just happens way too rarely."
-Omega, April 6

[This message has been edited by The_Tom (edited April 10, 2001).]

Posted by Saltah'na (Member # 33) on :

Many programs put in place by former president Bill Clinton were targeted, including a 17 per cent cut in his program to put 100,000 new police officers on city streets. Part of the savings would be redirected to beefing up security at the nation's schools.

Interesting. I'll let him go on this one.

Bush's budget also assumes the federal government will raise $1.2 billion a year - beginning in 2004 - from oil leases in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska. Congress currently prohibits any such sales.

We also have:

It also would cut programs that ............ reward energy conservation at American companies.

*shakes head.* I'd like to see Omega or Fo2 or Jeff Raven justify these actions. Lemme guess, the Democrats have done worse, right? and the Republicans are trying to "repair the damage done by Slick Willie and his friends".

[This message has been edited by Tahna Los (edited April 10, 2001).]

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

Actually, I think Rob's on the warpath himself. NASA got a big budget cut.

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

So what's your problem, exactly? We need more domestic oil production. Pollution is secondary to the number of people who freeze to death in the winter because they can't afford heating oil, wouldn't you say?

Not that drilling and giant pipelines damage the environment, anyway. Heck, caribu LIKE that pipeline in Alaska. The herds are growing tremendously.

So again... what's your problem?

------------------
"Omega is right."
-Jeff Karrde, March 18, 2001 08:47 PM

Posted by Diane (Member # 53) on :

Just to clear up a misunderstanding, the extraction of oil is not like water from a well, which can be drained. Only a certain percentage (I forget how much it is now) of crude oil can be extracted from them dino bones, and as better technology is developed, more can be extracted from the place that may have been "depleted" a decade ago.

However, don't take this as a thumbs-up for cutting budget to the alternative-energy research. It's true that global warming MAY be a false alarm, but if you've stood at a busy intersection lately, you'd know that that car fart CAN'T be good for anybody.

------------------
"There comes a time when the mind takes on a higher plane of knowledge but can never prove how it got there. All great discoveries have involved such a leap."
--Albert Einstein, on intuition.

Posted by Diane (Member # 53) on :

"We need more domestic oil production. Pollution is secondary to the number of people who freeze to death in the winter because they can't afford heating oil, wouldn't you say?"

How would domestic oil production cause poor people to suddenly be able to afford oil? And by the way, my heater uses NATURAL GAS.

"Not that drilling and giant pipelines damage the environment, anyway."

What are you talking about?

Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :

I would like to know that, too.

Ah, I'm sure using gigantic drilling machines, clearing entire forests to lay a few thousand kilometers of piping, leaks in the current (and badly maintained) network, or massive oilspils have absolutely no damaging effect on the environment at all.

But of course, W's strings are pulled by the oil companies (just how DO you think he ended up in office, hmm? Who funded his campaigns? Which people have local Texan interests they wish to protect?), so the puppet only follows the course they want him to.

Poor Americans... so worried about their economy and eager to maintain their wasteful lifestyles that the destruction of their own habitat is deemed acceptable (or simply ignored).

------------------
"Cry havoc and let's slip the dogs of Evil"

[This message has been edited by The_Evil_Lord (edited April 10, 2001).]

Posted by Saltah'na (Member # 33) on :

Not that drilling and giant pipelines damage the environment, anyway. Heck, caribu LIKE that pipeline in Alaska. The herds are growing tremendously.

Caribou like pipelines? heh. Please provide proof of your statement that oil rigs, refineries and other such things don't harm the environment.

Bravo TEL for taking the words straight from my mouth. Though I somehow do believe that such damage to the environment is considered "acceptable" to most Americans.

[This message has been edited by Tahna Los (edited April 10, 2001).]

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :

It's still better than being a whore for the Chinese, like Clinton...

There are areas of oil under both Alaska and the Gulf of Mexico that are vaster than all the oil fields under the Persian Gulf.

But Greenpeace and their allies throw a hissy fit anytime anybody talks about tapping them, so we're stuck relying on foreign oil.

Very similar to the way in which the CA energy crisis was helped along now, isn't it? One wonders what the environmentalist movements' backers true motives are...

Speaking about misplaced activism, I heard a rumor today that the hoof-and-mouth epidemic was started when some activists 'freed' an infected animal. I don't know how accurate that is, but I though I'd throw it out there. If it WERE to be proven true, I think it would be endlessly hilarious, given all the unnecesary animal suffering and deaths it caused. It would also be more proof for my theory that causes like these always generate the exact opposite of their stated intent.

------------------
The government that seems the most unwise, oft goodness to the people best supplies. That which is meddling, touching everything, will work but ill, and disappointment bring. - The Tao Te Ching

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :

Actually, months ago I posted an official environmental study that showed that the caribou herds' population increased significantly since the creation of the pipeline, and that they were using it for shelter and such. But you ignored it then, and I'm too tired to go dredge it up now.

Posted by MC Infinity (Member # 531) on :

The current amount of coal will last us for 50 years from now---- is just the kind of bullshit that we should not beleive. This would be true, if we made no technological advances. If we were to use technology from the 1930s we'd have been out of oil twenty years ago, but instead we have far better methods for extracting now. And yes the current oil prices are a lot of doo-doo (i like using childish words, they're funny) and we do need to keep up research on alternative fuels, especially the nitrogen fuel option because we need them, but that doesn't mean we should be shitting our pants that we won't be able to drive anything.

------------------
"Well if it's gonna be that kind of a party, I'm putting my dick in the mashed potatoes!"

-Nimrod 16/4/2001

Posted by Saltah'na (Member # 33) on :

Just because the caribou think the pipeline is beneficial to them does not mean that it is beneficial to all animals in the said environment.

That's what all the big industries want you to think. Big Corporations for many years have been known to cause damage in some form to the environment. While some companies have done changes that help the environment (forestry is one example) there are others which totally disregard the importance of said ecosystems.

