Well, you did say: "Reduce our dependence on fossil fuel ... dramatically,"
and the presumption is that you want that eventuality enforced or encouraged
by the government.
To me, there seems three ways to accomplish that which you adore:
* A cheaper alternative to fossile fules is found,
* Government imposes rationing or subsidies of some kind,
* Government imposes a return to living off gathered nuts and berries.
I'd rather prefer the first.
Why, how, by whom, with what capital??
The thousands upon thousands upon thousand of pages Tax Code is chock
full of social engineering elements.
So ... OUR government -- in that regard -- practices the "kind of
control" that 'Mark & Juanita' overtly decried.
I'll presume he/she/they actually DID know that. How could anybody
NOT? I presume he/she/they will now seek to relocate (to ... ???).
Wars predicated on other causes, but ... suspiciously centered in
oil-rich nations ... are de facto oil subsidies, no?
What's wrong with subsidies to switch us OFF OF fossil fuels ... asap
... instead/in addition??
I'm genuinely interested in an other-than-ideological argument.
As a former VP of a couple of NYSE-traded companies ... smart CEOs and
execs get AHEAD of things like this. The more consolidated the
control of finite oil resources IS, the more victimized by
other-than-market-based pricing we will be.
Anybody that's watched Big Oil in recent decades ... knows that's
So ... why not??
No troll. Sorry. Just the anomalous poster, here, that doesn't think
... the way so many of you do ... and ... comes to his positions
through listening to LOTS of valid argument ... not just the ones that
appeal most to my closely-held positions ;-)
On Sat, 09 Jan 2010 19:39:29 GMT, firstname.lastname@example.org (Doug Miller)
No. The answer is simpler than that.
One doesn't have to live in a cave to suggest that we should reduce
our dependence on fossil fuels, primarily by moving toward cleaner
Gore switched to a HUGE % renewables to power his mansion. I, too,
buy my electricity from a wind farm.
That does NOT make me, or Gore, hypocrites -- repitition
The notion of reduced greenhouse gasses doesn't depend on
cave-dwellers. It depends on cleaner, renewable sources of energy.
I missed my black/white argument. I'd be ever so grateful if you'd
point it out to me.
Uh-huh. Sure. Last I checked, he was still using an order of magnitude more
resources than the average American -- while telling the *rest* of us to
reduce *our* consumption.
What, they've hooked up a turbine to Gore's mouth?
No, it's Gore's enormous use of energy, while telling everyone else to reduce
theirs, that makes him a hypocrite.
And it's you telling other people to reduce dependence on fossil fuels, while
you still drive a car, that makes you a hypocrite.
Get back to me after you've switched to a bicycle for transportation.
I know someone who works for Ontario Hydro, or whatever it's called
these days. He laughs at wind and solar. It's far too unreliable to be
anything but peripheral.
He's explained to me how the grid actually works. There are times when
the utility has to fire up ginormous electric motors to use the EXCESS
power flowing into the grid to keep things balanced.
I don't claim to understand enough to make pronouncements on electric
utility policy, but I understand enough to know that 99.9% of people
making pronouncements don't have a friggin' clue about the subject.
On Sat, 09 Jan 2010 15:34:23 -0600, Dave Balderstone
I'm sorry, but ... can somebody tell me when we finished building the
infrastructure for a diversified renewable power supply?
I don't recall us really even starting.....
Please tell me where my facts are in error. It's childish and wrong
to say that ... I ... like 99.9% of people ... don't have a friggin'
clue about the subject.
Actually, I got the important point, which you missed: the hypocrisy of
someone who uses an order of magnitude more energy than the average person,
telling the average people they need to reduce *their* consumption while doing
nothing to reduce his own.
Sorry that was so hard for you that I had to explain it twice.
Remainder snipped, as I have no desire to explain *all* of it twice.
On Sat, 09 Jan 2010 23:37:25 GMT, email@example.com (Doug Miller)
Ability, actually. Desire is a secondary impediment.
You cannot understand -- or you could readily explain -- the
difference between fossil fuels and renewables.
Your argument is similar to calling me a hypocrite for the 5,500 miles
I make each year.
Except that ... I make them on my bicycle.
The fact that you don't *understand* the difference .... means only
that: you don't understand it.
But the difference is enormous.
You might also judge me a troll if you heard how silly my middle name
Sometimes, it's better to address the arguments that somebody makes
(as distinct from the arguments that you wish he HAD made -- the
obvious practice of some/many on this ng).
Unless you can't.
On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 01:16:29 GMT, firstname.lastname@example.org (Doug Miller)
You're point is irrelevant. You attack others, but don't understand
the argument they're making, so ... you make up a position and ascribe
it to them.
But you're wrong.
After three times around, I can only assume it's intentional.
But ... while plonking is a coward's way out ... posting to let others
know that you chose to do it ... more so :-)
Considering the sheer amount of non-renewable resources used in
manufacturing all those millions of Lance Armstrong wannabe outfits ...
Let me guess, your bicycle is a wooden Flintstone model, with stone
Just kidding you ... you seem like a nice enough guy and your heart is
obviously in the right place, if a bit idealistic.
That will improve with age ... good luck to you. :)
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.