It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

7.9 BILLION TONS of Fossil Fuels Released in 2005

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 30 2006 @ 01:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aramco


B) Don't mind if corporations continue to pollute the atmosphere with toxic fossil fuels and chemicals.


Who cares, people pollute on a daily basis. Where do you think feces goes? To magical disposal land? Out to sea!


Who cares? Are you kidding? Please tell me that such a stupid remark didn't just get typed on the screen on purpose. Please tell me it didn't.


So, your argument is that it doesn't matter because people pollute everyday. WOW!!
What logic!! Sure, it doesn't matter. Let's just continue to pollute our air,lakes,rivers and oceans. Then when the water becomes undrinkable, let's all just sit and cry and wonder why us.
I really shouldn't have wasted my time responding to your post,but I couldn't resist the opportunity to flame such naivete and,at least in my opinion, ignorance.




posted on Nov, 30 2006 @ 02:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
Stellar,the "point" you are trying to get across doesn't make since.


Try spelling 'sense' correctly before you point more fingers!
As far as i can see it makes good enough sense in my knowledge...


First you seem very pro-corporate and then you degrade them for not using alternative sources.


I am 'pro' human development and industrial and technological progress have most certainly improved our lot in life no end. What problems there are with technology and industry we can change had we understood the power we have over this world despite the propaganda of the powerful people and institutions that are attempting to use these neutral forces ( what we do with industry and technology is entirely up to us) against their enemies which sadly includes most of humanity.


Where in the hell do you stand on this issue?


If we can not affect change in government and industrial policy we are still better off than ever before so why give up the positive aspects in some kind of desperate illogical effort to fix something that is not broken? If we do as human society reach the level of comprehension where we understand the threats we face we will soon be able to employ industry and technology to make this planet a paradise beyond anything you could find in the so called 'holy' books.


You puzzle me. You really do.


It's hard to comprehend the motives and actions of others when one's understanding of the world is so lacking still....


It's clear where I stand;I can't say the same for you. You seem to be arguing from both sides of the fence to me.


Industry is on the whole rapidly improving our standards of living but we could do far better if we forced them ( by being aware of their true intent) to act in our interest and not so often against it.


This is an either/or topic:


I wish things were normally that simple.


You either

A) Support the development and use of alternative fuels sources.

or


I do and in fact know that no development is required to change our world in the most wonderful of ways.


B) Don't mind if corporations continue to pollute the atmosphere with toxic fossil fuels and chemicals.


I, and apparently you too, seem to be doing well enough so lets not go overboard and burn down what sustains us in some vapid effort to 'save' ourselves from progress that is not always fair or in the interest of everyone. Why not change the perception of your fellow man so that we may force, by mass action, those corporate heads who do not want to work in our interest to start doing so? We are the true and massive majority and only our general ignorance of their true aims protects them from our wrath.


So,which is it?




Stellar



posted on Nov, 30 2006 @ 04:43 PM
link   
Do any of yall have any idea whether your power company offers the same little program that I posted? a 100 kilowatt bloc of renewable energy dispensed into the grid for 5$ extra a month offsets enough pollution as planting a third an acre of trees, or taking the car of the road for three months.

If a hundrd thousand people did that in a city, well thats alot of pollution staved off every month
I would say its definetly worth 5$ a month extra, might even go down if enough people get involved. I thin yall should consider looking into it and see if your power company also offers that service. I figure TECO cannot possibly be the only one out of hundreds of municipilaties across the nation.



posted on Nov, 30 2006 @ 04:49 PM
link   
DYepes, while it is true that conserving the energy we use now would be a major help,I don't think that it's going to be something that many people are going to do. As long as people can just "flip a switch" they are going to do it. The powers that be have tried to push the whole "energy conservation" act for quite some time, it hasn't really changed anything.

People use just as much energy and probably more since the government has started the "conserve energy" campaign. I suppose that the whole "conserve energy" idea is like communism; it's a great idea but it will never work because it's so contrary to human nature.



posted on Nov, 30 2006 @ 05:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by DYepes
Do any of yall have any idea whether your power company offers the same little program that I posted? a 100 kilowatt bloc of renewable energy dispensed into the grid for 5$ extra a month offsets enough pollution as planting a third an acre of trees, or taking the car of the road for three months.