Oil companies fall into the latter, and the latter is the majority. So while your statement may be true, it is only because of sheer luck that the caribou just happen to like the pipeline for the shelter. The next pipeline may not enjoy such a relationship.

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :

Your statement applies to all human beings and all human activity. The existence of cities as entities does far more damage to the ecosystem than oil companies do. Abolish them. Relocate everybody evenly across the countryside.

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

quote:
It's still better than being a whore for the Chinese, like Clinton...

Awwww. Isn't he cute?

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

Ziyal:

Only a certain percentage (I forget how much it is now) of crude oil can be extracted from them dino bones, and as better technology is developed, more can be extracted from the place that may have been "depleted" a decade ago.

I think it's supposedly something like 20%. I heard about some new technology that could extract ALL the oil from sand and dirt. It'll take a while to implement, but once it's in place, the US could run off of existing oil deposits for the next few centuries.

How would domestic oil production cause poor people to suddenly be able to afford oil?

Because there'd be more oil, obviously. We wouldn't be dependant on someone else (OPEC) for the supply, because people over here would want more of the pie, and would reduce prices to get it. IF there was a greater supply.

TEL:

using gigantic drilling machines

Which drill a hole exactly how many miles in diameter?

clearing entire forests to lay a few thousand kilometers of piping

ALASKA. No forests.

leaks in the current (and badly maintained) network, or massive oilspils

Leaks are certainly fixed ASAP. The less oil gets to you, the less you can sell. And don't give me any crap about how a small leak can destroy the entire environment for miles, or something like that. The Exxon Valdez spill cleaned ITSELF up within a decade, and that was on an absolutely massive scale. These minor leaks are nothing. Yeah, they do damage, but it's minor in the extreme, and it's certainly not some ecological armedgeddon.

just how DO you think he ended up in office, hmm?

By winning the election, perhaps?

so the puppet only follows the course they want him to.

So does that mean that since Clinton and Gore took money from the Chinese, they were controlled by the Commies that are now holding our people? Not trying to shift your fictional blame. Just curious how your false premise would apply.

Tahna:

Please provide proof of your statement that oil rigs, refineries and other such things don't harm the environment.

Ah-ah-AH. YOU prove that they DO. You make the assertion. I deny it. I'm not making a claim. I'm denying your assumption. You're asking me to prove a negative statement, which is pretty well impossible. Your turn, not mine. See, you just ASSUME that what you believe is the case. Prove it.

i11:

The current amount of coal will last us for 50 years from now

Funny, I've always read it to be more like 200.

Tahna:

That's what all the big industries want you to think.

Paranoia...

------------------
"Omega is right."
-Jeff Karrde, March 18, 2001 08:47 PM

Posted by Hobbes (Member # 138) on :

I'm all for alternative energy sources. There was even an episode of The Lone Gunmen about a car that ran on water which addressed both the positive and negative effects of such a thing.

As for oil prices, the conspiracy-theorist inside me says that big oil companies are encouraging OPEC to produce less oil so that Shell or Texaco can keep upping their prices and continue making a few extra billion dollars.

My major gripe though are SUVs. Explorer, Expedition, Excursion... just how fucking big of a vehicle do people think they need? But it really gets me when someone gets a Ford Excursion then bitches about gas prices. It's a well-known fact that SUVs get shitty milage, like 15-20 miles to a gallon. My car, a '91 Nissan NX2000 gets over 20 miles/gallon, 200 miles a full tank (about 10-12 gallons). For an older car I consider that good, but I may be misinformed...

I don't keep up with politics though. It seems that junior is cutting everything, but for what? Where would the extra money go?

------------------
"Let me ask you something, Mr. Garibaldi, a purely philosophical question. On a scale of 1 to 10, how stupid do you think I am anyway?" - Bester
Federation Starship Datalink: Brand new look, fresh minty scent, same great taste!

Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :

*bursts out laughing*

quote:

ALASKA. No forests.

Next thing you'll be telling me that Anchorage is a village of igloos.

One) Alaska has a shitload of forests. Indeed, I believe the wildlife reserve in question has no shortage of wood

Two) Is that supposed to mean that environmental impact is nonexistant on Tundra? I beg to differ.

------------------
"I can be creative when I have a good idea. That just happens way too rarely."
-Omega, April 6

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

quote:
ALASKA. No forests.

Alaska has forests, bright boy.

Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :

I'm gonna go layman on your asses now, ok?
Doesn't the oil have a function in the ground and beneath the sea floor?
If we find every last depot and suck it long and hard, won't that have another effect on the environment? And where does it go?
If it burns or is vaporized, then all the oil that previously was in the ground is in our atmo- and stratosphere.

Reminds me of smog. What does smog consist of?

And what was the arguments in the US' declining/stalling in the global warming emissions treaty? "It probably won't come anyway..."???
Titanic, anyone? Or Pompeii, for that matter.

------------------
Don't kill me, I'm charming!

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

I was kidding. Get a sense of humor.

Or maybe I needed to get one, seeing as it doesn't seem all that funny now...

Next thing you'll be telling me that Anchorage is a village of igloos.

It's not?

Ah, the smiley. That helps.

Actually, Clinton did that. But for the Russians.

------------------
"Omega is right."
-Jeff Karrde, March 18, 2001 08:47 PM

Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :

quote:
Which drill a hole exactly how many miles in diameter?

Depends on how deep you have to drill. In any case, I don't see how turning the country into Swiss cheese is going to aid nature.

quote:
ALASKA. No forests.

Think again.

quote:
Leaks are certainly fixed ASAP. The less oil gets to you, the less you can sell. And don't give me any crap about how a small leak can destroy the entire environment for miles, or something like that. The Exxon Valdez spill cleaned ITSELF up within a decade, and that was on an absolutely massive scale. These minor leaks are nothing. Yeah, they do damage, but it's minor in the extreme, and it's certainly not some ecological armedgeddon.

