Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Moving Toward Energy Rationing
RCP ^ | May 30th, 2008 | Charles Krauthammer

Posted on 05/29/2008 10:06:12 PM PDT by The_Republican

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-49 next last
To: blackbart.223
Facts do tend to prove themselves.
21 posted on 05/29/2008 10:52:42 PM PDT by allmost
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: allmost
"I want more green...(ARGH!)"

If I see anything green in my refrigerator that shouldn't be I toss it out.

22 posted on 05/29/2008 10:53:43 PM PDT by blackbart.223 (I live in Northern Nevada. Reid doesn't represent me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: allmost
"Facts do tend to prove themselves."

That's because they fact not fancy.

23 posted on 05/29/2008 10:55:59 PM PDT by blackbart.223 (I live in Northern Nevada. Reid doesn't represent me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: The_Republican

When CO2 gets to .04% of the makeup of the Earths atmoshpere, I’ll start to worry. But we’d have to do a lot more work to get there.

Yep, CO2 isn’t even 1% of the atmosphere. We’re talking about destroying capitalism in order to remove one-hundreth of 1% of the air in the atmosphere which is where the ‘greenhouse gases’ exist. Irrational? Sounds like it to me.


24 posted on 05/29/2008 10:58:29 PM PDT by bpjam (Drill For Oil or Lose Your Job!! Vote Nov 3, 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blackbart.223

25 posted on 05/29/2008 11:00:20 PM PDT by allmost
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: bpjam
I am really starting wonder if CO2 can even be considered a green house gas at all. What never seems to be mentioned in all the public debates on CO2 and global warming is the fact that for at least the last 2 billion years, the increase in CO2 always came after the increase in global temperatures.

Further, the basic scientific theory behind blaming CO2 for global warming is the "radiative forcing theory" and from Wikipedia itself: "The relationship between carbon dioxide and radiative forcing is logarithmic so that increased concentrations have a progressively smaller warming effect."

It seems to me that CO2 is not the real culprit here, if there even is a real culprit. It seems to me the real culprits are the global warming fanatics who spread fear and misinformation in order to advance their goal of returning all of civilization to the dark ages.

26 posted on 05/29/2008 11:37:41 PM PDT by Left2Right ("Democracy isn't perfect, but other governments are so much worse (especially Iran's)")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: blackbart.223

A policy highly to be recommended about the population at large...


27 posted on 05/29/2008 11:55:16 PM PDT by SAJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: allmost

Well, if it’s the green i can fold and put in my wallet...then i will agree with you....


28 posted on 05/30/2008 12:08:23 AM PDT by Beamreach (what is truth, Jesus Christ is truth and from truth flows right and wrong)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Texas Eagle
But, God, in His infinite wisdom decided to create a life-perpetuating cycle wherein that CO2 is taken in by plant life which converts it into oxygen which is a necessary component for non-plant life to ingest and (what are the odds???) is then converted back into CO2!

You're arguing against yourself. This cycle functioned as such for millions of years, but now the burning of fossil fuels is introducing many millions of tons of additional CO2 into the cycle each year. It's not a stable situation.

29 posted on 05/30/2008 12:09:18 AM PDT by dr_lew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: The_Republican
Consider: If Newton's laws of motion could, after 200 years of unfailing experimental and experiential confirmation, be overthrown, it requires religious fervor to believe that global warming -- infinitely more untested, complex and speculative -- is a closed issue.

Excellent point by CK.

30 posted on 05/30/2008 12:27:40 AM PDT by Recovering_Democrat (Just say NObama!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The_Republican

“Yet on the basis of this speculation, environmental activists, attended by compliant scientists and opportunistic politicians, are advocating radical economic and social regulation. “The largest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy and prosperity,” warns Czech President Vaclav Klaus, “is no longer socialism. It is, instead, the ambitious, arrogant, unscrupulous ideology of environmentalism.” “

Actually they go hand in hand. Socialism is using environmentalism as a way to gain central control of our lives, and similarly environmentalism is using socialism to dictate people’s lives. This is the way for marxists to take over the country through the back door.

I tell you this global warming crap is way worse than opening the borders and giving amnesty to everybody. We have to rise up and fight them every inch of the way.


31 posted on 05/30/2008 12:33:30 AM PDT by aquila48
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Left2Right
The truly sad part of their madness is that the U.S. has at least 5 trillion barrels of recoverable oil in oil shale & tar sands in the continental U.S. alone.

Evidence please? At most we are talking about 1 trillion and the issue of "recoverability" is a matter of the cost per barrel of extraction and the amount of water available. It takes 3-5 gallons of water to extract 1 gallon of oil from oil shale. Moreover, the cost per barrel may be higher than net capital investment of switiching to plug-in hybrids powered by wind and sipping the cheap oil of which there are probably 60 billion barrels in the US.

32 posted on 05/30/2008 12:40:15 AM PDT by Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit (Bomb Liechtenstein!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: The_Republican
"I'm not a global warming believer. I'm not a global warming denier. I'm a global warming agnostic who believes instinctively that it can't be very good to pump lots of CO2 into the atmosphere,..."

But it IS good. It would be BAD if there wasn't any CO2 being pumped in the air. All the plants would die. Pumping more CO2 into the air ensures healthy, lush green forrests producing lots of oxegen for us to breathe and burn, converting it back once again to CO2.

CO2 is NOT a pollutant. It's necessary element of the earth, a building block of all life.

What is shameful is that these so called "global warming" scientists have managed to convince the sheeple that co2 is a pollutant when it is NOT.