If a hundrd thousand people did that in a city, well thats alot of pollution staved off every month
I would say its definetly worth 5$ a month extra, might even go down if enough people get involved. I thin yall should consider looking into it and see if your power company also offers that service. I figure TECO cannot possibly be the only one out of hundreds of municipilaties across the nation.


source


INTEGRATED BIOENERGY CENTER SUBSYSTEMS
How The Subsystems All Work Together
Waste from the livestock facilities will be processed through an anaerobic digester to
extract methane which will be utilized to power the ethanol plant. An algae system
will recover carbon dioxide from the power plant and nutrients from the livestock
waste to create an oil source for the biodiesel facility. There are a number of other
waste streams which are utilized and the net result should be subsystems which are
more efficient compared to stand alone facilities. A significant additional benefit is a
reduction of water and air emissions though an integrated system.
Trevor McKeeman, NISTAC’s, Business Development Manager, said, “The primary
benefit that is expected from the Center is the efficiency of integration.” He added,
“The improved economics over stand-alone systems, the re-use of water, utilization
of waste streams and removal of the carbon dioxide from power plant flue gas will
benefit all the partners involved in this project.”


The power plant that I work at is looking into this. I'll do some more looking around to see if I can find an online source to a pictoral diagram to share.



posted on Nov, 30 2006 @ 05:40 PM
link   
i was referring to the post I made on the previous page that my area energy provider offers. Perhas you could glance over it once more, I think you may have accidentally missed it.

Fact is Speaker there are alot more renewable and clean projects going on in our own nation then you may even know. By the end of the next decade, I estimate that atleast 15% of our auto-mobiles will be running on ethanol blend fuel. Yes it takes soem fossile energy to make it, but it also takes fossil energy to make gasoline. At least we are removing the end phase pollution which is our personal fuel. There are ethanol plants being built in virtually every single state in the country right now. Massive solar projects are being created in the West part of the country. Wind power is taking off in the northern Mid-West. These changes and mandates and projects have only begun within th last few years, so we just have to give our system time to make it hapen. i will give some examples.


On June 7, 2006, a bipartisan group of Senators and Representatives introduced concurrent Congressional resolutions calling for a new national renewable energy goal: 25% of the nation’s energy supply from renewable sources by 2025.

The resolution builds on a broad and politically influential coalition including agriculture, industry, and environmental leaders, as well as several governors and state legislatures.

“Today we have Republicans and Democrats, rural and urban interests, and representatives from over 140 different farm, forestry and environmental organizations coming together behind a common energy goal for the nation,” said 25x’25 Steering Committee Co-Chair Bill Richards. “This introduction is truly unprecedented.”



Solar Projects
In its efforts to create a more sustainable community, the Las Vegas Valley Water District (LVVWD) is building solar power generating systems at six facilities.


The 3.1 megawatt photovoltaic solar energy project will be one of the largest ever built by a public agency in the United States.

The LVVWD Distributed Solar Array systems will generate 5.3 million kilowatt-hours of clean electricity per year. The electricity generated by the solar arrays will support onsite operations, including pumping operations and water-treatment processes.

The solar project is being developed in partnership with Nevada Power Company and PowerLight Corporation.



Spain makes solar panels compulsory on new buildings


The world's biggest solar-power plant -- that's what Stirling Energy Systems could soon be building in California's Mojave Desert. The Phoenix-based upstart last week won a major commitment from Southern California Edison (SCE.PB ).

For 20 years, the utility will buy all the electricity that Stirling can generate at a 500-megawatt (MW) solar-energy farm near Victorville. Previously, the most ambitious plan for solar power was the 12-MW Solarpark Gut Erlasse, near Arnstein, Germany.



Wal-Mart To Clean Their Impact On the Environment
The company, second-largest in revenue in the world behind ExxonMobil, has vowed to invest $500 million a year in energy-saving technologies.


There are many many other initiatives kicking off worldwide. Regardless of the motives, the end scenario is the same, our Earth will become cleaner and begin healing itself.



posted on Nov, 30 2006 @ 09:34 PM
link   
Fact is Speaker, you have no idea how basic chemicals are an integral part of the economy: sulfuric acid, heptane through nonane, phosphoric acid, potash, etc.

Yes, plants pollute, but at our benefit. You will have to do better than the 'let's just shut all the plants down'.



posted on Dec, 1 2006 @ 11:22 AM
link   
DYepes, ethanol would be something that I could indeed support. It seems to me that some are already trying to implement its use,which is good.