Ah, so it doesn't matter if or how many oil spills occur, since it'll all clean itself up, eh? No matter how long it takes (what's ten years when compared to how long the oilfield will last)? How convenient, then it isn't even necessary spend any of those precious oil-$$$ to remove it. Let nature take care of your garbage. Great mentality.

quote:
By winning the election, perhaps?

I'd be happy to discuss those so-called "fair and unmanipulated" elections with you... but not in this thread, since that isn't the subject here.

quote:
So does that mean that since Clinton and Gore took money from the Chinese, they were controlled by the Commies that are now holding our people? Not trying to shift your fictional blame. Just curious how your false premise would apply.

There is, I suppose, nothing wrong with buying your way to the White House, backed by 1) multinationals which are all too eager to maintain their profitable position, and 2) a daddy who's been there before. (Political) knowledge and insight are apparently less important in a country where a strong enough lobby can get you anything, anywhere, anytime. But again, this is off-topic material.

------------------
"Cry havoc and let's slip the dogs of Evil"

Posted by Fabrux (Member # 71) on :

Heating oil? Doesn't anyone use woodstoves anymore? Or is that just a Canadian thing? And what about electric heat?

------------------
"The truth is usually just an excuse for lack of imagination."
- Garak, "Improbable Cause"

Posted by Vacuum robot lady from Spaceballs (Member # 239) on :

Canadians. You backwater hicks.

I am a whore also. Not for mansex though. For what condolence it may provide, I will not become President.

------------------
"Instructed by history and reflection, Julian was persuaded that, if the diseases of the body may sometimes be cured by salutary violence, neither steel nor fire can eradicate the erroneous opinions of the mind."

-Edward Gibbons, The Decline and Fall of The Roman Empire.

Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :

Quebec, sure, but Saskatchewan has left confederation now, too? Damn, being at university really seals one off from the news, huh? UM, you should have posted when you became a Saskatchewanian citizen.

------------------
"I can be creative when I have a good idea. That just happens way too rarely."
-Omega, April 6

[This message has been edited by The_Tom (edited April 11, 2001).]

Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :

While I'm not exactly happy with Bush's NASA budget, it isn't true that he cut it.

A story about it.

Frankly, I suspect this is because the current administration isn't all that interested in pure science. It's hardly a unique failing, of course. Supercolliding Superconductor, anyone?

------------------
"Excuse me, Mr. Rampaging Killer? Why don't you put down the gun and take a look at this hand-held monkey? Does it not have clever little forepaws? It eats gum and sap!"
--
L. Fitzgerald Sj�berg
****
Read three (three!) chapters of "Dirk Tungsten in...The Disappearing Planet" and something pleasent will happen to you. Possibly involving syrup.

Posted by Saltah'na (Member # 33) on :

Omega: I don't need to mention anything further than the Oil Rig that broke up over the Atlantic, spilling tons of oil into the sea. And if that isn't an environmental disaster, I don't know what is.

However, the rig was a Brazilian one, I believe. Don't think for a minute that American Rigs and refineries will never have that problem.

Hydroelectric dams can also do some environmental damage as they cause flooding to habitats originally inhabited by other wildlife.

Anytime man made structures are erected on wildlife it involves destruction of part or all of that habitat, as well as residual effects such as pollution and the whatnot. In the case of the oil refineries, the residual effect is the oil itself, an accident causing oil to spill out to the water table, spill over to the habitat, and poisoning whatever wildlife there is.

The pipeline is not a vital concern. The rigs and refinery are. An accident over there can cause a huge environmental catastrophe, like the Rig that sank in the Atlantic.

Oh, I forgot. Wildlife is not important to you. Oil is.

[This message has been edited by Tahna Los (edited April 11, 2001).]

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :

Exactly WHAT are the current effects of that oil spill?

Don't know? Media stopped covering it?

Wonder why?

And, erm, wasn't there some speculation that the oil platform had been SABOTAGED? (Once again, activists bringing about the opposite of their stated intent)

And do you notice the constant switching of tactics here?
"The pipeline is bad for the caribou!"
"Well, no, the pipeline is good for the caribou."
"Er... then the pibline is bad for some other species!"
"Really? Well name them, because studies show otherwise."
"Er-um... the REFINERY is bad, YEAH, that's the ticket!"

It's getting tired.
------------------
The government that seems the most unwise, oft goodness to the people best supplies. That which is meddling, touching everything, will work but ill, and disappointment bring. - The Tao Te Ching

[This message has been edited by First of Two (edited April 11, 2001).]

Posted by Saltah'na (Member # 33) on :

It could have been anybody, disgruntled workers, etc. There is also speculation that poor maintenance caused the platform to go boom.

And true environmentalists wouldn't try to sabotage an oil refinery like this. Two wrongs don't make a right. Only those insane anarchists would do such a thing. Without regard for what they are trying to protect.

Posted by Saltah'na (Member # 33) on :

What I was to Omega was: Please provide proof of your statement that oil rigs, refineries and other such things don't harm the environment.

So the Pipeline does not involve that much habitat damage. Fine, it is acceptable. I deliberately decided to leave pipelines out since while Omega had a point about the Caribou using it as shelter. Pure luck there, but doesn't give justification for more pipelines and more refineries.

[This message has been edited by Tahna Los (edited April 11, 2001).]

Posted by The Talented Mr. Gurgeh (Member # 318) on :

Omega: We all know your views on oil etc. but do you defend Bush cutting back funding for research for cleaner renewable technology?

BTW what areas are getting more funding (besides the military?)

------------------
"If you can't beat your computer at chess, try kickboxing."

[This message has been edited by Gurgeh (edited April 11, 2001).]

