I Am Turning Green....Are You?

[FaninAma]

Despite my very conservative leanings I find myself buying into the premise that this country must divest itself of its dependence on foreign and big oil not only for economic and security reasons but as an investment in the future of our kids.

Now, I don't totally buy into the global warming hype, but I do think that George W. Bush and his administration are bought and paid for by big oil. And ususally I am very anti-tax but it is ridiculous that the GOP in the Senate filibustered the new energy bill because it contained a tax increase on big oil companies that represented 1.5 % of their profits over the next 6 years. If that's not being in the pockets of big oil then I don't know what is.

They also had the requirement for utility companies to produce 15% of their energy from clean enrgy alternatives withdrawn form the bill. All that is left is essentially a subsidy for the ethanol industry and modest new watered-down new mileage requirements for automobiles.

As a result I have pulled all of my energy investments in carbon based fuel production comapnies and reinvested them in companies that are developing solar power and other clean energy altrnatives.

[Lott's Bandana]

As a result I have pulled all of my energy investments in carbon based fuel production comapnies and reinvested them in companies that are developing solar power and other clean energy altrnatives.


Look to Germany. ^^^^^^^^^



I suppose I have been somewhat green my entire life due to a Marin County childhood. However, I don't hug trees nor do I think "corporate green" is any better than "big oil". This is one subject that truly requires education before action.

Good Stewardship - outta be a bumper sticker.

[Pricetag]

Despite my very conservative leanings I find myself buying into the premise that this country must divest itself of its dependence on foreign and big oil not only for economic and security reasons but as an investment in the future of our kids.
I'll never understand why conservatism and environmentalism are viewed as mutually exclusive by so many. Taking care of your house and looking for ways to ensure that things are better for future generations, even if it involves personal sacrifice, seem to be wholly conservative ideas, at least to me.

[FaninAma]

I'll never understand why conservatism and environmentalism are viewed as mutually exclusive by so many. Taking care of your house and looking for ways to ensure that things are better for future generations, even if it involves personal sacrifice, seem to be wholly conservative ideas, at least to me.

I agree. I think it's the political system that has corrupted the values of both conservatism and liberalism.

I think the GOP's faux "conservative" stance on this issue is that carbon based fuels are still the cheapest and as such they are the best short-term source of energy for the country based on economic and consumer factors. The problem with their approach is that they seem unwilling to look at the obscene profits the oil comapnies are wracking up as well as the fact that it is actually detrimental to the security and long term economic stability of the country and its citizens.

In other words, the GOP is pursuing a very short outlook energy policy which seems to dovetail with their short-term economic policies of piling up enormous budget deficits. They are not looking to the more intermedate and long term effects of their short-sighted policies.

I think both policies will ultimately bite us in the behind and both will have to be paid for by our children and grandchildren.

[Jimminy Crimson]

The car I'm buying gets about 5 more mpg. Still not above 20, though.

Is that green? :texan:

[FaninAma]

The car I'm buying gets about 5 more mpg. Still not above 20, though.

Is that green? :texan:
I would say sort of an off-brown.

[Miko]

Are you going to give me 60 seconds to answer that question?

Then I'm not going to anwer! :D ;)

[SicEmBaylor]

Despite my very conservative leanings I find myself buying into the premise that this country must divest itself of its dependence on foreign and big oil not only for economic and security reasons but as an investment in the future of our kids.

Now, I don't totally buy into the global warming hype, but I do think that George W. Bush and his administration are bought and paid for by big oil. And ususally I am very anti-tax but it is ridiculous that the GOP in the Senate filibustered the new energy bill because it contained a tax increase on big oil companies that represented 1.5 % of their profits over the next 6 years. If that's not being in the pockets of big oil then I don't know what is.

They also had the requirement for utility companies to produce 15% of their energy from clean enrgy alternatives withdrawn form the bill. All that is left is essentially a subsidy for the ethanol industry and modest new watered-down new mileage requirements for automobiles.

As a result I have pulled all of my energy investments in carbon based fuel production comapnies and reinvested them in companies that are developing solar power and other clean energy altrnatives.

You are right -- on all counts.

[mdklatt]

If we weren't involved in the Middle East, we wouldn't need a War on Terror. Take away their oil money and they wouldn't have the ability to do anything but fight amongst themselves on camelback. And we wouldn't have to care.

The true cost of a gallon of oil is a lot more than $3. How much smaller would our military be if didn't have to spread itself around the globe protecting our foreign oil supplies? There are environmental costs. There are opportunity costs because instead of investing in alternative energy we keep pouring all our money down oil wells. Germany has quickly become a leader in the solar industry. Denmark is a leader in the wind industry. Going "green" certainly hasn't hurt their bottom line.

[SicEmBaylor]

I'll never understand why conservatism and environmentalism are viewed as mutually exclusive by so many. Taking care of your house and looking for ways to ensure that things are better for future generations, even if it involves personal sacrifice, seem to be wholly conservative ideas, at least to me.

Well, because there is a difference between basic issues of conservation and cleanliness that conservatives should buy into and the radical environmental political agenda.