However,I think it's not only going to take the actions of corporations to clear this mess up, but the individual in general as well.



posted on Dec, 1 2006 @ 11:35 AM
link   
I figured someone would mention hydrogen. The only reason hydrogen may stand a chance is because big oil would be involved but they are not going to want to deal with the hazzardous waste nor will anybody else.

mikell



posted on Dec, 1 2006 @ 01:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
DYepes, ethanol would be something that I could indeed support. It seems to me that some are already trying to implement its use,which is good.

However,I think it's not only going to take the actions of corporations to clear this mess up, but the individual in general as well.


To all who think ethanol is the answer; Please read this and then let us know if you think ethanol is still such a great idea.


11/19/2006 Gobbled Up!
By Tom Morgan Source: star 913 for 11/19/06
Price gougers! Conspiracy! Crisis!

In January they were charging just $2.10. By the end of October they were gouging us for $3.47. That is a massive increase. Just since mid-September they ran the price up 55 percent.

This is a huge conspiracy, that much is obvious.

Where are our politicians when we need them? We should be whacking these outfits with excess profits tax. Call it an obscene profits tax Price gougers! Conspiracy! Crisis!

In January they were charging just $2.10. By the end of October they were gouging us for $3.47. That is a massive increase. Just since mid-September they ran the price up 55 percent.

This is a huge conspiracy, that much is obvious.

Where are our politicians when we need them? We should be whacking these outfits with excess profits tax. Call it an obscene profits tax.

And we should be putting a lid on these prices. Price controls - that's what we need!

And if we can shift our focus just a bit we will see a black cloud on the horizon. Shortages up ahead. Yes. Inventories are being gobbled up and we are headed for shortages.

Where is Al Gore when we need him?

Yes...I did use the term "gobbled up". Well, it's accurate. We are gobbling up the corn.

The corn.

Oh! You thought I was writing about gasoline?

I was writing about corn. Corn sold for $2.10 a bushel in January. By the end of October it was nudging $3.50 a bushel. Hang onto your Fritos, friend. While you can buy 'em cheap.

And why has the price of corn shot up? As I said, it is a conspiracy. The big corn farmers and companies have set out to gouge us.

Yes, I've read that it's the ethanol companies that are running up the prices for corn. They need more and more corn to make more and more ethanol. To satisfy the demand from American motorists.

You don't believe that garbage, do you? Ethanol is marketed by whom? By oil companies! Those evil oil companies.

By the way, we are gonna suffer collateral damage here. It's part of the conspiracy, I suspect. Chickens are going to cost more. Kentucky Fried prices will rise. Whoppers are gonna rise too. Or maybe they'll have to make 'em with less Whop. Why? Well, what do you suppose them chooks and beefers eat, Jell-O? They eat corn! If they don't choke on $3.47 corn, the farmers who grow 'em will.

Obviously we will have to conserve. I am gonna phone Walmart and cancel my order for next year's Fritos. Well, maybe just cut it down to ten cases. We'll all have to eat less chicken and beef. And less of anything that comes from corn or contains corn.

Wait. We are going to suffer more than just price increases for our favorite foods. We are now looking at shortages! That's right, shortages!

Corn farmers and companies in the grain business usually hold back millions of bushels of corn. They keep it in reserve in case next year's harvest is poor. Well, with prices at $3.47 they are selling off the reserves.

In other words, come a drought and we are sunk. Come a pestilence and we're goners. Next cloud of locusts will finish us off.

The only solution to this mess is to slap an obscene profits tax on them farmers. It is not right that they should make these gargantuan profits. It didn't cost them any more to grow that $2.10 corn than it did to grow the $3.47 corn. Same damned corn!

The result of this conspiracy is that half of us are gonna starve to death.

Do you suppose they'll use ethanol for our cremation?

From Tom...as in Morgan.