Posted by MIB on :

Look. Currently, we NEED oil. I'm not denying that. But we also NEED our enviroment. We cannot distroy one for the other. We need to find an equillibrium between the two. Oil spills, the damaging byproducts of burning oil ect. ect. does harm the enviroment. However, whoever said that the enviromant can clean itself up is speaking the truth. It can, but in order for the enviromant to do that, we can't be making things worse by not taking steps to prevent oil spills, by not taking step to make oil burn cleaner and so on.

A few months ago I've heard that a simple scrubber for your car would add approx $20-30 to the total price of the car. A simple scrubber would keep pollutants from the burning gasoline from generating smog, golbal warming, ect. ect. It only costs $20-30 more per car for something as simple as that.

------------------
"We have to get drunk immediately."----Gattaca

Posted by Daniel (Member # 453) on :

Bravo! That was very good, MIB. And if that new hybrid technology were continually improved and utilized across the board, then we'd really have something. Okay, when did the Exxon Valdez clean itself up? Did I miss something? And also, compared to some other spills, that could be looked on as minor. There was another, (I don't remember where), that was bigger than the Valdez accident by like half.

Anyone heard of these thing we like to call "nuclear reactors"? Everyone thinks they're hazardous and dangerous and scary, but if they are properly maintained and regulated, there's not really any problem. Oh, also solar power plants, wind power plants, etc. The faster we get rid of oil the better. It will force us to look at other alternatives.

Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :

On the NASA budget:

What is with this guy? He really has issues with us finding out for sure how badly oil use hurts the environment, huh?

quote:

The White House plan would remove $207 million from the overall budget of NASA's Earth Science program, which uses satellites to study the effects of natural and human-induced changes on the global environment.

(from Simon's link)

------------------
"I can be creative when I have a good idea. That just happens way too rarely."
-Omega, April 6

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

Can you blame him? If YOU were fucking the enviornment over, wouldn't you rather live in bliss then admit to that?

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :

Given that further detailed study (as opposed to what's been done so far) is MORE likely to prove that humanity's effect on global climate is minimal, and that ocean levels and temperatures will continue to rise even if we could cut greenhouse gases to ZERO, I'm a bit perplexed at this myself.

Posted by Fabrux (Member # 71) on :

Re: Nuclear reactors

I'm actually a bit worried about this one. You see, there's a nuclear power plant at Point Lepreau, which is about 1 hr away from where I live. Now, Point Lepreau is not very well maintained. There are many, many problems down there, such as leaking hard water. They continually have to shut down the plant to fix things. If they had maintained the reactor properly, there wouldn't be so many problems with it. I'm just worried about it going into meltdown if things get worse...

------------------
"The truth is usually just an excuse for lack of imagination."
- Garak, "Improbable Cause"

Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :

Like I said, NASA's pure science endeavors pretty much took an across the board cut.

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :

From the official NASA homepage:

"The budget provides a two percent increase in funding for NASA and includes strong support for the Space Launch Initiative and for improving aviation safety, space science programs, Earth sciences and for space shuttle safety improvements."

So, um, how is an increase a cut?

Now, I know that when government folk talk about cutting spending, they're usually really talking about cutting the spending INCREASES that they have planned, so is this the same thing? NASA planned on getting a bigger increase and didn't get it?

(Kind of like this whole 'he's raising the acceptable arsenic in your water' lie, when all Bush has done is delay Clinton's last-week-of-office executive order slash.)

Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :

The fact that our influence on global warming may or may not be minimal (carbondioxyde is but one of many greenhouse gasses, methane for instance is another great contributer) does not mean we should just continue to dump our pollutants into the atmosphere "simply because" it apparently does not have any negative effects. Why must the environment always be second to the economy? Why is it always the position of the more right-winged parties that environmentalists need to provide proof for their claims? Are we all lacking some common sense here? How the HELL can you believe for even a split second that oil spills, toxic and nucleair waste, exhaust gasses and God knows what else aren't absolutely destructive?!

Nucleair power: yes, *very* safe (anyone heard of Tsjernobyle? Yes, you'll probably say it was a Russian reactor, poorly maintained and overworked - in a "first rate" Western powerplant this (w/c)ould *of course* never happen. Ours are superior. *cough* Japan incident *cough*), and certainly cleaner than coal/gas powered stations. Yet there is the issue of nucleair waste materials that need to be transported, processed, transported again, and finally stored away for the first million years to come. This is neither cheap, nor practical, nor good for our habitat. No amount of concrete/steel can withstand the radiation level within a canister, eventually (long before the stuff itself becomes stable) it will start to leak into the ground. And if you believe the processing itself is safe, maybe you should go and visit the factory in Sellafield, England. Then, after you've seen with your own eyes the abnormal amount of leukemia cases there, you may try to explain how nucleair energy can ever be safe.

Oh, I forgot. You only care for oil and your own personal welfare. How could I have been so shortsighted...

------------------
"Cry havoc and let's slip the dogs of Evil"

[This message has been edited by The_Evil_Lord (edited April 12, 2001).]

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :

Sulfur dioxide is a cooling gas, however. Maybe we can just increase our emissions of THAT!

Isn't it France that gets most of its power from nuclear plants?

I know, lets run down the available energy sources...

Oil, Coal and Gas: efficient, relatively cheap, but dirty. Greens hate it.

Nuclear: Clean, expensive, considered dangerous, toxic waste. Greens hate it.

Solar: Unreliable, so far inefficient, expensive, but very clean. Greens love it, until you mention the acerage you'd need to clear-cut to put up enough collectors to power a city.

Wind: Cheap, clean, but sparse coverage. Can be noisy. Requires vast coverage for useful amounts of energy. Greens love it, until you mention how many windmills would have to be constructed, and the impact of all that construction plus access roads plus the potential damage to flying animals.

Geothermal: Clean, but useful exploitation generally requires digging into seismically active areas. Bad for eruptions. Greens love it, until you point out that our best source for geothermal energy is Yellowstone National Park. care for some massive industrial development there, anyone?

Hydroelectric: fairly cheap, clean, but requires destruction of acres of habitat. Damages fish migratory patterns (same goes for tidal generators.) Greens hate it, usually.

Conclusion: Unfortunately, Fossil fuels are the best source we've got. Unless you've got some mysterious 'better idea,' in which case you'd do yourself a big favor by mentioning it. Otherwise, you're just flapping your gums.

[This message has been edited by First of Two (edited April 12, 2001).]

Posted by Jeff Raven (Member # 20) on :

"Why is it always the position of the more right-winged parties that environmentalists need to provide proof for their claims?"

This is the most inane thing I've ever seen. Everyone should demand proof before an action is taken. If made the claim that you kill babies, would you not demand proof that such a thing happens? Or should we just assume that it is true?

"How the HELL can you believe for even a split second that oil spills, toxic and nuclear waste, exhaust gasses and God knows what else aren't absolutely destructive?!"

How the hell can you believe for even a split second that industry WANTS these things? Oil spills are horribly expensive. Toxic and Nuclear waste cleanup is horribly expensive. WHY would you think that companies what such things? Trust them to prevent these things, and they will. Oil spills, nuclear meltdowns, etc. are very rare, especially when you take into account how many trips tankers take, or just now many nuclear power plants there are. Chernobyl and 3 Mile Island are exceptions, not the rule.

I suppose progress doesn't matter. We should all return back to the forests and live off berries. That's the one thing I don't get about environmentalists. They advocate so much, and yet they ignore the clothes they wear, the cars they drive, the electricity they use.

------------------
"Goverment exists to serve, not to lead. We do not exist by its volition, it exists by ours. Bear that in mind when you insult your neighbors for refusing to bow before it." J. Richmond

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :

I should at this point point out that virtually EVERY human activity creates carbon dioxide, from mowing your lawn to BREATHING.

How can you fairly regulate such a thing? How can you regulate such a thing at ALL, without creating government regulations over the entirety of human existence?

I can see it now...
*hazy dream sequence*

*Knock-Knock*

"Yes?"

"Federal CO2 Enforcement Agency, sir. Our records and detectors show that this household has exceeded its Carbon Dioxide emissions threshold for the year."

"But it's only September!"

"Yes, well, you mowed your lawn three extra times this summer."

"I... I didn't notice!"

"I'm sorry sir. We're required to lower your C02 levels to zero for the remainder of the year."

"But... but BREATHING generates Carbon Dioxide!"

"Yes, sir..." *sound of hammer being cocked* "we KNOW."

Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :

quote:
Sulfur dioxide is a cooling gas, however. Maybe we can just increase our emissions of THAT!
Isn't it France that gets most of its power from nuclear plants?

About 60% of France's power comes from nukes, yes.

quote:
Oil, Coal and Gas: efficient, relatively cheap, but dirty. Greens hate it.

When the fossile fuels really start to run out (they already ARE), it'll stop being cheap. Best to invest in alternative sources, rather than sticking with what we've got until it's too late.

quote:
Nuclear: Clean, expensive, considered dangerous, toxic waste. Greens hate it.

Nucleair fission, yes. Fusion, no. But that, and most of the research into this new source of power, has been put into the fridge. Too expensive.

quote:
Solar: Unreliable, so far inefficient, expensive, but very clean. Greens love it, until you mention the acerage you'd need to clear-cut to put up enough collectors to power a city.

If each building were to be equipped with its own set of solar collectors, the average power consumption of any average city would go down by 30%. Again, expensive. Other possibilty: space-based orbiting solar constructs. But, there's that word again: expensive.

quote:
Wind: Cheap, clean, but sparse coverage. Can be noisy. Requires vast coverage for useful amounts of energy. Greens love it, until you mention how many windmills would have to be constructed, and the impact of all that construction plus access roads plus the potential damage to flying animals.

Very true indeed, I won't deny that. In fact, the efficiency rating of a windmill is only about 0,4%. However, all tiny bits help. Place them in the middle of the Atlantic if necessary, but don't ignore that small contribution.

quote:
Geothermal: Clean, but useful exploitation generally requires digging into seismically active areas. Bad for eruptions. Greens love it, until you point out that our best source for geothermal energy is Yellowstone National Park. Care for some massive industrial development there, anyone?

Also true. Risk is part of the game though, or no-one in their right mind would want to live near/on the San Adreas fault line. Still mostly in its infancy, this technology has a huge potential. But: expensive.
Regarding Yellowstone: quite right. It may be the most suitable location, but there are other places where it could be realised.

quote:
Hydroelectric: fairly cheap, clean, but requires destruction of acres of habitat. Damages fish migratory patterns (same goes for tidal generators.) Greens hate it, usually.

Another good point. But personally I prefer a few less fish and tons of cheap, clean energy to the alternative. May not be a very greenish thing to say, but I am not blind to the disadvantages. Nevertheless, there are enough smaller rivers / lakes that wouldn't be "upset in their balance" by a hydroelectric dam.

quote:
Conclusion: Unfortunately, Fossil fuels are the best source we've got. Unless you've got some mysterious 'better idea,' in which case you'd do yourself a big favor by mentioning it. Otherwise, you're just flapping your gums.

I was mainly flapping my gums because I can't stand certain individuals who display an absolute lack of respect for nature. I sometimes cannot believe how narrow-minded people can be... this planet is our future... destroy it, and we destroy ourselves too.

quote:

This is the most inane thing I've ever seen. Everyone should demand proof before an action is taken. If made the claim that you kill babies, would you not demand proof that such a thing happens? Or should we just
assume that it is true?

Yes, I would want proof of that. However, this is the environment we're talking about. If I claim that oilspills have a damaging effect, I think *anyone* would agree with me even without seeing it for him/herself. Common sense is a quality we should treasure.
Unfortunately, in this society it is common practice to continue with malpractices while direct evidence is pending - then to blatantly ignore that proof afterwards.

quote:
How the hell can you believe for even a split second that industry WANTS these things? Oil spills are horribly expensive. Toxic and Nuclear waste cleanup is horribly expensive. WHY would you think that companies what such things? Trust them to prevent these things, and they will. Oil spills, nuclear meltdowns, etc. are very rare, especially when you take into account how many trips tankers take, or just now many nuclear power plants there are. Chernobyl and 3 Mile Island are exceptions, not the rule.

I'm not saying I believe the industry wants it - I'm saying I'm disgusted by the way these things are handled. As if nothing ever happened. Lessons aren't learned here.

quote:
I suppose progress doesn't matter. We should all return back to the forests and live off berries. That's the one thing I don't get about environmentalists. They advocate so much, and yet they ignore the clothes they wear, the cars they drive, the electricity they use.

Progress does matter, as long as we are willing to pay the price for it.

For the record: the roof of my house is equipped with solarpanels, and these provide most of the electricity I consume. I don't own a car - my bicycle will do, and if I can't get somewhere within a reasonable amount of time, I take a bus/train (I know, not clean either).
I don't presume to be 100% green, my own common sense tells me that isn't possible. But we should at least try to be cautious when interacting with this planet.

------------------
"Cry havoc and let's slip the dogs of Evil"

[This message has been edited by The_Evil_Lord (edited April 12, 2001).]

Posted by Saltah'na (Member # 33) on :

Public transportation is better than a million cars spewing gas at the same time.

While the Americans have it down pat with great initiatives to get Americans out of their cars, Ontario has it the other way around. Some people say that buses CAUSE traffic jams because of their size and constant stopping and our cities would be a heck of a lot better without it.

Bah!!!

Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :

Which reminds me. Simon said that he's never been on a train before. Is this typical of Americans, or does it depend on the area you are in?

------------------
You know, when Comedy Central asked us to do a Thanksgiving episode, the first thought that went through my mind was, "Boy, I'd like to have sex with Jennifer Aniston."
-Trey Parker, co-creator of South Park

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

Not to sound Clintenesque, but that depends on how you define "train."

Aamtrack? No. The DC Metro? Yes. The Boston "T"? Yes.

------------------
Star Trek Gamma Quadrant
Average Rated 8.32 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux (with seven eps posted)
***
"Oh, yes, screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!"
-Omega 11:48am, Jan. 19th, 2001
***
I wouln't say that anyone who has ceased to post every time you rant has "realized that they couldn't win" Omega. It's more like "oh, great he comes Mr. conservative frontal lobotomy boy who only hits one note over and over and over and over..."
-Jay, July 15, 2000

[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited April 12, 2001).]

Posted by Saltah'na (Member # 33) on :

Oh, one other thing, some Conservatives here consider public transportation as a "socialist program".

Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :

I've been on the DC metro as a tourist. I've also been on an Amtrak train, but it was for a Cub Scout "field trip" to the state capital. As just a normal form of daily transportation, I haven't used a train, though.

Y'know, some people seem to think that anything humans do that impacts the environment is evil and wrong. Humans evolved on this planet just like every other species around. We have as much right to be here and help ourselves. It's not like we have to follow some sort of Prime Directive allegory when dealing w/ other animals and plants and such. "Oh, if we build a hydroelectric dam, it'll flood some areas and mess w/ the wildlife." Guess what? Beavers don't think that when they build a dam. They just build it for their own betterment. The world around them adapts. Granted, we can foresee some results of our actions, and we should be careful not to totally fuck things up. But if we, to continue the example, build a dam, so what? There's now a lake instead of a river. Lakes aren't inherently bad. We aren't destroying the environment there; we're just changing it. Just because humans change their environments on a larger scale than other animals, that doesn't mean what they do is "natural" and what we do isn't. Just because we're more highly evolved, it doesn't mean we aren't a part of the nature of this planet anymore.

------------------
"Although, from what I understand, having travelled around the Mid-west quite a bit, apparently Jesus is coming, so I guess the choice now is we should decide whether we should spit or swallow."
-Maynard James Keenan

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

Because we are more highly evolved, it's time we start looking for energy sources that don't neccessarily harm or deplete the Earth.

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :

You're supposed to follow that with a "such as..." or it isn't worth anything.

Posted by Vacuum robot lady from Spaceballs (Member # 239) on :

If this continues about Trains, it will lead to the death zone, my friends.

Steering back to argument:

BUSH IS A MAJOR WHORE!

He was on 100000 Huntley Street the other day Plugging Jesus. That Mini-Series sucked ass. He DIED at the end. What a disappointing ending.

-Edward Gibbons, The Decline and Fall of The Roman Empire.

Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :

I won't tell you what happens in the sequel then. Bible II: The Search for Jesus.

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

Or Bible III: The Voyage to Eden

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

And coming soon,

The Bible IV: The Final Sin

And Bible VI: The Undiscovered Testement

[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited April 12, 2001).]

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

Don't forget "The Bible: The Wrath of God".

"The Bible: Revelations"
"The Bible: First Corinthians"
"The Bible: Ressurection"

------------------
"Omega is right."
-Jeff Karrde, March 18, 2001 08:47 PM

Posted by Daniel (Member # 453) on :

Oh yes, I can see this is quite on topic.

To continue a previous line of thought, yes we did evolve to become one of the "highest" forms of life on Earth, and yes, other species and the environment do adapt. But this is true for anything we do. If we were to decimate the surface of the Earth with nuclear explosives until nothing was left alive, the earth would adapt, and new species of life would arise on the surface. So? Are you saying we should do that too, simply because we can?

Bush should just leave the Alaskan parks alone. In the long run, we'll probably benefit, not suffer.

A new nuclear fusion reactor was recently constructed, by the way, at some university or another which they hope to get a net energy GAIN from. It's spherical instead of toroidal. It is of the standard magnetic-constriction type.

Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :

First, no one said NASA took an overall budget cut, except for JeffK, and I posted a news story correcting him. What I'm saying is that certain programs that were more purely scientific were cut in favor of other programs.

