Discussion in 'Fly Fishing Forum' started by otter, Jun 25, 2006.
for all of the koolaid drinkers and true believers, take a swig of this:
:beer1: Doesn't go down very well.:hmmm:
Wow, now we want to critisize farmers, sheeeeez. But soon you feel they will be the good guys because they will grow crops to power our cars and trucks,with bio-diesel right? Wrong! You can't tell me that when farmers do start growing these new crops for bio-diesel, these same people, that support the growing of these crops now, will be critisizing farmers and American policy in the future, saying, that in the past we fed the world, but now we (America) only feed our cars. C'mon, give me a break.
ethanol from corn is a NEGATIVE BTU product. let me put that another way, to make ethanol from corn takes more energy than is represented by the final product. take the import tax off of ethanol from brazil and we would have something good on hand. our farm lobby is behind all of this ethanol craze and it won't do a damn thing for out energy needs. only benefit is lining the pockets of a few agribusiness folks.
Biodiesel isn't neg BTU like ethanol. Ethanol from sugar cane and maybe some other crops is not negative BTU. I now drive for 60 centavos a gal on my homemade fuel. Plus I'm getting 50 mpg. I know, I know there isn't enough WVO to fuel the entire country, but for enterprizing grease collectors there is plenty! Whatever you do don't leave it up to the Govt. to change things (especially the current admin). WA state will soon be the national leader in biodiesel production, and this makes us one of the smartest states in the union.
By the way the diesel engine was originally designed to run on peanut oil. This whole dino-fuel dependence is totally unnecessary, but easy to see how it happened. Hindsight 20/20 eh? We could be 100% domestic like Brazil. I think we'd be better off in more ways than one, but futile to ponder. Instead we have to depend on some pretty scary people to live and they know they have our balls (and they're squeezing).
While I agree, I prefer to use facts and real examples instead of lying to the kids just to socially engineer them to think a certain way. Instead of selling them junk science, tell them the truth.
In some communities, conserving water is critical in many ways. It is the right thing to do. It may even be the law. But in others, water is not the slightest concern. But there are other REAL concerns in those communities that SHOULD be discussed, like perhaps: habitat distruction, erosion, pollution, etc etc.
#1 World Population Growth.
#2 Just plain using LESS.
#3 Methheads on the Cedar (scientifically proven to be a major contributor to global warming, or at least a major contributor to your choice to carry a handgun while fishing the Cedar on a nice summer evening....)
Sorry. That's another thread......
How to address these problems?
Yeah, right, I'll tell ya that as soon as I have my own problems figured out.....
Make it hurt. $5/gallon for gas? Hell, yeah! Fines for polluters and over-consumers? Hell, yeah! Taxpayer-funded grants for researchers to engineer mutant viruses that only kill lazy unproductive humans that are unaware? Hell, yeah!
(That last one might actually cripple our system of government, given the large number of officials affected, and it would be an obvious dichotomy for a system to fund it's own demise, so maybe that's a little overly-optimistic....)
Seriously? The only reasonable answer to the basic problem is cull the herd. Not popular, but I stand by it. Gotta deal with overpopulation first.
Pestilence, Famine, War, Death. The Four Horsemen.
It's funny how much we spend to defeat them (pestilence and famine, courtesy of the medical/pharmaceutical and agricultural lobbies), promote them (war on terror, escalating defense spending), and deny them (age and death is bad!!!).
Something's got to give. One way or t'other.........
I'm gonna call you the good humor man! Damn, we've gone from koolaid to popsicles........... a major advance .............
Much more seriously, about 10% of the population is using 50% or more of the energy. Again, I'm not a statistician. However, the point remains. We can't blame the millions of people in the sub-Saharan wasteland as being the cause of the problem. And anway they are starving to death or dying of AIDS. So who gives a sh-t, right?
So how bout it. Cull which part of the herd? Or spread the wealth by using less?