For more columns and for Tom’s radio shows (and to write to Tom): tomasinmorgan.com



posted on Dec, 1 2006 @ 01:29 PM
link   
Darkbluesky,certainly you are not implying that oil companies don't gouge us. Certainly not?
You seem to imply that there is a difference between farmers gouging us and oil companies gouging us. Please,pray tell,do tell me what the difference is.
[edit on 1-12-2006 by SpeakerofTruth]

[edit on 1-12-2006 by SpeakerofTruth]



posted on Dec, 1 2006 @ 01:36 PM
link   

Backlash spreads as oil companies' profits surge
Friday, October 28, 2005

By Jeffrey Ball in Dallas, John J. Fialka in Washington and Russell Gold in Austin, Texas, The Wall Street Journal


As high fuel prices roil consumers and Congress considers a variety of measures to ease the impact, Exxon Mobil Corp. and Royal Dutch Shell PLC, the world's No. 1 and No. 3 oil companies, weighed in with record third-quarter earnings that totaled almost $19 billion.

Riding a wave of high prices for oil, gasoline and natural gas, Exxon reported third-quarter net income of $9.92 billion, up 75 percent from the year-ago period, on revenue of $100.72 billion. It was among the biggest quarterly profits of any company in history, and amounted to a per-minute profit of $74,879.23 during the quarter. A handful of other companies have posted higher quarterly earnings in the past, but only with the help of big accounting adjustments, while Exxon's results came mostly from operations
Corporate Rip Offs



[edit on 1-12-2006 by SpeakerofTruth]



posted on Dec, 1 2006 @ 01:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
Darkbluesky,certainly you are not implying that oil companies don't gouge us. Certainly not?
You seem to imply that there is a difference between farmers gouging us and oil companies gouging us. Please,pray tell,do tell me what the difference is.
[edit on 1-12-2006 by SpeakerofTruth]

[edit on 1-12-2006 by SpeakerofTruth]


My intent was to point out the pitfalls of ethanol use, not to defend oil companies.
However, since you brought it up, I think the article clearly illustrated that the price of any commodity (corn, oil, or gasoline) is dictated by supply/demand, and commodities trading exchanges, which are driven by speculation, greed, and fear.



[edit on 12/1/2006 by darkbluesky]



posted on Dec, 1 2006 @ 01:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by darkbluesky

My intent was to point out the pitfalls of ethanol use, not to defend oil companies.
However, since you brought it up, I think the article clearly illustrated that the price of any commodity (corn, oil, or gasoline) is dictated by supply/demand, and commodities trading exchanges, which are driven by speculation, greed, and fear.


[edit on 12/1/2006 by darkbluesky]


So, since everything is "even" why not use something that is less harmful to the environment? Why continue to depend on fossil fuels,which is no doubt a pollutant, when something else can be used? So, if it's as you say, "price of any commodity (corn, oil, or gasoline) is dictated by supply/demand," why not choose the lesser of two evils?

[edit on 1-12-2006 by SpeakerofTruth]



posted on Dec, 1 2006 @ 02:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth

So, since everything is "even" why not use something that is less harmful to the environment? Why continue to depend on fossil fuels,which is no doubt a pollutant, when something else can be used? So, if it's as you say, "price of any commodity (corn, oil, or gasoline) is dictated by supply/demand," why not choose the lesser of two evils?

[edit on 1-12-2006 by SpeakerofTruth]


Well....since we can't eat oil, or feed it to our animals, or make tasty treats out of it, i'd rather conserve the corn for those uses.

Also, Ethanol produces CO2 when combusted just as gasoline. The only benefit is that ethanol use "recycles" carbon already in the envirionment instead of releasing carbon locked in subsurface reseviors of oil, methane, or coal.

Speaking of coal, I'm fairly sure it's by far the biggest contributor to atmospheric CO2 loading, not oil/gasoline.

I say we go "nucular" for electricity, and keep driving our cars.



posted on Dec, 1 2006 @ 02:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by darkbluesky

I say we go "nucular" for electricity, and keep driving our cars.


Well, that is certainly an option. However, any development in the electrical modification end of the whole process is likely to funnel down into the automotive area as well. I personally don't see the viability of continuing to use fossil fuels for another twenty years. I think that regardless of which direction the government goes, the usage of fossil fuels is not likely to surpass another 10-12 years time.



posted on Dec, 1 2006 @ 02:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth

Originally posted by darkbluesky

I say we go "nucular" for electricity, and keep driving our cars.


Well, that is certainly an option. However, any development in the electrical modification end of the whole process is likely to funnel down into the automotive area as well. I personally don't see the viability of continuing to use fossil fuels for another twenty years. I think that regardless of which direction the government goes, the usage of fossil fuels is not likely to surpass another 10-12 years time.


