Don Quixote believed in wind power, papa believed in solar. They didnt believe in oil. Good thing. They would have been hated. I dont hate many people (lie) iI just dont understand people that don't understand commerce. Oil is as bad as our consumption of milk, or wood, or kelp (ill point out the mlk reference) We are a nation of consumers, and maybe youre reading this and think it doesnt apply to you....it does. I pay attention and Im wasteful, we all have to do muy bueno. Conservation of our earth should have never become a poltical issue (reason #578 for 3rd part participation) but it has.
Our leaders have failed us time and time again, in every regard. I have friends that could run this country better, why do we settle for so little. Im 34 and have voted in every election that I was able, and I havent been right so far. Didnt vote for BushI, or Clinton, or Dubya. I vote. I believe in the process. We need a voice. A nigga voice or a cracka redneck voice. We need a liberal to shout and a conservative to scream. A gay to yell and a Christian to pray. We al have more in common than we think...and the sooner we do, the worse for THEM. Politics as usual. We cont to elect them so....isnt it our fault?
11 comments:
Seriously, you need to stop drunk posting.
Do not listen to Rhinot-atall...keep on keeping on...Is that Freedom Rock? Well, turn it up!
Puff Daddy, or is it Puffy, P Diddy, or just Diddy now. I will address you when I sober up. Theres an old saying "He who knows the least, usually knows it the loudest" Keep on keepin on.
You can just call me Boss if it's easier for you or blackjack, cause you know you my bitch.
I thought this was one of the better Aurora posts. In some ways. Maybe because I am in my early thirties too and like you, our adulthood has been spent observing a political "inspirational vacuum". You fell apart a bit at the end though, donkey, getting all Eminem on us.
Now of course the *simple* purchase of oil is not the issue, nor is it about the singular out of context purchase of garden gnomes and jellybeans. Point is about the impact of burning these fuels, the greenhouse gasses, the emissions and their toll on the planet.
The Aurora likes to treat subsidized entities as free market entities and it defies economic logic to do so.
Detach from the points of both right and left a minute...
Now if there was an economic dependency on milk, and a potential (high probability/certainty) for milk to become more scarce or of dubious quality, AND this necessitated aggressive policy to safeguard the procurement of milk... it would be comparable. Suppose using milk had observable dramatic detrimental effects on climate and ecosystems. Then suppose there were alternatives to milk that rendered its use unnecessary...or less necessary in the aggregate.
Then we could compare.
There are other industries/behaviors that leave a detrimental footprint. Beef, timber, suburban planning models, concrete that impacts percolation, chemicals, pesticide use...and so on.
But the negative impacts of one behavior do not cancel out the negative impact of another.
And we subsidize both oil and dairy, and I'm opposed to that. BUT-You cannot treat everything as a straight commodity. Economically, the public is screwed FIRST in the form of uncollected revenue/subsidies to the oil industry. Second, because we do not factor in external costs and consequential costs, SOCIETY must absorb the cost of these industries and their impact. See the timber industry must at least in a half assed way replace trees, they must absorb some cost of the loss of commodity to society and future generations. Oil does NOT do this.
Timber replaces trees to continue their business. If they don't re plant, they don't have a future business. It is in thier own best interest to re plant. The oil industry can't "re plant" oil. If they could they would i'm sure. It is not in their best interest to develop alternatives. That being said, i agree this is a problem, and i don't know why people are fighting nuclear energy. It makes no sense to me. It's cheaper, cleaner, and more efficient than anything we have now.
Well it has to do with three things: the difficulty with the transportation of waste and biproducts through congested metropolitan areas, the difficulty with long term disposal and geo-seismic stability, and the potential for material to get into the wrong hands. There are of course many many studies, records, stats, etc. to support the validity of these three problems. It might be easier to just send you the work I have been paid to do rather than parapahrase in the interests of the blogging medium. The last point is a lengthy topic but is based partly on the scenario among countries of the former soviet union. The security risks are not an area I claim particular knowledge of, in fairness .
The storage issue of course is based in the dilemma of locale- what happens for example if containers are perforated during an earthquake? The idea that it is "clean" is only as good as its regulation, licensing, maintainence, and functionality. Also assuming the providers always have the funds to maintain these plants at peak safety. Perhaps when they are owned by China and the UAE...
And the transportation problem. You probably remember that with Shoreham, the challenge of a viable evacuation plan and also the idea of transporting the byproducts through metro NY into Jersey -off to the midwest somewhere for reprocessing.
Then there's the research linking nuclear byproducts with munitions manufacturing... I suppose these are just opinions though, not facts. Just my psycho ramblings. See I strongly suspect that anything that defies your opinion is not a fact, given the way you got all ugly on me on the torture issue. And yet I have just given you research supported reasons to answer your question. Instead of speaking to that, you will tell me I never use facts at all and am an idiot liberal.
There's nowhere to go in such a scenario.
Lily i sincerely apologize for jumping ugly with you.
I guess i'm just used to being on the attack, i mean i deal with jackasses and flys and whatever that warlike thing is all the time, and it's kind of kill or be killed with those knuckleheads and they're not really too sensitive.... well except gadfly.
On nuke technology, i don't really have extensive knowledge on the subject.(don't tell anyone i said that)I have a client that works for the dept. of energy (hydrogen fuel cell development) he thinks nuke is the future. I also have a client that does studies of gas ploom dynamics. that has nothing to do with what we're talking about, but i like to say gas ploom dynamics.
oh and you're a psycho hippie commie too.
Nuke energy would be great..if it didn't have a half-life of a zillion years and we had some way to dispose of it, which we dont.Unless of course you don't mind us putting it in your backyard Rhino..in which case I will be all for it :)
Renewable energy..its the only way to keep from polluting the atmosphere.
well can't we just dump it in the ocean?
Sorry Rhino..if you want to eat any fish, its your backyard or nothing.
Post a Comment