Yes, I am a conservative but I don't support having tons of toxic and deadly chemicals dumped on the side of the street and in my local water supply. I like the idea of people picking up after themselves and disposing of waste in a responsible manner, etc. I think most people would agree with that.


BUT, there's a difference between those things and advocating the destruction of our economy on the flimsy scientific grounds that human activity is utterly destroying the Earth and we'll all be dead in the next few decades if we don't start driving Yugo's.

Now, like Fan, I think energy independence is vital to our national security and I think that is the only way that you could constitutionally justify Federal action to move in that direction. To me, the "how" and justification for an action is sometimes more important than the action itself.

[mdklatt]

BUT, there's a difference between those things and advocating the destruction of our economy on the flimsy scientific grounds that human activity is utterly destroying the Earth and we'll all be dead in the next few decades if we don't start driving Yugo's.


Stick to politics. You're way out of your depth.

[SicEmBaylor]

Stick to politics. You're way out of your depth.
I know the difference between scientific theory and scientific fact, and I know enough to know there's plenty of division on the degree to which (if any) human activity is affecting the environment. That tells me that we shouldn't yet worry about returning to the days of hunting/gathering and loin cloths.

[mdklatt]

I know the difference between scientific theory and scientific fact

Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. The combustion of fossil fuels produces carbon dioxide. Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have been increasing since the beginning of the industrial age; furthermore, isotopic analysis shows that the carbon is from fossil fuels, not natural sources. Global temperature trends have been increasing since the beginning of the industrial age. The temperature rise is consistent with what what would be expected based on the rise in GHG concentrations. To prove that global warming is natural you have to 1) find another cause for the warming even though other known climate forcings have been repeatedly ruled out; and 2) figure out what's causing all those manmade greenhouse gases to not act as greenhouse gases




and I know enough to know there's plenty of division on the degree to which (if any) human activity is affecting the environment.


At this point, the flat-earthers consist of a small minority of self-proclaimed "experts", scientists from fields that have nothing at all to do with earth science, and a handful of people who actual have some expertise but are conveniently funded to large degree by the fossil fuel industry. This motley crew has very little peer reviewed research on it's side, so it instead publishes rehashed versions of the same repeatedly debunked arguments via organizations that were once shills for the tobacco industry but are now funded by--you guessed it--the fossil fuel industry. "Global warming is a fraud" is the new "cigarettes don't cause cancer".

[C&CDean]

That tells me that we shouldn't yet worry about returning to the days of hunting/gathering and loin cloths.

Worry? Hell, I long for it.

My family (and my friend and business partner Faninama's family too) are very much prepared if the proverbial **** ever did hit the fan. We could survive almost indefinetely on what we raise on our land. We have skills that we could barter for other necessities as well.

Now the whole war on terror thing would be happening with or without oil. Those towel wearing **********s hate us because we're free and are allowed to own ****. If we don't fight them over there, we'll be fighting them over here. I pity the allah worshipping infidel who tries to come take my cattle.

[Lott's Bandana]

I pity the allah worshipping infidel who tries to come take my cattle.

Or:

Grow pigs.

;)

[Lott's Bandana]

Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have been increasing since the beginning of the industrial age; furthermore, isotopic analysis shows that the carbon is from fossil fuels, not natural sources. Global temperature trends have been increasing since the beginning of the industrial age.



Conservative = status quo

Given the overall rise in the Earth's temperature due to manmade sources will dramatically change the environmental makeup of this planet, aren't the so-called liberals really being the conservatives on this issue? Trying to deflect change and also labeling this change "evil"?

Does the environmental change necessarily lead to Earth's destruction? Does increasing green policies cancel the changes out? Will future generations care that Texas has become Costa Rica?

Just a brainstorm...not a hill I am choosing to die on.

[mdklatt]

Now the whole war on terror thing would be happening with or without oil.


Without oil money the Middle East would be like equatorial Africa: dirt poor and constantly killing each other, but nobody else gives a ****. But wait a minute...we're finding oil in Africa so now we're starting to give a ****. Even if the no-money-having Arabs did still have enough hatred left over for us, they couldn't do a thing about it. Same thing with Venezuela. Chavez is basically using oil money to buy votes. Would he even be in power otherwise? Who knows, and more importantly, who cares? As oil prices increase there are going to be more and more petrodictators popping up, and we're going to have to kiss their asses to at least some degree because we need what they have.

[mdklatt]

Given the overall rise in the Earth's temperature due to manmade sources will dramatically change the environmental makeup of this planet, aren't the so-called liberals really being the conservatives on this issue? Trying to deflect change and also labeling this change "evil"?


Good point, and another example of how most people subscribe to a political party rather than a consistent ideology. If Al Gore was promoting artificial climate change as a way to spur economic development in the third world, Republicans would be going ape****.