33 posted on 05/30/2008 12:55:55 AM PDT by Nathan Zachary
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dr_lew
"You're arguing against yourself. This cycle functioned as such for millions of years, but now the burning of fossil fuels is introducing many millions of tons of additional CO2 into the cycle each year. It's not a stable situation. "

Wrong. increased co2 provides for the spreading of more abundant green growth. When levels fall too low, growth is inhibited. The more co2, the greener the earth becomes. It's self regulating.

34 posted on 05/30/2008 1:04:37 AM PDT by Nathan Zachary
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Nathan Zachary
Wrong. increased co2 provides for the spreading of more abundant green growth. When levels fall too low, growth is inhibited. The more co2, the greener the earth becomes. It's self regulating.

Evidently not, since the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is increasing at a significant, not to say alarming, rate.

It is very interesting, though, that the CO2 concentration shows such a strong annual signal, decreasing sharply during the northern summer, and increasing during the northern winter. This raises a lot of questions in my mind which I never see addressed. It certainly seems to imply that land vegetation takes a dominant role in the consumption of CO2, but we are told otherwise. By the same token, it seems to imply that we should look to land vegetation to redress this seasonal imbalance. Hence my proposed "kudzu solution". But who listens to me?

35 posted on 05/30/2008 2:11:46 AM PDT by dr_lew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Left2Right

That's only half of the story. The atmosphere on Venus is also 95% CO2 and it's hot enough there to melt lead!

So if a 95% CO2 atmosphere doesn't have any effect on the temperture of either of those two planets what effect will a 0.038% CO2 concentration have here on Earth besides nothing?

36 posted on 05/30/2008 2:17:46 AM PDT by StACase
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit
The 5 trillion barrels of potentially recoverable oil in the continental U.S. is a only a rough number for now. The 1 trillion barrels that you mention is the estimate for the Bakken formation alone. Here is a pdf with a map of the locations of of the currently known oil shale deposits in the U.S.:

Green River Overview

However, a better site for for this topic is:

www.unconventionalfuels.org

Fortunately, most of the deposits in the U.S. are in oil shale as opposed to the tar sands in Canada. The Canadians have led the way with the extraction technology for heavy oil and the U.S. will benefit from their experience. In the Green River formation, it is estimated that only 1-2 gallons of water will be needed to extract 1 gallon of oil.

As for the capital costs, the Canadian experience is showing that although the initial Cap-ex costs are high, the maintenance and expense costs decline over time.

What needs to be kept in mind are several points: 1) This is the beginning of a relatively new technology, and as new advances are made, more oil will be recovered, 2) If even only 400 billion barrels are recoverable from the Green River formation in Utah, at long term costs of less than $30-40 per barrel, not only will this be profitable for the oil companies, but 400 billion barrels of oil is more than the estimated reserves of Saudi Arabia, 3) The oil companies seem to be committed to reducing the atmospheric release of as much CO2 as possible. In fact, there is discussion of sequestering some of the CO2 in the Permian Basin (eastern New Mexico and western Texas). The CO2 could also conceivably used in an enhanced oil recovery scheme as well:

Enhanced Oil Recovery

Happy reading!

37 posted on 05/30/2008 2:22:25 AM PDT by Left2Right ("Democracy isn't perfect, but other governments are so much worse (especially Iran's)")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: StACase

My thoughts as well!


38 posted on 05/30/2008 2:24:46 AM PDT by Left2Right ("Democracy isn't perfect, but other governments are so much worse (especially Iran's)")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: The_Republican; Lando Lincoln; neverdem; quidnunc; .cnI redruM; Valin; King Prout; SJackson; ...
Czech President Vaclav Klaus:

"The largest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy and prosperity is no longer socialism. It is, instead, the ambitious, arrogant, unscrupulous ideology of environmentalism."

Charles Krauthammer :

... For a century, an ambitious, arrogant, unscrupulous knowledge class -- social planners, scientists, intellectuals, experts and their left-wing political allies -- arrogated to themselves the right to rule either in the name of the oppressed working class (communism) or, in its more benign form, by virtue of their superior expertise in achieving the highest social progress by means of state planning (socialism).

Two decades ago, however, socialism and communism died rudely, then were buried forever by the empirical demonstration of the superiority of market capitalism everywhere from Thatcher's England to Deng's China, where just the partial abolition of socialism lifted more people out of poverty more rapidly than ever in human history.

Just as the ash heap of history beckoned, the intellectual left was handed the ultimate salvation: environmentalism. Now the experts will regulate your life not in the name of the proletariat or Fabian socialism but -- even better -- in the name of Earth itself.

Environmentalists are Gaia's priests, instructing us in her proper service and casting out those who refuse to genuflect.


Nailed It!

This ping list is not author-specific for articles I'd like to share. Some for the perfect moral clarity, some for provocative thoughts; or simply interesting articles I'd hate to miss myself. (I don't have to agree with the author all 100% to feel the need to share an article.) I will try not to abuse the ping list and not to annoy you too much, but on some days there is more of the good stuff that is worthy of attention. You can see the list of articles I pinged to lately  on  my page.
You are welcome in or out, just freepmail me (and note which PING list you are talking about). Besides this one, I keep 2 separate PING lists for my favorite authors Victor Davis Hanson and Orson Scott Card.  

39 posted on 05/30/2008 6:21:02 AM PDT by Tolik
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dr_lew
May I interest you & your family into buying some re-breathers from me?

I'll give you a great deal, and you'll feel so good about saving our mother, earth.

40 posted on 05/30/2008 6:44:09 AM PDT by G.Mason (Duty, Honor, Country)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-49 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson