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.

------------------
"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

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

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

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.

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.

---

------------------
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'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...

------------------
"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.

"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.)

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"

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.

------------------
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 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.

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."

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"