[trpltongue]

A couple of informational tidbits:

The US consumes ~20Million barrels of oil a day
The US produces ~ 6Million barrels of oil a day

To be independant of foreign oil, everyone in the US would need to reduce their oil usage by a factor of 3.5. Everyone would need to use 1/4 the electricity, 1/4 the gasoline, 1/4 the heating oil etc. The top 10 oil companies producing in the us account for 55% of the US production. So, if we want to get rid of foreign and big oil, we have to basically abandon oil usage in the US. Think that's possible? Here's some more info.

Given that most all vehicles are oil powered, if we switch them all to electric, there still has to be electricity generated from something. Right now, fossil fuels deliver ~70% of all electricity in the US. The other 30% is provided by:

Wind (0.7%)
Solar(0.1%)
Nuclear(19.4%)
Hydro(7%)
Geothermal (0.3%)
Biomass(1.3%)

So let's just get right on building those nuclear power plants and Hoover Dam's because everyone loves those things. Oh wait, everyone hate's nuclear power because of the waste and we've already dammed up just about every flowing body of water. Well, lets get on with the wind and solar energy then. Oops, wind energy requires covering the land in huge propelers. Even if you were able to plaster every available 40 acres in the US with a wind generator you'd only replace about 75% of the current electricity needs. Same story for solar energy and ethanol.

The point is that we need to be self-aware of our energy usage and do things to be more eco-friendly, but until we run out of oil we will never stop using it as a means of cheap and available energy.

Don't get all ****y at the big oil companies just because they are making huge profits. Don't forget that they also spend huge amounts of money and they're return on investment isn't even in the top 20 of US companies. Also, don't forget that the big oil companies are the biggest payers of federal tax. For example, ExxonMobil made $39.5 Billion profit last year, they also paid $100.7 Billion in taxes. 2.5 times their profits. If we eliminate them, who do you think is going to replace those taxes?

[Lott's Bandana]

Good point, and another example of how most people subscribe to a political party rather than a consistent ideology. If Al Gore was promoting artificial climate change as a way to spur economic development in the third world, Republicans would be going ape****.


Funny, I never tire of the old phrase: bassackwards

[OklahomaTuba]

Given the overall rise in the Earth's temperature due to manmade sources will dramatically change the environmental makeup of this planet...

That statement is still up for debate, and not even close to being based on any facts.

Mars has rising temps also. Is that from man made sources as well???

National Security, Conservation and caring for God's creation is one thing most everyone will & should support. Scaring the crap out of people using statements like the one you made aren't proven & just hurts the cause.

When the people who keep telling us that Global Warming is a crisis start acting like it is a crisis, then maybe I will pay attention.

[OklahomaTuba]

To be independant of foreign oil, everyone in the US would need to reduce their oil usage by a factor of 3.5. Everyone would need to use 1/4 the electricity, 1/4 the gasoline, 1/4 the heating oil etc. The top 10 oil companies producing in the us account for 55% of the US production. So, if we want to get rid of foreign and big oil, we have to basically abandon oil usage in the US. Think that's possible?

Actually,

If we reduced consumptionAND allowed our oil & gas companies to explore and produce in Alaska, off Florida, California, etc, we would have more than enough energy to become independent.

Brasil started using some new methods for exploring the deep sea and found perhaps the largest oil field in the world outside of siberia or Saudi Arabia, and that was just a few months ago.

The problem is, we live in a global market place, and rising demand in China & India will keep making things worse, no matter what we do.

[trpltongue]

OklahomaTuba,

You bring up some good points about opening up the existing resource in the US, but the known resources in Alaska, GOM, and Pacific waters aren't enough to bring the US out of foreign dependence. Even the North Slope (the biggest field in the US) only accounts for 17% of the US production. The US would need to find 14 MORE north slopes to close the gap of TODAY's production / demand. It certainly wouldn't hurt, but it's not going to totally close the gap.

Also, the deep sea oil fields are very difficult to produce economically so getting a lot of daily volume from them would be difficult. Again, it would certainly help :)

[mdklatt]

Mars has rising temps also. Is that from man made sources as well???


Doubtful. Martian rovers are solar powered.


Let's see if I have this straight. Global warming isn't happening, and melting glaciers don't prove anything. However, melting glaciers on Mars are proof of global warming there, so even if global warming is happening on Earth (which is isn't), it's completely natural because whatever is happening on another planet is obviously what is happening here.

[SicEmBaylor]

Doubtful. Martian rovers are solar powered.


Let's see if I have this straight. Global warming isn't happening, and melting glaciers don't prove anything. However, melting glaciers on Mars are proof of global warming there, so even if global warming is happening on Earth (which is isn't), it's completely natural because whatever is happening on another planet is obviously what is happening here.

I think global warming is happening -- I just don't think it's man made.

[C&CDean]

Without oil money the Middle East would be like equatorial Africa: dirt poor and constantly killing each other, but nobody else gives a ****. But wait a minute...we're finding oil in Africa so now we're starting to give a ****. Even if the no-money-having Arabs did still have enough hatred left over for us, they couldn't do a thing about it. Same thing with Venezuela. Chavez is basically using oil money to buy votes. Would he even be in power otherwise? Who knows, and more importantly, who cares? As oil prices increase there are going to be more and more petrodictators popping up, and we're going to have to kiss their asses to at least some degree because we need what they have.

Wrong. You're forgetting about the little bee in the ragbonnet of the muslimoterrorists over there that we happen to support called Israel. They hate Israel, therefore, they hate us. We might be in the middle east militarily because of oil, but we don't have terrorists crashing airplanes because of it. They're crashing airplanes because they hate Israel and they hate us for supporting Israel.

Like it or not, it's a holy war. With a twist...

[BlondeSoonerGirl]

Heehehehe...you said 'holy'.

[mdklatt]

I think global warming is happening -- I just don't think it's man made.

Based on what? Intuition? Wishful thinking?


Which of the following statements is false:

Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas.
Atmospheric carbon dioxde concentrations are increasing.
The combustion of fossil fuels produces carbon dioxide.

[Condescending Sooner]

Based on what? Intuition? Wishful thinking?


Which of the following statements is false:

Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas.
Atmospheric carbon dioxde concentrations are increasing.
The combustion of fossil fuels produces carbon dioxide.

How did they measure atmospheric carbon dioxide levels 100 years ago? 200 years ago?

[TopDawg]

I think global warming is happening -- I just don't think it's man made.

I think global warming is happening. I think it would happen without man. I think it HAS happened before without man. I think this time man is speeding up the warming. I think there might not be anything we can do to STOP global warming, but I think there are things we can do to SLOW global warming. I think we should do those things because even though we can be relatively sure that the globe has warmed like this before, we can't be sure the human race will survive it.

[SicEmBaylor]

Based on what? Intuition? Wishful thinking?


Which of the following statements is false:

Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas.
Atmospheric carbon dioxde concentrations are increasing.
The combustion of fossil fuels produces carbon dioxide.

Well, I of course don't claim to understand much of this issue but I trust the fact that there's plenty of debate on the subject. I went to a lecture last semester on this very subject conducted by a Baylor Geology/Meteorology professor who discounted the notion that man had a great impact on the warming climate. It was a pretty detailed lecture and included a hell of a lot of charts and power point slides (most of which were above and beyond me), but I remember a few key points:

1. Carbon dioxide accounts for very little of the atmosphere and the percentage of that which is from man made industry is even smaller (I think something like .02%).

2. Water vapor accounts for a much bigger percentage of the atmosphere and is more responsible for the trapping of warm air thus causing the "greenhouse effect."

3. Meteorologists/Scientists have not yet been able to come up with computer models that accurately show the effect that weather patterns have on these gases and there's really no way to know (until they come up with decent models) how much or how little normal changes in climate are affected by man-produced materials/gases.

4. Basically, his point that is regardless of all the rhetoric when you factor in a multitude of different circumstances and take into account how very little we know on how the climate actually works -- there's no way to say for certain whether man is responsible or not.

5. He also pointed out the climate change on Mars and other planets and said that they are warming at a comparable rate to the Earth which points more to changes in the Sun than it does to anything we're doing.

[Vaevictis]

How did they measure atmospheric carbon dioxide levels 100 years ago? 200 years ago?

The ways I know of off of the top of my head:

* Tree rings -- it's known that the ratio of carbon in trees is related to the ratio of carbon dioxide in the air. By looking at the ratio of carbon in a certain ring, you can know (within a certain range) how much carbon dioxide was in the air when the ring was formed.
* Ice cores -- you can estimate (within a certain range) the age of a sample of ice and measure the carbon dioxide trapped in air bubbles

[1stTimeCaller]

I drive an alternative fuel vehicle and I only mow my yard a few times a year!

[mdklatt]

Wrong. You're forgetting about the little bee in the ragbonnet of the muslimoterrorists over there that we happen to support called Israel. They hate Israel, therefore, they hate us. We might be in the middle east militarily because of oil, but we don't have terrorists crashing airplanes because of it. They're crashing airplanes because they hate Israel and they hate us for supporting Israel.

You're missing the point. Assume oil had never been discovered in the Middle East:

Scenario 1: They're still living like Bedouins. Maybe during sand storms they like to get together in a tent, get buzzed on qat, and curse the Great Satan. Who cares because they can't do a thing about it. Problem solved.

Scenario 2: They've undergone economic development independent of oil, and pull off another 9/11. We bomb them back to Scenario 1 because we already have all the sand we need. Problem solved.

[Mongo]

I drive an alternative fuel vehicle and I only mow my yard a few times a year!


diesel is alternative? I am a tree hugger and didnt know it.

[Vaevictis]

Mars has rising temps also. Is that from man made sources as well???

... a fact which is irrelevant, and is pretty obviously so to anyone that stops and thinks about it for a minute.

So, stop and think about it for a minute.

* Increasing temperatures are a result of increased energy output from the Sun.
* Greenhouse gases convert that energy into heat and trap it -- proportional to the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

Application of logic results in the following conclusion:
* If the Sun increases its energy output, the temperature on the Earth will increase... in proportion to the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

To which, just about everyone else on the planet would respond: Duh.

