Skip navigation.

to each his own

...but no bitching :P

AMEN, Brother!

Saturday, 21. June 2008, 21:05:49

what happens when the people we send to congress don't think things through.




we need more of these people :D

not much to post aboutHello From Harrisonburg, Virginia!

Comments

theoddbod 22. June 2008, 10:19

The House certainly seems to have its head screwed on slightly more than the Senate does.

Red 22. June 2008, 23:14

OOoooooooooooooooookay, then.

Coal and natural are NOT abundant. And are running out. And pollute even more. And are killing polar ebars in Alasksa. (Lol, slightly.)

Anonymous 23. June 2008, 00:12

mark writes:

hey, at least they're from OUR economy and not china's

Dani 25. June 2008, 23:48

Actually, Shigen, you're both correct and incorrect in that statement. Coal is certainly not abundant, and pollutes more. Natural gas, on the other hand, is fairly abundant, and causes little pollution. However, transportation of it from its source to where it needs to be used can be costly and very difficult. And, while it does sound pretty funny, you're right about Alaska. Pipelines that run through Alaska sometimes explode, damaging the wildlife and people in the areas.

....why did I take AP envi sci (aka AP liberal P:) lmao

Mark 26. June 2008, 03:09

it's common knowledge that coal and other fossil fuels take millions of years to form. so if we take away something that isn't being replaced at the rate we're taking it at, of course supplies are running out. but not really anytime in the near future. and dani, don't pipelines have a better safety record than oil ships? and how can oil spontaneously combust? P:

Dani 27. June 2008, 00:10

Mark, if you were paying attention, you'll notice that I never said natural gas is /bad/. I said it is abundant and not running out but difficult to transport. It's not so much a matter of safety in the case of transporting natural gas, it's the fact of how exceedingly difficult it can be to run pipelines clear across the country without any leaks or malfunctions.

Red 16. July 2008, 16:09

DANI!

I agree 100%!!!

We need to CONSERVe our resources!!!

I CANNPT BELIEVE and am UTTERLY DISGUSTED that we are going drilling in Alasky!!

It PISSES ME OFF TO THE UTMOST!!!!!!

Coal IS running out, too.

Red 16. July 2008, 16:09

My last comment is not very good becuase I am not yet awake.

DEAL.

P:

Mark 17. July 2008, 02:12

i think everyone agrees that we can't use oil forever. but we're stuck with it for now. unless you guys want to pay $12 or more per gallon, we have to have our own oil reserves, not depend on countries who have different....values....than ourselves (saudi arabia, iran, etc) if that means drilling in alaska, it means drilling in alaska. alaska is almost the size of the lower 48. it's like saying that washington state shouldn't be drilled in because the 13-banded armadillo is endangered in texas.

Red 18. July 2008, 14:06

We need to protect our resources.

If everyone just paid to have their cars updated to the newer stuffs with half the proceeds going to the government, eith stuff like corn, hydrogen, and ethanol, then not ONLY would we not need this excess of oil, but our government would also not be in such debt!

Mark 18. July 2008, 19:23

what the heck are you talking about?

hydrogen is probably the way to go. the only problem is, there are no cars aside from honda's limited release in florida and a few others. and there are no fueling stations anywhere.

and 7% of each sale already goes to the state government. do you want to tack on another 50% so our government can "get out of debt". your logic is...illogical P:

the only way to get out of debt is to cut spending, or raise income....which means higher taxes.

we ave th resources, let's make use of them. they're going to be used some day. use them now instead of relying on our enemies.

ethanol is used from corn. the only problem is that corn used o create ethanol could go into the already deprived food inventory n this counrty, not feeding the oil addiction.

theoddbod 18. July 2008, 22:15

It doesn't have to come from corn, but that's currently where all the subsidies are going Homer: Doh!.

Not sure about hydrogen, especially after reading this last year :

http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-hydrogen-hoax

Mark 19. July 2008, 02:09

go electric all you want, but a lot of the power comes from coal-fired plants, which are as bad, if not worse, than gas cars.

Red 19. July 2008, 03:15

Yeh.

I want out with coal.

Okay!

PLEASE allow me to explain better. :lol:

Waht I MEANT was that if we switched over and even worked on the gas stations to chage over then we would win all the way around.

FIRST off-

Better, more efficient, CLEANER fuel.

Next off-

With all of the taxes from the switchover THEN the gov'nt would get outta debt.

The plan can't really hold water, I concede... But I like it in my mind. :lol:

MART!!

Hahahahaa!!!

It would FIGURE, wouldn;t it...

I have never heard THAT one bofore, but if it's true, then we're all screwed!!!

:D;;

Mark 20. July 2008, 03:01

i don't understand how switching from gas to hydrogen would increase revenue. unless taxes will be astronomical on hydrogen...

it's like saying that switching from incandescent bulbs to CFLs will get us out of debt.

Mark 20. July 2008, 03:02

and it takes more energy (diesel, electricity, coal) to produce a gallon of ethanol than it actually yields. :D

Dani 20. July 2008, 06:12

The fact that you are calling those countries our "enemies" just basically embodies all the problems in today's world P:

Mark 20. July 2008, 13:59

well, that's basically what they are.

How to use Quote function:

  1. Select some text
  2. Click on the Quote link

Write a comment

Comment
(BBcode and HTML is turned off for anonymous user comments.)

If you can't read the words, press the small reload icon.


Smilies

December 2009
S M T W T F S
November 2009January 2010
1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31