Posted by The Talented Mr. Gurgeh (Member # 318) on :

But you can't get away from the fact that Bush questions the validity of the proof of global warming due to CO2 in the atmosphere, and simultaneously obstructs the acquisition of said proof by cutting funding for programs which monitor the climate.

First of Two: You seem to revel in saying "You're supposed to follow that with a "such as.." or it isn't worth anything", whenever anyone mentions the need for alternative energy sources. I'll tell you what isn't worth anything, YOUR ATTITUDE! Bush also obstructs the discovery of a "such as.." by cutting funding for alternative energy research. How do you defend this?

------------------
"If you can't beat your computer at chess, try kickboxing."

Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :

Interesting discussion, actually taking a decent track, little flaming.....

I'll try and add something meaningful later....

------------------
"One's ethics are determined by what we do when no one is looking" Nugget
Star Trek: Gamma Quadrant
Star Trek: Legacy
Read them, rate them, got money, film them

"...and I remain on the far side of crazy, I remain the mortal enemy of man, no hundred dollar cure will save me..." WoV

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

you can't get away from the fact that Bush questions the validity of the proof of global warming due to CO2 in the atmosphere

A) I presume you're meaning human-generated CO2.

B) No, he doesn't question it. He denys it, flat out. This is because of the fact that has been pointed out here multiple times: human CO2 emissions are NOTHING. If CO2 is damaging to the environment, then the world is screwed by design, because volcanoes put orders of magnitude more CO2 into the atmosphere than we ever could. We do nothing. It's like dropping a match in the middle of a burning forest, and you saying, "Oh, look, we caused a forest fire. Shame on us."

------------------
"Omega is right."
-Jeff Karrde, March 18, 2001 08:47 PM

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

* Forestland in what are now the 50 states covered about 1 billion acres before European settlement, according to U.S. Forest Service historian Douglas MacCleery. Today, there are only 737 million acres of forestland, much of which lacks the ecological diversity of old-growth forest (the American Forestry Association).

* Rush Limbaugh has gotten a lot of mileage out of his claim that volcanoes do more harm to the ozone layer than human-produced chemicals. He featured it in his best-selling book, The Way Things Ought to Be (paperback edition pp. 155-157): "Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines spewed forth more than a thousand times the amount of ozone-depleting chemicals in one eruption than all the fluorocarbons manufactured by wicked, diabolical and insensitive corporations in history.... Mankind can't possibly equal the output of even one eruption from Pinatubo, much less 4 billion years' worth of them, so how can we destroy ozone?"

Limbaugh calls concern about the ozone layer: "balderdash. Poppycock." The only people who worry about it are "environmental wackos," "dunderheaded alarmists and prophets of doom."

Syndicated columnist Thomas Sowell (New York Post, 1/14/94) used the volcano theory as Exhibit A to illustrate Limbaugh's "very well-informed and savvy understanding of the political issues of our time." "While far more pretentious people have been joining the chorus of hysteria over 'global warming,'" Sowell wrote, "Limbaugh pointed out in his [first] book that one of the high readings of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere came right after a volcanic eruption--and volcanoes can put more gases into the atmosphere than the entire human race."

The alert reader will notice that Sowell has mixed up global warming and the ozone layer, two different problems. Still, Sowell concluded of Limbaugh, "It is obvious that the man has done his homework--and done it well."

Ted Koppel must have thought so, too, when he invited Limbaugh to be on Nightline (2/4/92) as an environmental "expert," opposite then-Sen. Al Gore. "If you listen to what Senator Gore said," Limbaugh proclaimed, "it is man-made products which are causing the ozone depletion, yet Mount Pinatubo has put 570 times the amount of chlorine into the atmosphere in one eruption than all of man-made chlorofluorocarbons in one year."

On his radio show, his syndicated TV show, and in two best-selling books, Limbaugh has advanced the idea that volcanoes are the real ozone culprits. This theory, like so many of Limbaugh's claims, has only one problem: Limbaugh doesn't know what he's talking about.

A Mountain of Distortion

"Chlorine from natural sources is soluble, and so it gets rained out of the lower atmosphere," the journal Science explained (6/11/93). "CFCs, in contrast, are insoluble and inert and thus make it to the stratosphere to release their chlorine."
Science also noted that chlorine found in the stratosphere-- where it can eat away at Earth's protective ozone layer--is always found with other byproducts of CFCs, and not with the byproducts of natural chlorine sources.

"Ozone depletion is real, as certain as Neil Armstrong's landing on the moon," Dr. Sherwood Rowland, an atmospheric chemist at the University of California at Irvine, told Extra!. "Natural causes of ozone depletion are not significant."

But Limbaugh didn't rely on atmospheric scientists for his information about the ozone layer--he dismissed them as the "agenda-oriented scientific community." Instead, he turned to Dixy Lee Ray, a former Washington State governor and Atomic Energy Commission chair, who wrote Trashing the Planet--"the most footnoted, documented book I have ever read," Limbaugh says.

If you check Ray's footnotes, you'll find that the main source for the volcano theory is Rogelio Maduro, the associate editor of 21st Century Science & Technology, a magazine published by the Lyndon LaRouche network. Maduro is evidently not part of the "agenda-oriented scientific community"--even though he does have a bachelor's degree in geology.

The volcano theorists can't even keep their stories straight. In his book, Limbaugh claims that the 1991 Pinatubo eruption put 1000 times as much chlorine into the atmosphere as industry has ever produced through CFCs; yet on Nightline, Pinatubo is alleged to have produced 570 times the equivalent of one year's worth of CFCs. Both can't be right. It turns out neither are.

The figure 570 apparently derives from Ray's book--but she said it was Mount Augustine, an Alaskan volcano that erupted in 1976, that put out 570 times as much chlorine as one year's worth of CFCs. Ray's source is a 1980 Science magazine article--but that piece was actually talking about the chlorine produced by a gigantic eruption that occurred 700,000 years ago in California (Science, 6/11/93).

Posted by The Talented Mr. Gurgeh (Member # 318) on :

: human CO2 emissions are NOTHING. If CO2 is damaging to the environment, then the world is screwed by design, because volcanoes put orders of magnitude more CO2 into the atmosphere than we ever could.

Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide have increased nearly 30%, methane concentrations have more than doubled, and nitrous oxide concentrations have risen by about 15%. These increases have enhanced the heat-trapping capability of the earth�s atmosphere.

Why are greenhouse gas concentrations increasing? Scientists generally believe that the combustion of fossil fuels and other human activities are the primary reason for the increased concentration of carbon dioxide. Plant respiration and the decomposition of organic matter release more than 10 times the CO2 released by human activities; but these releases have generally been in balance during the centuries leading up to the industrial revolution with carbon dioxide absorbed by terrestrial vegetation and the oceans.

(above info from the EPA site http://www.epa.gov/globalwarming/climate/index.html )

In other words, the biosphere has adapted to cope with the amount of CO2 produced naturally. The CO2 produced by humans lies outside this natural equilibrium process. I've said this before. I'm saying it again now. I'll say it again the next time you ignore it.

------------------
"If you can't beat your computer at chess, try kickboxing."

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

Omega's just going to say we're "appealing to authority" and ignore it, Gurgeh. I speak from experience ...

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :

News Flash:

I'm reversing at least SOME of my position on this issue.

As it turns out, volcanoes generally release about 110 million metric tons of CO2 into the atmosphere each year.

But, according to World Almanac (one of my favorite fact sources,) human activity generates around 5 BILLION metric tons of CO2 a year.

So I'd have to say that human creation of CO2 IS significant. How MUCH human production of CO2 effects the environment is still somewhat uncertain, as World almanac says that the forests of the US alone can absorb some 200 million metric tons of CO2 a year.

As I said before, though, Volcanoes also release significant amounts of Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) into the air, which is apparently a de-greenhouse gas, which is why massive volcanic eruptions often cause COLDER weather.

And water vapor is a greenhouse gas that both plants and evaporation produce.

And much CO2 is created by tilling soil. You know, agriculture, that stuff we need to do so we can FEED everybody.

See, the problem is that everybody wants to clean the air, but nobody knows how. Nobody wants to give up their heat and a/c and car and all their electric appliances, which is what we use electricity for which is what we burn all the dirty stuff for.

It's A/C that's going to cause a new crunch in CA this summer. You want to clean up the air? Turn off your central air!

BTW, it was on the news today that CA is going to try to find a way AROUND the federal pollution standards, by getting an 'exemption' or some such in order to keep plants online this summer when the power demands get high... So much for leading the nation in environmentalism.

Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :

*appluads Fo2*

Good to see the US right has at least somebody who's open to facts and science and not whatever bullshit Limbaugh spouts. There apparently are conservatives with brains. I was beginning to get worried.

BTW, excellent point you bring up about A/C in California.

Alas, if the US were only a dictatorship, A/C could be banned and everyone would benefit. Unfortunately, that crappy ass democracy thing is burdened by human selfishness and stupidity. All power to the Soviets!

------------------
"I can be creative when I have a good idea. That just happens way too rarely."
-Omega, April 6

Posted by Vacuum robot lady from Spaceballs (Member # 239) on :

Yes. One cannot tire of reading such encouragement. The Party is pleased.

-Edward Gibbons, The Decline and Fall of The Roman Empire.

[This message has been edited by Ultra Magnus (edited April 14, 2001).]

Posted by Daniel (Member # 453) on :

Pardon my natural level of densness, but CO2 is a greenhouse gas and has no correlation whatsoever to the depletion of the ozone layer correct? Okay, just checking.

So, in that case, what we really need to do is install gigantic scrubber mechanisms on top of volcanoes :-). Oh, yes, and on our cars and other such man-made items. But we should do it to the volcanoes first. Because what should we get rid of first, something that occurs naturally and has been for the last 4 billion plus or minus 7 million years, or what is the product of our own artificial constructs and therefore our responsibility to manage? What occurs naturally of course!!

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

Speaking of A/C ... mine is broken. Bastard maintenance people. Looks like I'll be sleeping in my Jeep again when it gets hoter later in the week ...

Posted by Vacuum robot lady from Spaceballs (Member # 239) on :

That most certainly proves that W is a whore to Mr. Big Oil. Case Closed.

-Edward Gibbons, The Decline and Fall of The Roman Empire.

Posted by The Talented Mr. Gurgeh (Member # 318) on :

Fo2: I'm glad to see you keep an open mind, I know it's not easy to alter one's opinion like that.

The whole issue is admittedly rather complicated, with a huge amount of factors playing a part, humans, volcanoes, forests, oceans, and animals. This should highlight the fact that Earth's biosphere is extremely complex and we should not shirk our duty in protecting it and minimizing our effect on the natural balances that exist, and have existed for hundreds of millions of years.

Although the increase in CO2 caused by humans is accepted even by those against the Kyoto agreement ( http://www.sitewave.net/PPROJECT/pproject.htm ), the effect of this rise in CO2 levels is still in dispute.

Many claim that all we are doing is reintroducing CO2 back to the atmosphere and that this is beneficial to the environment in that it has beneficial effects on plant growth rates. Indeed there are data that indicate that increased levels of CO2 do benefit plants. However, such a radical increase, ~30% in 150 years, is bad news in my opinion, considering the timescales over which the natural balances in the environment have developed. Coupled with the deforestation and pollution of the seas (and consequent loss of algae), which affect the biosphere's capacity to absorb CO2, we are looking at severe environmental disruption here.

------------------
"If you can't beat your computer at chess, try kickboxing."

[This message has been edited by Gurgeh (edited April 14, 2001).]