You are mistaken. Any modern car that produces carbon MONoxide is broken. Emission controls, like catalytic converters, keep CO output to a minimum. CO is produced by the incomplete combustion of hydrocarbons, and modern engines are tuned to do their best to perform a complete combustion of the fuel.
The complete combustion of hydrocarbons produce water and CO2.
Modern farming uses fertilizer which is created from... you guessed it... fossil fuels.
Fertilizer contains nitrogen, phosphorus,and potassium. Not carbon. The carbon in plants comes from carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. You know, photosynthesis.
Most ammonia used to produce fertilizers has methane as a primary feedstock. It's called the Haber Process, look it up.
I'm 6'5 185lbs and I drive a Ford Focus. Not the smallest car, but far from what most people would consider "roomy". A friend (who is bigger than I am) and I drove it from Ohio to Florida and back with no huge "cramping issues". I've been on many other trips with it as well. It's fine as long as you don't have any adults trying to ride in the back seat.:)
When I was about half my current age I was 6'5" and 165lbs and I drove a Buick Skyhawk. That was not a "roomy" car either. Nearly two decades and 40lbs later I don't think I could ever consider driving such a car for any extended period. I'm not as flexible as I was then and "cramping issues" seem to be an issue when I go to "try on" a car. That Ford Focus might work for you now but will it feel as comfortable in ten years?
People just seem to want the biggest and best of everything when medium size is usually just fine.
Drive what you want, but you'll never catch me owning an SUV.
I don't need a "big" vehicle but I do need one that accommodates my frame. That tends to mean large vehicles because the people that make those small cars must think that only small people will buy them. Fuel economy is one of many factors that I look into when choosing a vehicle but my comfort outweighs fuel economy. The fuel I might be saving becomes quite meaningless if I don't fit in the car. In these small cars the mirrors always seem in the wrong place, the windscreen is cut too low to see a stoplight without leaning forward, and my head seems to always bump into the sun visor or ceiling as I look around for traffic. Not only is that uncomfortable but unsafe since my view of the road is obstructed.
Drive what you want but I'm seriously considering a SUV for my next vehicle. Not only because of the "roomy" factor but because, where I live, every winter four wheel drive is nearly a necessity. I used to be able to work from home when the weather roads got bad but I can't do that anymore. If someone can make a 4WD car that I can fit in, gets great mileage, and I can afford it, then I will buy it. I don't see that happening any time in the near future if only because I, and people like me, don't make a viable portion of the automotive market.
Protesting RealID doesn't do anything but extend the period where your SSN is identification -- and it's a TERRIBLE form of identificaion. I want a 128-bit number, AT LEAST, not this 30-bit nonsense.
The SSN was not intended to be used for identification beyond that of Social Security Insurance. It's a terrible form of identification because we are using it for more than what it was intended. That number was not to be seen or used except in very specific correspondence with the federal government. Any identification number used widely is a bad idea, regardless of how many bits or digits in it.
When I got my driver license I got a license number, used for identification with the state government. When I got a bank account I got an account number. Same with my cable TV, phone service, cellular service, etc. Each company uses a different identifier for me. That is a good idea since if any one number is compromised I potentially lose only that account/service. If all those companies used my SSN or RealID to identify me then, having placed all my eggs in one basket, if that number is compromised then my whole life is screwed up. RealID would have REQUIRED the used of that single number for a wide number of purposes, and therefore the chances of a RealID number being compromised is very high.
If we don't do the system right, we're going to live with a system done wrong
RealID is the system done wrong. The right way to do it is to have each entity that requires an ID number should be required to generate that number. Keep it decentralized. That is the problem with SSNs, they are used all over the place and for the wrong reasons. Having 15 different ID numbers is inconvenient but then so is having your stuff stolen by identity fraud.
Side note: There is no such thing as "identity theft" since people cannot steal who you are. They can pretend to be you and that is fraud. By using the SSN for identification or authentication is a bad idea since it makes fraud that much easier, the crooks only have to find one number to really mess with your life.
In order to obtain a Drivers license you must provide a Individual Tax Identification Number. Non-Resident aliens obtain an ITIN from the IRS, Resident aliens and citizens ITIN is the SSN.
