Friday, March 02, 2007

Libs Don't Get the whole "CO2 is Good" Thing

The Gore acolytes seem perpetually confused on the issue of C02 and clean energy. From a recent conversation:

If we can develop a cleaner source of energy that doesn’t rely on a dwindling supply of fosil[sic] fuel that another country can hold over our heads then how can you be against it?

Setting aside for the moment that Oil is probably not a "fossil" fuel, no one IS against energy independence, in fact, we are FOR the best alternative power source known to man: NUCLEAR. The problem with the AGW debate is that, crying "the sky is falling" using a lie actually HINDERS the process of decreasing our reliance on middle eastern oil because no major advance in science can be built on a false assumption. But this is a much more nuanced issue than the typical Liberal seems able to grasp:

1. Oil, as it is refined and used in manufacturing, is a very clean energy source. Yes, the burning of oil produces sulphers and carbon monoxide, both of which are poisons (unlike C02) but in new vehicles the catalytic converters deal with this issue. At factories, smokestack scrubbers deal with that issue. Most pollution that comes from the burning of "fossil fuels" is because the thing that it is burning it is old. For example, a new Hummer produces MUCH less pollution than some Lib's old Volvo Station wagon or VW van. This is why wealthy countries are cleaner. We can afford the newer technologies that make fuel burning clean.

2. Oil (and NG) are the lifeblood of modern civilization, and for good reason:

-It is plentiful (we could support ourselves and be a net exporter of oil if we drilled for our own - offshore and Alaska being the most notable),
-probably renewable (the abiotic production of oil is an unsupportable scientific hypothesis),
-we have the pipelines already built (which would need to be duplicated nationwide if we went to any other form of fuel such as hydrogen),
-it is absolutely REQUIRED for the production of heating oil, lubricants and plastic, the production of which results in a waste product called GASOLINE! (many people do not realize that before the advent of the IC engine, gasoline was dumped after the refining process because there was no use for it),
-it is inexpensive (and if we drilled for our own oil on a wider scale, it would be even less expensive than it is now).

Be honest, if it weren’t for the oil in the Middle East, we wouldn’t think twice about that region. They would forever be stuck in the seventh century and we could care less.

I can be even more than honest, I can be educated. Setting aside the issue of the protection of Israel for now, if Iraq or Iran have WMDs then their oil makes no difference to us, we would still care about them. As a matter of fact, one of the strategies being promoted by conservative military experts is to mine Iranian harbors and blow up their refineries. This would bring them to a halt, kind of a modern day seige. But this would reduce the oil supply from the ME, something you claim that we can't abide. Also, need I remind you that ME oil on the world market reduces the price of Texas and other American produced oil?

Granted, developing alternative energy sources will be costly at first — but far less costly now than if we have to wait until we reach the time when we are forced to move to another source for any reason.

If companies want to develop "alternative energy" I'm all for it. However artificially raising the price of oil (or subsidizing AE research) so that companies can do the development is fascistic (dictionary sense) and completely unnecessary. The lifeblood of civilization is oil and there is absolutely nothing wrong with it. In fact, I could make a case that if we were currently running on expensive solar and biomass energy sources we would be looking for an "alternative" and oil would have to be one of those given that it is inexpensive, relatively clean, is easy to transport, and is more versatile as a fuel than pork is as a food.

Personally, I can’t say if Gore is right or wrong on the issue of global warming or climate change. But the one thing he is doing is getting people to talk about it and explore different solutions.

I always have to laugh whenever I see this kind of statement. How about: "Personally, I can’t say if David Duke is right or wrong on the issue of race. But the one thing he is doing is getting people to talk about it and explore different solutions."

If someone is clearly wrong as is obvious with what Al Gore is promoting, then his portion of the dialog is just misleading people.

Too much oxygen will kill you also. It’s about balance, not whether any particular gas is benign or not.)

Leading researchers on the subject C02 as a pollutant demonstrate that IT IS NOT. If you want to resort to the "anything is bad in enough quantity" argument then you have already lost the argument. WATER in too much quantity is very dangerous but we are not outlawing it (yet).


Post a Comment

<< Home