Actually found this on a google ad

[gonefishin]

You have it nailed down Al. I am certainly not as articulate as you but you are saying exactly what I have been saying or at least trying to say.

[Wayne SW/MO]

Al we are market driven and that is written in stone. You bring up Ethanol and Corn, but Ethanol was brought into the market to get rid of Corn, not to make fuel. I agree that corn isn't the best raw resource, but for Missouri and states that are producing the bulk of Ethanol it is. If the plains states would start making it from Prairie Grass, corn farmers would be scrambling to produce cheap corn, and cheap corn is likely to be environmentally friendly.

Auto companies? The flex engines in Brazil are American, its not a lack of technology, it a lack of fuel, which means no market for the cars.

Instead of bashing oil companies for high profits, they should be given incentives to invest in alternate fuels, after all they have the storage and delivery systems already in place. You do this with tax incentives, not by bashing people who mention the word.

The people have the power, they have just lost the ability to use it wisely.

[Kicknbass]

Instead of bashing oil companies for high profits, they should be given incentives to invest in alternate fuels, after all they have the storage and delivery systems already in place. You do this with tax incentives, not by bashing people who mention the word.

The people have the power, they have just lost the ability to use it wisely.

Well said. Too many folks just start bashing the corporate world. Last time I checked, my paycheck comes from a corporation. I may not like all the things they do, but at least I know where they stand, and they try hard to produce the best product for their customers and are fair to the employees, they must do this because of the competition.

[Phil Lilley]

I heard an interesting segment on NPR this morning about Green Peace founder, Patrick Moore. He left Green Peace some years ago and his beliefs have changed on some subject, most notably in regards to nuclear power. So I did some research (google) and found a couple of articles.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...6041401209.html

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20...04215-7645r.htm

There are still big problems with nuclear power the industry/government admits but nuclear power has the potential to be our best alternative to oil.

[Wayne SW/MO]

There are still big problems with nuclear power the industry/government admits but nuclear power has the potential to be our best alternative to oil.

True, but with little hope of receiving a permit to build one I'm sure research is non-existent.

[Crippled Caddis]

I'm bringing this thread back to the top I hope. A lot of sensible discussion has taken place already but it seems little or no concensus was achieved. In the quotes below I see what I believe are lots of pertinant points that may have been either misinterpreted or under-emphasized.

Al wrote:

<The coal companies are almost as powerful. Anything that replaces oil also has the probability of replacing coal.

Perhaps inadvertantly Al has identified both the problem and the solution. Coal gasification technology has existed for a long time. The Nazis were running crude coal gas plants on both military and civilian vehicles as long ago as WW2. The technology for 'green' coal gasification now exists and North America has virtually unlimited reserves of coal. But the reality is that it won't be used until the multi-national petroleum giants have milked remaining petroleum reserves for the last cent. In the meantime I suspect those same multi-nationals are quietly acquiring control of both existing coal industries and cornering mineral rights of known coal reserves. If we have a market researcher aboard I think a bit of research in those areas might prove revealing.

Phil wrote:

< nuclear power has the potential to be our best alternative to oil.>

Sorry Phil, but in this I must violently disagree. While there is great promise indeed in nuclear power the byproducts are simply too dangerous. Current practice is to hide them and forget them. That doesn't work. Long after the containers have turned to dust the nuclear toxins will still be almost as inimitable to life as ever. Until such time as that problem is resolved nuclear power has nothing but a downside for life on earth.

Kicknbass wrote:

<I think the government should partner w/ the corporate world to develop the technology to move our economy away from our addiction to Oil. When the technology is developed, and the product can be produced and sold at a profit, the change will happen.>

Why on earth should our tax monies be spent to further subsidize an industry that already recieves massive injections of public monies while chalking up obscene profit margins at the expense of the taxpayer?

So long as we continue to BUY petroleum products at profiteering prices the multi-nationals have zero incentive to bring other technologies to market until such time as they have milked the last cent from petroleum.

Al wrote:

<Most of these industries get huge subsidies, tax breaks, and favorable treatment from the government. They are also among the largest donors to political campaigns.>

An excellent summation of reality Al. Until such time as the voteing public awakens and exercises their right to "throw the bastards out" of office that continue to sell their constituents out absolutely nothing will change. In the final anaysis we get the government we deserve.

If you want to know where the root of the problem lies take a good look in the mirror. If you have ever voted for an incumbent that has performed in less than a satisfactory fashion then the problem is the guy shaving you each morning.

'We the people' have the power to change everything. If we choose not to use it we have only ourselves to blame.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Ignorance and apathy are the principle enemies of freedom, surpassing even evil intent. Misguided good intentions are their greatest ally."--Myself

[Al Agnew]

Yep, the technology to produce energy from coal without undue environmental damage is available, and is even being used in a few places. But that is only part of the coal equation. Getting the coal out of the ground is the other big problem. The history of Appalachia is one of continuous environmental damage from mining coal, complete with dead rivers and dead miners. And now it's being done by mountaintop removal, which has to be about the most horrific thing that's ever been done to forested mountains and tributary streams. Producing energy from coal with the best technology may be necessary in the short term, but cannot be a long term answer, no matter how much coal reserves we have.

[Crippled Caddis]

Al wrote:

<Yep, the technology to produce energy from coal without undue environmental damage is available--. But that is only part of the coal equation. Getting the coal out of the ground is the other big problem---now it's being done by mountaintop removal, which has to be about the most horrific thing that's ever been done to forested mountains and tributary streams.>

And when an energy addicted society runs out of oil or it gets so rare that all remaining supplies are set aside for national defense or it simply gets so expensive that the common man cannot heat his home or fuel his transport how long do you think principles concerning the landscape and environment will prevail? We know the answer to that---as do the energy producers. In the meantime they will continue to reap obscene profits from the ever decreasing petroleum and corner coal reserves. When the American people clamor for energy at any cost then a 'breakthrough' will be announced with the caveat that cheap energy can be ours if only we are prepared to make some sacrifices. 'The People' will demand that earth be sacrificed on the alter of their hunger for energy. The energy multi-nationals are depending on it. And they will get it unless some currently unsuspected source is discovered. And if that was to occur what do you think the chances are that the energy giants would allow it to be developed without interference? Or control?

Bleak picture? Sure----but it's predicated on the basic nature of man, a principle that will seldom, if ever, fail. The energy giants are betting on it.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

"The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened."------NormanThomas

[Al Agnew]

Unfortunately, I agree with you. I always hope that we as a country will begin to look beyond the next quarter's profit margin and the next election cycle, but I don't expect it to ever happen.

[FJ80]

For those interested in an alternative view on Global Warming to Al Gore's Inconvienant Truth, See:

http://www.junkscience.com/

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4520665474899458831

To make informed decisions and statements, one must consider all facts objectively, keeping in mind inherent biases and agendas. I am not promoting either video as "the final truth", but I do think by looking at both, one will be better informed on what is and is not scientific fact.

FJ80