[FaninAma]

A couple of informational tidbits:

The US consumes ~20Million barrels of oil a day
The US produces ~ 6Million barrels of oil a day

To be independant of foreign oil, everyone in the US would need to reduce their oil usage by a factor of 3.5. Everyone would need to use 1/4 the electricity, 1/4 the gasoline, 1/4 the heating oil etc. The top 10 oil companies producing in the us account for 55% of the US production. So, if we want to get rid of foreign and big oil, we have to basically abandon oil usage in the US. Think that's possible? Here's some more info.

Given that most all vehicles are oil powered, if we switch them all to electric, there still has to be electricity generated from something. Right now, fossil fuels deliver ~70% of all electricity in the US. The other 30% is provided by:

Wind (0.7%)
Solar(0.1%)
Nuclear(19.4%)
Hydro(7%)
Geothermal (0.3%)
Biomass(1.3%)

So let's just get right on building those nuclear power plants and Hoover Dam's because everyone loves those things. Oh wait, everyone hate's nuclear power because of the waste and we've already dammed up just about every flowing body of water. Well, lets get on with the wind and solar energy then. Oops, wind energy requires covering the land in huge propelers. Even if you were able to plaster every available 40 acres in the US with a wind generator you'd only replace about 75% of the current electricity needs. Same story for solar energy and ethanol.

The point is that we need to be self-aware of our energy usage and do things to be more eco-friendly, but until we run out of oil we will never stop using it as a means of cheap and available energy.

Don't get all ****y at the big oil companies just because they are making huge profits. Don't forget that they also spend huge amounts of money and they're return on investment isn't even in the top 20 of US companies. Also, don't forget that the big oil companies are the biggest payers of federal tax. For example, ExxonMobil made $39.5 Billion profit last year, they also paid $100.7 Billion in taxes. 2.5 times their profits. If we eliminate them, who do you think is going to replace those taxes?

I call BS on the $100 billion figure. I doubt that one company paid 1/3 of the total corporate tax revenue and 1/15th of all(corporate and individual) tax revenue collected in this country. If they did and the other big oil companies did likewise then why the hell are my taxes so high?

And your contention that it is impractical to try and replace fossil fuels as quickly as possible is spoken like a true employee(or shareholder) of one of the big oil companies. It is projected that new technology will enable solar power to produce an equivalent unit of energy cheaper than it's counterpart in the carbon based sector within 3 years. Also, the efficiency of the solar units in design is increasing at a logrithmic pace which means smaller and more effecient solar panels will continue to increasse the feasibility of solar power as well as other clean sources of energy.

Your argument is exactly why I oppose the GOP on this issue. Their view, just like yours is short-sighted. Just because oil and carbon based energy production is cheaper now doesn't mean that we shouldn't be spending more public and private money in research and development as well as using tax policy to encourage research and development by private industry.

[The Maestro]

Somebody...
http://www.clusterflock.org/Al_Gore.jpg
...thinks this thread RAWKS!

[Mongo]

The car I'm buying gets about 5 more mpg. Still not above 20, though.

Is that green? :texan:


We in the oil and gas industry would like to thank you for your wise purchase. Also, to maintain that engine, we advise you to let it warm up an hour before you plan on driving. This ensures the engine parts are ready to go and the oil is flowing properly

[BigRedJed]

Everyone seems to think the best way to reduce oil consumption/foreign dependency is for everyone to drive a Prius. Guess what? My daily driver is a 4x4 F150 Lariat Supercrew that gets about 12 MPG, and I'll guarantee you that I burn less fuel than a treehugging Prius driver that lives in Edmond and works in downtown OKC. How? Because I work downtown AND live downtown. I rarely venture north of NW 50th, south of Reno, west of Penn or east of Lincoln. When the weather's nice I increase my average annual MPG by riding an 80 MPG scooter, but even without the scoot at all I would do better than the Prius guy.

And before Dean goes on a rant about living downtown vs. living in the country, let me be clear: I have no problem with a truly rural lifestyle, where you live and work in the same place. The problem I have is with the 25-45 minute commute that everyone accepts without questioning. The secret to less fuel consumption is for more people to live, work, shop, and play in the same vicinity.

Suburban sprawl is one of the main reasons our fuel consumption is so out of whack. Everybody thinks they are "escaping" something by living in the 'burbs, when in reality they are just creating next the decade's blight.

If American cities would concentrate more on building and retrofitting their communities in a sustainable fashion, plus find ways to realign the public's perception of the "American Dream" (the suburban single-family home with the yard and a two car garage is really only about 60 years old, as a concept), the country's fuel consumption would eventually drop in a pretty spectacular fashion.

[trpltongue]

First of all, it is impractical to replace fossil fuels in the next 10 years. However, as I stated, we should do everything we can to increase our energy efficiency. The problem with a lot of alternative technologies is one of efficiency and scale. If we could take 2000 acres and plaster them with enough efficient solar panels to generate enough electricity for every house and vehicle in the US, I'd be ecstatic! The problem is we can't.

We should spend money on developing alternative sources of energy because we'll more than likely need them in the long run. We should also spend money on developing efficiencies in the energy sources we have now (which, based on existing reserves are projected to last for at least 50 more years with the current technology available).

Yes, I am a shareholder in ExxonMobil. It has made me over $100k in 6 years of ownership, I'd suggest everyone own some. If I'm going to fork over the money for gasoline and electricity, I might as well get some back.

Finally, check this link for the validity of my figures on ExxonMobil's tax bill.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/2195.html

Bigredjed,

It's awesome that you can afford to live in downtown OKC. If I want to live in downtown Houston, I have to pay $300K for a 3bed / 1 bath 1400sq ft home built in 1910. I don't have that kind of flow.

[badger]

I am very anti-green right now :mad:

You tree huggers will understand when you come back from vacation to discover one of the trees you hug has landed on your car :mad::mad:

However, I'm probably still more "green" than you and your hippie van, because I've been commuting with NP to work all this week. :)

[mdklatt]

Well, I of course don't claim to understand much of this issue but I trust the fact that there's plenty of debate on the subject.

There's debate on whether or not OU has a better football team than oSu...if you ask oSu fans.




1. Carbon dioxide accounts for very little of the atmosphere and the percentage of that which is from man made industry is even smaller (I think something like .02%).


I'm not sure if that number .02% is right, but this argument is irrelevent. Assume you have a bath tub, and the water is running but the drain is open. Water is draining out just as fast as it's coming out of the faucet. The system is in equilibrium, and the bath tub doesn't flood. Close the drain just a tiny little bit, and what happens? The tub eventually overflows and a new equilibrium is reached. The sun is is the faucet, and greenhouse gases are blocking the drain.



2. Water vapor accounts for a much bigger percentage of the atmosphere and is more responsible for the trapping of warm air thus causing the "greenhouse effect."


Molecule for molecule, carbon dioxide is a much more effective greenhouse gas than water vapor. And water vapor is a mostly a feedback, not a forcing. You can't put enough water vapor in the air to disrupt the equilibrium because water vapor doesn't persist very long in the atmosphere, and there's a physical limit to much you can add. However, if something else starts the warming process, the resulting increase in water vapor is a positive feedback that pushes you even further away from the old equilibrium.

But it doesn't even matter what the effect of CO2 versus water vapor is because we're a talking about a relative change not an absolute magnitude, i.e. the overflowing bathtub.




3. Meteorologists/Scientists have not yet been able to come up with computer models that accurately show the effect that weather patterns have on these gases and there's really no way to know (until they come up with decent models) how much or how little normal changes in climate are affected by man-produced materials/gases.


:confused:

Most greenhouse gases live in the stratosphere, but most weather lives in the troposphere. Not sure what he was getting at here.




4. Basically, his point that is regardless of all the rhetoric when you factor in a multitude of different circumstances and take into account how very little we know on how the climate actually works -- there's no way to say for certain whether man is responsible or not.


We know there's a greenhouse effect. We know that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. We know that atmospheric CO2 is increasing. We know it's coming from fossil fuels. How are we not responsible to at least some degree?

We see the hoof prints, and the horse is standing right in front of us, but some people still want us to look for a zebra.





5. He also pointed out the climate change on Mars and other planets and said that they are warming at a comparable rate to the Earth which points more to changes in the Sun than it does to anything we're doing.

There has been no change in the amount of solar radiation reaching the Earth since we began measuring it with satellites. If it was the sun, we'd expect to see higher daytime maximum temperatures . Instead, most of the global warming signal is in higher nighttime minimum temperatures, which is completely consistent with an increased greenhouse effect.

The "global warming" on Mars seems to be confined to a polar region and have nothing to do with the sun (link (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=192)).

[Vaevictis]

Finally, check this link for the validity of my figures on ExxonMobil's tax bill.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/2195.html

Got a better source than that one? It basically pulls the number out of its *** and doesn't reference where it's getting the number.

[mdklatt]

Everyone seems to think the best way to reduce oil consumption/foreign dependency is for everyone to drive a Prius. Guess what? My daily driver is a 4x4 F150 Lariat Supercrew that gets about 12 MPG, and I'll guarantee you that I burn less fuel than a treehugging Prius driver that lives in Edmond and works in downtown OKC. How? Because I work downtown AND live downtown.

But wouldn't you burn even less if you drove a Prius?? :confused:


:D

[TopDawg]

I'm not sure if that number .02% is right, but this argument is irrelevent. Assume you have a bath tub, and the water is running but the drain is open. Water is draining out just as fast as it's coming out of the faucet. The system is in equilibrium, and the bath tub doesn't flood. Increase the faucet outflow by just a tiny little bit, and what happens? The tub eventually overflows and a new equilibrium is reached.

If you just increase it by a tiny little bit, it will probably only fill up to the part where the little handle to open the drain is. Usually those things aren't sealed tightly enough to keep water from going out through that.



Otherwise, good analogy. :D

[mdklatt]

If you just increase it by a tiny little bit, it will probably only fill up to the part where the little handle to open the drain is. Usually those things aren't sealed tightly enough to keep water from going out through that.