I'm no defender of big oil or automakers. Saying they didn't gouge us on gasoline doesn't mean I believe they are unsuceptible to greed. As long as there is oil left, and they can make a buck on it, they will.

To all those that want to move away from fossil fuels:
Don't rely on the government or corporations to make it happen. It's up to you, the consumers to force change. The only way to do that is through modifying your consumption behaiviors. If you keep buying the gasoline, they will keep making it.



posted on Dec, 1 2006 @ 06:21 PM
link   


figured someone would mention hydrogen. The only reason hydrogen may stand a chance is because big oil would be involved but they are not going to want to deal with the hazzardous waste nor will anybody else.

There is no hazardous waste from utilizing hydrogen. The only byproduct is water.



Ethanol is one of the tools available for fighting air pollution from vehicles. Ethanol contains 35 per cent oxygen. Adding oxygen to fuel results in more completefuel combustion, reducing harmful tailpipe emissions. Ethanol also displaces the use of toxic gasoline components such as benzene – a carcinogen.

Ethanol is non-toxic, water soluble and highly biodegradable.

Ethanol is a renewable fuel, typically produced from plant matter, unlike petroleum-based fossil fuels that have a limited supply and are the major contributor of carbon dioxide (a greenhouse gas) emissions.

The American Lung Association of Metropolitan Chicago credits ethanol-blended reformulated gasoline with reducing smog-forming emissions in the city by 25 per cent since 1990.

Ethanol reduces tailpipe carbon monoxide emissions by as much as 25 per cent.

Ethanol has received the ECOLOGO designation from Environment Canada, recognizing its environmental benefits over conventional gasoline.

Ethanol reduces particulate emissions, especially fine particulates that pose a health threat to children, senior citizens and individuals suffering from respiratory ailments.

Ethanol-blended fuels account for 12 per cent (and growing) of all automotive fuels sold in the United States.


Noone is claiming ethanol is the miracle fuel. However, it is most definetly much less hazardous to our environment. It also produces alot more jobs at home. There will be no shortage of corn, your source is just some economist whos bottom line is money and nothing but! I will gladly pay more in tax, because the big farming corporations who will be producing that corn are heavily subsidized by the government. Thats just part of our social responsibility. Taking care of the Earth we live on by takings steps up the hill to less pollution.

A slightly higher price is very little to pay compared to what decades more of the whole of Earth continueing to destroy itself. What will you be willing to pay when 5 billion people have thrown so much carcinogenous, and higher volume of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere (of the burning of fossile fuels as a result of globalization and more people having access to more luxuries) that breathing filtration equipment is required by most?



posted on Dec, 1 2006 @ 07:20 PM
link   
Sorry I forgot to add in one of the mroe important facts, Cellulosic Ethanol

Cellulosic ethanol is the type of ethanol that is produced from a great diversity of biomass including waste from urban, agricultural, and forestry sources. Unlike normal ethanol, whose original raw material are sugars and starches, cellulosic ethanol starting raw material is cellulose. There are at least two methods of production of cellulosic ethanol — hydrolysis followed by fermentation of the generated free sugars and synthesis gas fermentation or catalysis (e.g., Fischer Tropsch). Neither process generates toxic emissions when it produces ethanol. The technology is very new and exists in pilot configurations where testing is ongoing.


According to US Department of Energy studies conducted by the Argonne Laboratories of the University of Chicago, one of the benefits of cellulosic ethanol is that it reduces greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) by 85% over reformulated gasoline. By contrast, starch ethanol (e.g., from corn), which uses most of the time natural gas to provide energy for the process, reduces GHG emissions by 18% to 29% over gasoline. Sugar ethanol, on the other hand, from sugarcane, reduces greenhouse gas emissions by as much as cellulosic ethanol because it uses sugarcane bagasse to provide the energy for the process and the excess to make electricity for the grid.

In April 2004, Iogen Corporation, a Canadian biotechnology firm, became the first business to commercially sell cellulosic ethanol. The primary consumer thus far has been the Canadian government, which, along with the United States government (particularly the Department of Energy's National Renewable Energy Laboratory), has invested millions of dollars into assisting the commercialization of cellulosic ethanol.

President Bush, in his State of the Union address delivered January 31, 2006, proposed to expand the use of cellulosic ethanol.

