For anyone who still doesn't believe Saudi Arabia's government is evil.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Oerdin
For most bio-diesels we'd have to switch to new crops but for ethanol we could continue using the crops which all the world's farmers are already using. Which is why ethanol would be easier to impliment.

Bio-diesel can be made by converting used vegetable oil (not sure if other fats can be used). If a large scale conversion scheme can be implemented this will reduce pollution by waste oil from eateries and generate an amount of fuel. Kill two birds with one stone.

[Snotty]

Any news on planes or ships with bio fuel engines?

"Do not yield to them [Christians and Jews] on a narrow road out of honor and respect."

I look forward to a few good natured games of chicken to see if this lessons stuck

[techumseh]

All this bio fuel will NOT reduce CO2 emissions, and is therefore a false hope. It will merely offset petroleum that has been depleted. Half the world's petroleum has been burned in 150 years. The other half will be consumed in the next 50 years. Continuation of carbon based fuels in any form is not viable.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
There is no panacea to solve the environmental issues. The main theme is to conserve.

Environmentalists have been suggesting the following:

1. Reduce
2. Reuse
3. Recycle

The main ill of the US in this area is that it is a very wasteful country. Just look at Las Vegas. It's a city that takes huge amount of resources to maintain. The SUVs, the urge to drive even the shortest of distances, etc. Even the a portion of food is big (sadly, bigger in Vegas).

Ahh conservation is the "main theme". I guess whatever a "main theme" is, its definition must include being that which is not a panacea for everything given that you already established that one doesn't exist for these environmental issues.

And of course having less of everything will make everybody much happier. It will be much easier to maintain the popularity and support of a program of austerity and self denial than developing actual alternatives.




On second thought I think developing alternative energy sources will probably serve as a more viable "main theme" for the environmental issues than conservation ever could.

Especially given that both:

2. Reuse
3. Recycle

can easily consume even more energy depending on what is being recycled or reused than using virgin materials would require. Recycling even more so than reuse.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by techumseh
All this bio fuel will NOT reduce CO2 emissions, and is therefore a false hope. It will merely offset petroleum that has been depleted. Half the world's petroleum has been burned in 150 years. The other half will be consumed in the next 50 years. Continuation of carbon based fuels in any form is not viable.

Given that the ultimate carbon source for biofuels was atmospheric carbon whereas the carbon source for fossil fuels is carbon that was sequestered deep underground away from the atmospheric carbon cycle how on earth could substituting biofuels for fossil fuels NOT reduce net CO2 emissions?

Sure CO2 is still emitted but at least it's not adding any new CO2 to the atmosphere. Furthermore if you don't use biofuels something else is likely to grow in place of the biofuel plants and the atmospheric carbon sequestered by those plants simply ends up being released back to the atmosphere by other means. Either those plants die and decay releasing the CO2 or something eats them and respires exhaling the CO2 or dies and decays releasing the CO2.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
The main ill of the US in this area is that it is a very wasteful country. Just look at Las Vegas. It's a city that takes huge amount of resources to maintain. The SUVs, the urge to drive even the shortest of distances, etc. Even the a portion of food is big (sadly, bigger in Vegas).

Check out the Dubai thread. If you think we're bad realize that there are a lot of places competing to be even worse.

[Bosh]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
The main ill of the US in this area is that it is a very wasteful country. Just look at Las Vegas. It's a city that takes huge amount of resources to maintain. The SUVs, the urge to drive even the shortest of distances, etc. Even the a portion of food is big (sadly, bigger in Vegas).

At least the US doesn't send massive clouds of polluted sand blowing downwind at their neighbors

[RGBVideo]

Originally posted by Bosh


At least the US doesn't send massive clouds of polluted sand blowing downwind at their neighbors

Those insects, pillaging this earth for all of us.

Meanwhile, the idiots here in Europe keep on paying money for Russia because of European CO2-"pollution" through the Kyoto-treaty, thus slowly eating our own economy while temporarily conserving the amount of coal for China to use. Good god it is such a stupid, pointless treaty.

[Gatekeeper]

Fusion! Fusion! Fusion! C'mon, scientists! YOU CAN DO IT!!!!

[Dis]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
There is no panacea to solve the environmental issues. The main theme is to conserve.

Environmentalists have been suggesting the following:

1. Reduce
2. Reuse
3. Recycle

The main ill of the US in this area is that it is a very wasteful country. Just look at Las Vegas. It's a city that takes huge amount of resources to maintain. The SUVs, the urge to drive even the shortest of distances, etc. Even the a portion of food is big (sadly, bigger in Vegas).

don't be badmouthing my city.

We have less SUV's than the south. We don't feel the need to compensate for small penises by driving large vehicles.

We have less urban sprawl than the east and south. This is mainly due to lack of availability of land.

Our bus system gets plenty of use. this is mainly because people are too poor to afford cars. .

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by techumseh
All this bio fuel will NOT reduce CO2 emissions,

Actually it will. The problem with fossil fuels is that when burned, it releases sequested CO2 back into the environment. Using bio-fuels doesn't add new CO2, but merely moves it from the plant into the atmosphere, which was going to happen anyway when the plant decayed. It's not adding anything new to the carbon cycle, but simply rerouting it for our own use.

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Actually it will. The problem with fossil fuels is that when burned, it releases sequested CO2 back into the environment. Using bio-fuels doesn't add new CO2, but merely moves it from the plant into the atmosphere, which was going to happen anyway when the plant decayed. It's not adding anything new to the carbon cycle, but simply rerouting it for our own use.

Um ... no. If you'd taken that oil waste and disposed of it as a restaurant typically would, it would sit in a drum somewhere and never leave. Thus the CO2 would ... stay in the drum also

The "plant cycle" is a completely useless analogy here ...

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by snoopy369


Um ... no. If you'd taken that oil waste and disposed of it as a restaurant typically would, it would sit in a drum somewhere and never leave. Thus the CO2 would ... stay in the drum also

The "plant cycle" is a completely useless analogy here ...

BS

These food industry by-products have never been disposed of as toxic waste. Doing so would be incredibly expensive. There are no drums of oil getting left in land fills or being buried somewhere.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Bosh
At least the US doesn't send massive clouds of polluted sand blowing downwind at their neighbors

Polluted sand?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Dis
don't be badmouthing my city.

You could go somewhere else, like Seattle.