What if the drain just has a rubber stopper? :twinkies:

[soonerscuba]

Heh. Nothing beats the "alternative energy is bad" crowd. I think the practical use of solar panels is getting more and more common place, such as solar shingles that can not only take your energy bill to zero, but also be tapped into existing power sources meaning you literally get paid if you produce more than you use (it should be noted that solar shingles ain't cheap, but so neither were DVD players at one time). This process is also clean, why is this a bad thing again? Maybe a little diversification of a portfolio into alternative energy would be a pay off too.

[mdklatt]

Heh. Nothing beats the "alternative energy is bad" crowd.


A lot of that crowd is made up of "environmentalists". :confused: :mad:

"But wind turbines kill birds!" And a coal plant would be so much better for the local avian population. :rolleyes:




Maybe a little diversification of a portfolio into alternative energy would be a pay off too.

Wind energy is already the next oil boom in western Oklahoma, but if/when they build a proposed major transmission line down from the panhandle it's going to go gangbusters.

[trpltongue]

Got a better source than that one? It basically pulls the number out of its *** and doesn't reference where it's getting the number.

The best I can do is this:

http://money.cnn.com/quote/financials/financials.html?symb=XOM&sid=161455&report=1&period=annual

That shows a figure of $28B in taxes, not counting US royalty payments, lease payments to the US for exploration, or other items technically classified as "non-tax" that go directly to the US government. I'm not sure where the tax foundation get's their $100B figure. Still, $28B is a TON of taxes.

And I don't think anyone is saying alternative energy is bad? I personally had 2 solar panels on my condo to help heat the hot water heater. I'm just saying that it's silly to go bashing the oil companies because they are making money, and equally as silly to suggest that the big oil companies ought to be funding the research for alternative energy. Admittedly, no one has said that in this thread, but it is a common outcry from those in opposition to big oil. The cry is often heard "why not use some of their ridiculous profits to fund alternative energy research".

[Vaevictis]

That shows a figure of $28B in taxes, not counting US royalty payments, lease payments to the US for exploration, or other items technically classified as "non-tax" that go directly to the US government. I'm not sure where the tax foundation get's their $100B figure. Still, $28B is a TON of taxes.

$28B is definitely a ton of taxes. But it's a far cry from $100 billion. $28B is about 40%, and so is in the ballpark of what you'd expect in income taxes. $100 billion is way out of line.


(...) and equally as silly to suggest that the big oil companies ought to be funding the research for alternative energy. (...) The cry is often heard "why not use some of their ridiculous profits to fund alternative energy research".

Actually, they should fund alternative energy research -- it's in their best interest in the long run to do so. And many do -- for example, BP spends serious coin on solar.

[Mongo]

Actually, they should fund alternative energy research -- it's in their best interest in the long run to do so. And many do -- for example, BP spends serious coin on solar.


why should an oil company do research outside of oil and gas production? and why is it in their interest to do so?

[Boarder]

Any idea how much one of those giant windmills like out in western Oklahoma cost?

[mdklatt]

It is projected that new technology will enable solar power to produce an equivalent unit of energy cheaper than it's counterpart in the carbon based sector within 3 years.

Utility scale wind power is already competitive with fossil fuels, and furthermore the rate doesn't spike every time a Saudi prince has a bad hair day. Utilities are buying wind power with 20-year contracts. If you signed up for OG&E's 100% wind power program a couple of year ago, there have been months when you were actually paying less for wind power. That was a marketing scheme more than anything, so I don't know if it reflected the true costs of wind power--but you have to imagine that OG&E set it up to make a profit.

[mdklatt]

Any idea how much one of those giant windmills like out in western Oklahoma cost?

~$1.5 million/megawatt installed

Ironically, increased fossil fuel prices are driving up manufacturing and construction costs.

[Vaevictis]

why should an oil company do research outside of oil and gas production? and why is it in their interest to do so?

It's in their best interest (in the long run!) because sooner or later, oil and gas aren't going to be economic compared to the alternatives, and it's better to be the guy selling the alternatives than the guy put out of business by them.

[Boarder]

I actually had an idea about developing a housing addition with one of the big windmills in the middle to provide power, a water well, and all "green" built Leed certified houses around it. I was thinking the big windmills would probably be a million or more.

[NormanPride]

Any idea how much one of those giant windmills like out in western Oklahoma cost?

I saw one on ebay for 1M. Not bad...

[mdklatt]

why should an oil company do research outside of oil and gas production? and why is it in their interest to do so?

So they don't end up like the dinosaurs they're sucking out of the ground. There is a growing global groundswell against fossil fuels, for a variety of reasons. Besides, it's not exactly an unlimited resource, is it. We will get off the oil standard one day. OU made a big deal about the new Earth & Energy College, but they might as well have named it the Hydrocarbon College. That is a dying industry, although certainly not any time soon.

I imagine all the whale blubber moguls sitting around back in the day, musing about coal. "Rocks that burn? 'Tis but a fad."

