Replies

You have to understand the “feudalist” mentality of the leftist elitists.

THEY DON’T WANT US TO USE ENERGY
and have the comfortable lifestyle that only they should enjoy.

That is so true. Reminds me of the story of the EPA leadership in San Francisco who had huge ares of forest blocked off from use by the public for “conservation” and then had houses built way up in the forest where they lived. Couldn't let the common people mess up their “views”.

THEY DON’T WANT US TO USE ENERGY

This is the only logical expalanation when you consider all the opposition to anything that is proposed.

While there is more proven crude oil on earth now (that we can extract) then there was in the 1970s, 80, 90, etc., we are not to touch it because it produces carbon dioxide

Nuclear Energy is the most efficient, cost effective, abundantly available and cleanest, but the bi-product being stuffed under a mountain could be dangerous.

Coal, America's cheapest and most abundant resource for the cost, produces carbon dioxide (or at least used to) and is dangerous for workers to mine (or at least it used to be).

Hydrogen? To expensive to produce and not as efficient when combined with the energy it takes to mass produce it from H2O. It takes Carbon Dioxide to produce hydrogen (based on a recent discussion with an enviro wacko)

Hydro Electric - NO! It kills fish and changes habitats for the wild animals and bugs.

Wind - NO! It kills birds and screws up bees (supposedly)

Wood, let's go back to wood fired heaters and stoves. No! we would have to cut down forests and clear cutting changes the habitat for animals.

Ethenol can be grown....But it burns dirtier than gasoline and produces C02. Besides, our greed would cause starvation around the world (I agree with the second part of this, actually).

Solar - YES!! YES!!! YES!!! - By the way, we can't do that yet. That whole thing about sometimes seasons and clouds affecting the input of our energy source has not been mastered. Of course then there is that whole thing about the energy source going away every night.

How about population control? How about we kill off 75% of the earth's population and go back to being hunters and gatherers? Answer: "Well, exept for that thing about killing, this is what would be best for our planet." Question: "What about the humans? Is this what would be best for the humans?" Answer: "In the long run it probably would?"

Conclusion: The group that contests everything is actually anti-human race. Apparently, in their world the planet is the first concern and the only way to save the planet is to reduce the human impact on it. Ironically, if the goal is to reduce the human impact on the planet and humans are the problem, what are we trying to save the planet for? The next intelligent species to inhabit it?

It is why they must be disregarded as the wackos they are. There is no sensible approach for them and they are too stupid to realize they have no point, ends, means or solutions to a problem they can't really identify.