Ethanol, today, is produced mostly from sugars or starches, obtained from fruits and grains. In contrast, cellulosic ethanol is obtained from cellulose, the main component of wood, straw and much of the plants. Since cellulose cannot be digested by humans, the production of cellulose does not compete with the production of food. The price per ton of the raw material is thus much cheaper than grains or fruits. Moreover, since cellulose is the main components of plants, the whole plant can be harvested. This results in much better yields per acre—up to 10 tons, instead of 4 or 5 tons for the best crops of grain. When produced from wood products it is referred to as treethanol.[citation needed]

The raw material is plentiful. Cellulose is present in every plant: straw, grass, wood. Most of these "bio-mass" products are currently discarded[citation needed]. Transforming them into ethanol might provide as much as 30% of the current fuel consumption in the US—and probably similar figures in other oil-importing regions like China or Europe. Moreover, even land marginal for agriculture could be planted with cellulose producing crops like switchgrass, resulting in enough production to substitute for all the current oil imports.

In June 2006, a U.S. Senate hearing was told that the current cost of producing cellulosic ethanol is US $2.25 per US gallon (US $0.59/litre). This is primarily due to the current poor conversion efficiency.[4] At that price it is not competitive when distribution costs are added. However, the Department of Energy is optimistic and has requested a doubling of research funding. The same Senate hearing was told that the research target was to reduce the cost of production to US $1.07 per US gallon (US $0.28/litre) by 2012.




Also see this document on Cellulosic Ethanol from Ethanol.org

Switchgrass is one source likely to be tapped for ethanol production because of its potential for high fuel yields, hardiness, and ability to be grown in diverse areas. Trials show current average yields to be about five dry tons per acre; however, crop experts say that progressively applied breeding techniques could more than double that yield.
Switchgrass’ long root system – actually a fifty-fifty split above ground and below – helps keep carbon in the ground, improving soil quality. It is drought-tolerant, grows well even on marginal land, and doesn’t require heavy fertilizing. Other varieties including big blue stem and Indian grass are also possible cellulose sources for
ethanol production.
Researchers estimate that ethanol yield from switchgrass is in the range of 60 to 140 gallons per ton; some say 80 to 90 gallons per ton is a
typical figure.
Sugarcane bagasse, the residue generated during the milling process, is another potential feedstock for cellulosic ethanol. Research shows that one ton of sugarcane bagasse can generate
112 gallons of ethanol.


Forgive the excessive quoting, all of the information is highly relevant. Fact is the cost per gallon of producing cellulosic ethanol has dropped dramatically recently, and will continue to do so as the process goes through further R&D. The government is funding it nicely. So yes, ethanol does have a very bright future in our society. All those yard clippings and land development waste will become the very fuel that runs your vehicles, not just corn.



posted on Dec, 1 2006 @ 09:05 PM
link   
Listen folks, the demand for oil and its subsequent supply to those meeting the demand with needs such to process the oil keep the cost of these manufacturing process economical for the companies who not only consume the oil but for their clients as well. Pharmaceuticals, rubber, plastic, asphalt, fertilizers, pesticides, chemicals to treat metals, gasoline and kerosene are vital to this nation's economy. We simply cannot afford to 'find out' how an ethanol economy would work whenever the US auto industry is in the throughs of turmoil, aerospace companies are losing market share at an alarming rate and this nation simply must have its food, water and materials to construct with, delivered in a timely and financially sound system. That system is oil.

We know where the oil is, we know what to do with it, we know how to sell it, we know how to make these processes safer, more effecient and more reliable, and the industrial capacity necessary creates millions of jobs in this great nation. Newspapers do not publicize the fact that the oil and energy industry in America has lost hundreds of thousands of jobs in the past decade and the media does not show the same sympathy for Enron which it gives to Ford, GM and all other lameduck US automakers.

I cannot stress how damaging it will be to this nations economy if we alter our entire infrastructure away from oil and towards a source of fuel which is not reliable, not sustainable and most certainly will rape the natural land of its most vital inhabitant, our top soil. These consequences allude to a more disturbing trend, and that is the nation has no alternative outside of hydrocarbon sources of fuel. We can trust our grandchildren with our technological prowess and only hope they may find the next cash crop of raw material to meet their energy demands and pass down the knowledge of countless generations.

[edit on 1-12-2006 by Aramco]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join