Ooops... Global Warming Data...

[KingCondanomation]

You can't really think like this.

Yes, I think like most regular Americans, I like buying things cheaper so long as the value is there.

You'll call it alarmist, so I'll use the word "if." IF it was conclusive that fossil fuels disrupted our globe to such a point as to endanger our food supply, would you then believe that action to get the populace as a whole off of them and onto alternative sources would be necessary?
Or would you still leave it just up to the individual?

We both know that the world would never suddenly enter such a state, I mean that is too much - a reification really.
You have to keep in mind that fossil fuels are chiefly used for transport right?
Given that demand is what fuels either food or oil production, would people choose to starve themselves to keep on buying fuel for their vehicles?
Of course not, so the scenario is not logical.

Ironically enough the only fuel that holds any water in being a little relevant to your hypothetical scenario are biofuels which would obviously compete more with the food supply and a big part of those who argue against fossil fuels are advocating.

Let go of your need to decide what is best for people, let them make their own choices in life.

 

[KingCondanomation]

the bolded portion is simply idiotic. The burning of fossil fuels is bad for our health and for the environment. There is no question on that point.

I never argued it wasn't bad or a negative, I just said it was neglible, and by that I mean neglible to most of us.
It is neglible for most. If you don't believe me ask anyone in a rural area or small town what their top 10 concerns are locally, virtually no one will list smog as a problem. In the suburbs hardly anyone and only in certain cities is it not neglible enough of a problem to be recognized as one or at least one in which people would want to start choosing higher cost greener choices over fossil fuels for that specific reason.

 

[Onceler]

Yes, I think like most regular Americans, I like buying things cheaper so long as the value is there.


We both know that the world would never suddenly enter such a state, I mean that is too much - a reification really.
You have to keep in mind that fossil fuels are chiefly used for transport right?
Given that demand is what fuels either food or oil production, would people choose to starve themselves to keep on buying fuel for their vehicles?
Of course not, so the scenario is not logical.

Ironically enough the only fuel that holds any water in being a little relevant to your hypothetical scenario are biofuels which would obviously compete more with the food supply and a big part of those who argue against fossil fuels are advocating.

Let go of your need to decide what is best for people, let them make their own choices in life.

You have a very tiny brain.

 

[KingCondanomation]

LOL, You dumbass.

Fossil fuels make at least 75% of our electricity. Coal, oil, natural gas are all fossil fuels.
"Ethanol" tha you can run in your car is still 85% fossil fuel, and Bio willie about 75% I think fossil fuel.

The POINT is that you are getting off them by using the means I listed, completely in some cases and others gradually.
I'd like to see some numbers to back up your 75% electricity claim, with hydroelectric and nuclear I seriously doubt it's that high.

 

[Cancel3]

No, biofuels are not the only route.

In fact, I think they are a more disastorous route.


Almost everything we do with fossil fuel can be done with electricity. And the electricity can be generated by solar panels, wind turbines, nuclear power plants and hyro-electric facilities.

The only one of those that pollutes would be the nuclear plants, and while they produce pollution that is VERY dangerous, they produce relatively small amounts. (compared to coal plants ect)


The problem is that we are unwilling to live thru ANY inconvenience while we switch.

Most americans expect to continue doing as they have done, and paying low prices for gas until one day they wake up and its all changed over by government magic.

 

[KingCondanomation]

You have a very tiny brain.

And you are incapable of arguing with or against logic on subjects you are emotional on. So resort to name calling.

 

[Onceler]

And you are incapable of arguing with or against logic on subjects you are emotional on. So resort to name calling.

It's not namecalling. I didn't say you ARE a tiny brain. I said you HAVE a tiny brain.

And it's not worth arguing with such simplistic arguments. By the time food starts disappearing from the shelves, it's much too late to change things without a major, major disruption in our lifestyle & the way we do things. You should read the link I posted; fossil fuel use is ALREADY proving to be a major disruption to the food supply, and it's likely to only get worse. "Oh, people will just change their choices when it affects them individually" is not an option.

Your lack of foresight or ability to plan for the future is astounding; I've never seen anything like it.

 

[KingCondanomation]

No, biofuels are not the only route.
In fact, I think they are a more disastorous route.

Meh, works ok for Brazil, it depends on what you can grow, yeah you're mostly right though, we all saw what happened to food prices.

Almost everything we do with fossil fuel can be done with electricity. And the electricity can be generated by solar panels, wind turbines, nuclear power plants and hyro-electric facilities.