[mdklatt]

I actually had an idea about developing a housing addition with one of the big windmills in the middle to provide power, a water well, and all "green" built Leed certified houses around it. I was thinking the big windmills would probably be a million or more.

You'd want a few smaller (~100kW) turbines for that.

[limey_sooner]

The thing that irritates me with people who criticize people who say they want to go green is there are so many upsides even if you don't believe in global warming. Less dependence on the dangerously crazy sandbox that is the middle east, better environment for your children whether or not global warming is real, and the last that no one talks about is economic opportunities. Given the technological prowess that the u.s. has shown at all levels you can't tell me that we couldn't lead the world very quickly in the development and production of green technologies.

[OUWxGuesser]

The thing that irritates me with people who criticize people who say they want to go green is there are so many upsides even if you don't believe in global warming. Less dependence on the dangerously crazy sandbox that is the middle east, better environment for your children whether or not global warming is real, and the last that no one talks about is economic opportunities.

Ding ding ding... we have a winner. I'm a proponent of AGW (but not in doomsday), but going green is more about the last two points in the statement above.

The next step is to get our nuclear power back on track. As much as I like wind/hydro/solar power (and they work good in niche markets), nuclear tech is about the only thing that can give us the power output needed for our large cities. The tech is out there to reprocess our waste, and reactor designs are safe. When it comes down to it, even if there is waste we can't take care of, I'd rather sacrifice a small Sh**hole corner in the world (Yucca Flats) than risk wider scale issues. It's all about the cost and benefit analysis. There will be drawbacks to every tech we use... no such thing as a free lunch.

Statement below corrected:

I know Global warming is happening. I know it (climate change) WILL happen without man. I know it HAS happened before without man. I also know man influences the earth system and has some impact on climate change. I DO NOT KNOW whether we will all die a fiery death. I do know the climate will be better in North Dakota with global warming =)

[sooneron]

Wrong. You're forgetting about the little bee in the ragbonnet of the muslimoterrorists over there that we happen to support called Israel. They hate Israel, therefore, they hate us. We might be in the middle east militarily because of oil, but we don't have terrorists crashing airplanes because of it. They're crashing airplanes because they hate Israel and they hate us for supporting Israel.

Like it or not, it's a holy war. With a twist...
No, wrong. The one thing that galvanized OBL and al quaeda against the US was us moving our forces into SA after the invasion of Kuwait by Hussein.

Do they hate us for our relationship w/ Israel? Yes, but our presence there to protect our "interests" is a huge reason why they attacked us. Bin Laden was appalled that non believers were allowed to live within the birthplace of islam. We aren't there to watch over a bunch of tents.

[bluedogok]

I actually had an idea about developing a housing addition with one of the big windmills in the middle to provide power, a water well, and all "green" built Leed certified houses around it. I was thinking the big windmills would probably be a million or more.
There are neighborhoods like this being developed, including a few large scale ones in the Denver area.

[JohnnyMack]

Nuclear Power is the answer. Of course the oil industry and its lobby won't let it happen. But it's the answer.

[Whet]

Nuclear Power is the answer. Of course the oil industry and its lobby won't let it happen. But it's the answer.

It isn't oil companies and their lobbyists - you can blame tree huggers, NIMBYS, and the accompanying massive federal regulatory requirements of building a nuclear powerplant.

Anyone recall Black Fox Nuclear Power Plant that was to be built outside of Inola in the 70's? It wasn't oil companies that protested its construction.......

[bluedogok]

Yep, many of the oil companies do have investments in alternative energies including nuclear, remember Kerr-McGee?

[Whet]

I actually interviewed with K-M for a job in their New Mexico underground uranium mine. I learned really quick after a tour of the mine, that I was not going to do that kind of work!! Horrible place!

[SCOUT]

Let's see if I have this straight. Global warming isn't happening, and melting glaciers don't prove anything. However, melting glaciers on Mars are proof of global warming there, so even if global warming is happening on Earth (which is isn't), it's completely natural because whatever is happening on another planet is obviously what is happening here.

Did the Mars rover discover a glacier I didn't hear about?

[mdklatt]

Did the Mars rover discover a glacier I didn't hear about?

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2003/07aug_southpole.htm

[Jerk]

I'm going green, too. I'm going to put these stickers on my 5mpg truck:

http://lh3.google.com/_XIhyvgIewTU/RnoFvOasWII/AAAAAAAAAUE/rxerJqxgWfA/s800/C:%5CDocuments%2Band%2BSettings%5Cjarodsmith%5CDes ktop%5Cecolarge.jpg

[olevetonahill]

I aint Green , But I am kinda Tarnished

[Boarder]

There are neighborhoods like this being developed, including a few large scale ones in the Denver area.
Really? You have any info or know the name for a link or anything?

[bluedogok]

The Stapleton Airport and Lowry AFB areas were developed in a New Urbanism, green/sustainable design way. Highlands' Garden Village in the location of the original Elitch Gardens Amusement Park (before they moved downtown) is another one. I have the links at work as we are pushing the green/sustainable design hard trying to convince clients that it is a good practice.