Nuclear and hydro you are right (so long as hydro is available), wind and solar produce electricity and a much higher cost (9 times the rate in one study I read) while also being less reliable as they rely on wind and sun.

The only one of those that pollutes would be the nuclear plants, and while they produce pollution that is VERY dangerous, they produce relatively small amounts. (compared to coal plants ect)

Correct.

The problem is that we are unwilling to live thru ANY inconvenience while we switch.

No the problem is nuclear and hydroelectric do not fuel cars and nor do they always provide a cheaper option for home/office use.

Most americans expect to continue doing as they have done, and paying low prices for gas until one day they wake up and its all changed over by government magic.

Not really, in the 1920's wood supply was still getting lower (prices higher), and people were doing better, they gradually switched over to fossil fuels for heating without any sudden running out of wood or government intervention.

I trust people to do the same once again whenever they are influenced to.

 

[KingCondanomation]

It's not namecalling. I didn't say you ARE a tiny brain. I said you HAVE a tiny brain.

Yeah my bad then, the one time you use logic it's just pedantic.

And it's not worth arguing with such simplistic arguments. By the time food starts disappearing from the shelves, it's much too late to change things without a major, major disruption in our lifestyle & the way we do things. You should read the link I posted; fossil fuel use is ALREADY proving to be a major disruption to the food supply, and it's likely to only get worse. "Oh, people will just change their choices when it affects them individually" is not an option.

Ok I'll play. Saudi Arabia exports fossil fuel oil and no foods, if they decrease or increase their production, how is the food or any other industry like clothing effected?

Food doesn't disappear from shelves, it goes up in price, then people buy less fossil fuels, which again is not relevant anyway as the 2 don't compete with each other in terms of interrupting the others supply.

Your lack of foresight or ability to plan for the future is astounding; I've never seen anything like it.

And your faith in central planning for the future is frightening.
I suggest you read up on efforts of the state in readying the populace with central planning in food and fuel production. Specifically you can look at Ukraine in the 1930's or China in the 60's.

Individuals are always better than government at deciding what is right for them because they decide based on the variables that apply to them and not some one size fits all declarations.

 

[Cancel3]

Meh, works ok for Brazil, it depends on what you can grow, yeah you're mostly right though, we all saw what happened to food prices.


Nuclear and hydro you are right (so long as hydro is available), wind and solar produce electricity and a much higher cost (9 times the rate in one study I read) while also being less reliable as they rely on wind and sun.


Correct.


No the problem is nuclear and hydroelectric do not fuel cars and nor do they always provide a cheaper option for home/office use.


Not really, in the 1920's wood supply was still getting lower (prices higher), and people were doing better, they gradually switched over to fossil fuels for heating without any sudden running out of wood or government intervention.

I trust people to do the same once again whenever they are influenced to.

The cost per kilowatt generated is higher for wind and solar, there is no denying that. But both of those fields are in their infancy.

My first computer was cooking along at 12mhz and had only a 5.5" floppy drive. The first harddrive I had was 60mb, and my friends thought I had lost my mind, because I would never use all that space.

That was less than 20 years ago.



If the demand is there the research and development will bring us the improvements.

In some areas the wind and solar exposure are not dependable. In some areas they are. Thats what the transmission lines are for.

 

[uscitizen]

The POINT is that you are getting off them by using the means I listed, completely in some cases and others gradually.
I'd like to see some numbers to back up your 75% electricity claim, with hydroelectric and nuclear I seriously doubt it's that high.

yeah well I was a bit off on my total fossil fuel type but hydro power is only 7.1%

look here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Sources_of_electricity_in_the_USA_2006.png

And most of that dates back to the liberal new deal era.
We have expanded on some of those hydro generating facilities, but not built any major new ones I am aware of.

 

[Cancel3]

"Ok I'll play. Saudi Arabia exports fossil fuel oil and no foods, if they decrease or increase their production, how is the food or any other industry like clothing effected?"

The food you see in the stores is transported there. That uses fuel, so that takes the price up.

The food you see in the store was planted and harvested with tractors that use fuel, that takes the price higher.




An increase in the cost of fuel creates an increase in virtually everything else.

Your computer takes roughly 10 times its weight in fossil fuels to build.

 

[KingCondanomation]

"Ok I'll play. Saudi Arabia exports fossil fuel oil and no foods, if they decrease or increase their production, how is the food or any other industry like clothing effected?"

The food you see in the stores is transported there. That uses fuel, so that takes the price up.

The food you see in the store was planted and harvested with tractors that use fuel, that takes the price higher.




An increase in the cost of fuel creates an increase in virtually everything else.

Your computer takes roughly 10 times its weight in fossil fuels to build.

That is completely correct, but remember Onceler was arguing that the food would "dissapear" from shelves and the supply would be disrupted, the reality is as you state, there would be no supply disruptions but the price would be increased.

 

[Cancel3]

That is completely correct, but remember Onceler was arguing that the food would "dissapear" from shelves and the supply would be disrupted, the reality is as you state, there would be no supply disruptions but the price would be increased.

There was less food on the shelves this summer when the gas prices spiked. Independent truckers cannot move goods without losing money at the current prices, so they are forced to park until shipping prices go up.

And even if its a price increase, with the unemployment going higher and more and more people having trouble, grocery increases tear bigger holes in budgets.

 

[KingCondanomation]

The cost per kilowatt generated is higher for wind and solar, there is no denying that. But both of those fields are in their infancy.

My first computer was cooking along at 12mhz and had only a 5.5" floppy drive. The first harddrive I had was 60mb, and my friends thought I had lost my mind, because I would never use all that space.

That was less than 20 years ago.



If the demand is there the research and development will bring us the improvements.

One could argue the same over other sources of power too, yet there are limits.
If we are all serious about innovations from capitalism being what we can rest our belief in for the future then the best road for that is the free market and not government which only constricts and regulates.

 

[Bonestorm]

There was less food on the shelves this summer when the gas prices spiked. Independent truckers cannot move goods without losing money at the current prices, so they are forced to park until shipping prices go up.

And even if its a price increase, with the unemployment going higher and more and more people having trouble, grocery increases tear bigger holes in budgets.

Forget about distribution, the entire food production system is way way too highly dependent on fossil fuels to begin with. At its base, food is about turning non-consumable energy into consumable energy. Our food production system requires a shit load of fossil fuel energy to produce consumable energy rather than relying on solar energy like the good old days.

 

[KingCondanomation]

There was less food on the shelves this summer when the gas prices spiked. Independent truckers cannot move goods without losing money at the current prices, so they are forced to park until shipping prices go up.

I never saw any supply disruption, remember that those same goods are food and for a lot of food (produce, dairy, meats, frozen) they stand to lose far more in decline in value from waiting around and selling food with shorter expiry dates than they would from fuel cost increases.

And even if its a price increase, with the unemployment going higher and more and more people having trouble, grocery increases tear bigger holes in budgets.

Bingo and since not many are going to starve themselves, they will instead reduce their driving, which we did see.

 

[Cancel3]

One could argue the same over other sources of power too, yet there are limits.
If we are all serious about innovations from capitalism being what we can rest our belief in for the future then the best road for that is the free market and not government which only constricts and regulates.

The problem with relying on a capitalistic market is that fossil fuels provide a much greater return on energy for the money. So the majority of the capitalists (especially the american version) will stay with fossil fuel until the price becomes too high. At that point its too late to do a shift over and it becomes a huge crisis.

As long as american capitalists are living and dying by the quarterly statements, they will not push for fuel change in any meaningful way.

Government tax breaks, incentives and dollars will be needed to make the change.

 

[KingCondanomation]

Forget about distribution, the entire food production system is way way too highly dependent on fossil fuels to begin with. At its base, food is about turning non-consumable energy into consumable energy. Our food production system requires a shit load of fossil fuel energy to produce consumable energy rather than relying on solar energy like the good old days.

Well in parts of Africa they use no fossil fuel to produce their food and rely solely on solar energy.
Of course what you call the "good old days" they often call famine.

Fossil fuels are fine for helping production of food, people use them because they are the cheapest option in comparison to what they yield in food.

Let's not move away from what has worked for so long on it's own with the producers and consumers deciding what has lead to better value for their money on food compared to the state.

"If we were directed from Washington when to sow and when to reap, we would soon want for bread." – Thomas Jefferson

 

[Cancel3]

I never saw any supply disruption, remember that those same goods are food and for a lot of food (produce, dairy, meats, frozen) they stand to lose far more in decline in value from waiting around and selling food with shorter expiry dates than they would from fuel cost increases.


Bingo and since not many are going to starve themselves, they will instead reduce their driving, which we did see.

The problem is, when the price of the diesel makes the espenses greater than what the trucker is paid to haul the goods, it doesn't matter whether the product will spoil.

Also, as far as meat goes, the farmers stop slaughtering the cows, pigs & chickens.



And many, many people are driving less already. But when the price of fuel spikes, its not the sunday drive that has to be cut out. People end up choosing between eating or buying gas for their cars. People have trouble getting to work.