No, you are not required to provide your SSN to obtain a non-commercial drivers license. You did not need to provide an ITIN either. My drivers license contains neither of these numbers and, IIRC, I never provided it to the DMV. I took a look at the Social Security Administration website and it states that one is not required to provide a SSN for a non-commercial driver license. To obtain a commercial driver license one is required to provide their SSN, but not non-commercial.
They wouldn't issue his drivers license until he has a SSN.
Was that so the SSN could be used as the driver license number?
Around here they stopped putting SSNs on the drivers license some time ago. It must have been fairly routine to do so since I recall that about five years ago one of the staff at the license station started to ask if I wanted my SSN removed from my drivers license only to stop herself once she looked at my license. I don't think I ever had my SSN on my driver license since, even at a young age, I realized the danger in linking those two databases.
What really boggled my mind was that co-workers of mine were perplexed at my distaste for RealID even after pointing out the dangers of one's SSN getting into the wrong hands. If you think Social Security Numbers are scary you need to look at how RealID can really mess with your life.
The complete combustion of hydrocarbons releases energy, water, and carbon dioxide. The amount of energy, water, and carbon dioxide released is so minute compared to that of the sun and sea life that I do not believe it is causing any thing detrimental to the environment.
That's just an argument from personal incredulity. You need to think about what's being added to the system, not what's already there. If the bathtub is mostly full, why should I care that the tap is dripping? It's a tiny effect compared to the size of the bath. Or, as Einstein may have said, there is no force in the universe more powerful than compound interest.
If the planet's ecosystem is that delicate then we are one Mount Vesuvius or solar burp away from annihilation. The climate changes, always has. The scare used to be "global warming" but the powers that be found out that trying to carry that scare for too long would be counter productive because, wait for it... the globe is no longer warming. Now the scare is "climate change" which can be carried on in perpetuity because the climate will always change and every hurricane or snowstorm is evidence of it.
For every increase in the carbon dioxide output humanity has on the environment the plant life on earth adjusts by increasing its mass and efficiency. The atmosphere is not a "bathtub" that can overflow, it is a tank with all kinds of pipes going in and out. As the level in that tank rises so does the pressure, as the pressure rises the output increases and the input decreases. When the carbon dioxide increases plant life can grow in places it could not before. As that plant life grows it takes up more carbon dioxide.
So, yes, my argument may be out of personal incredulity but it seems to be backed up by at least a minimal amount of evidence. The primary evidence is that we have survived a number of solar burps and volcanic eruptions. The problem with testing many of these theories on "global warming" or "climate change" or whatever scare words are used this month is that people will die if we are wrong. Even if we are right people will die, that is because people die. I'm not willing to bet my life on the theory that by stopping the use of petroleum fuels we will save the environment. Without those petroleum fuels a lot of people will freeze to death this winter. Worrying about our grandchildren is rather pointless if we don't live long enough to have children of our own.
Eleanor Coner, information officer of The Scottish Parent Teacher Council, said last year: "We accept that as a sign of the times, but schools must teach pupils not to believe everything they read.
That is dangerous coming from a teacher. If they teach the children critical thinking skills then it will be impossible to properly indoctrinate them.
I remember reading in my high school history book on how the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th amendments to the US Constitution assures rights to the individual but the 2nd amendment assures the states have the right to have a police force. My critical thinking skills at the time led me to question that interpretation, and I am quite certain now that the Constitution as amended does guarantee the right of the individual to keep and bear arms. Judging from my conversations with people about current events it would seem that many people had similar writings in their high school history books and did believe what they read.
Perhaps the Scottish Parent Teacher Council does not have that concern since they do not have the right to self defense codified as we do on this side of the Atlantic. The teaching of not believing everything you hear might work in their favor after the news articles on shootings and stabbings going up after the banning of the carrying of firearms and knives. No Scott would actually injure another with a weapon to steal a few quid from their wallet, right? Carrying weapons is illegal and no one would break that law, right? Never mind that theft is illegal as well.
Nonsense. Of you are looking to switch power generation because the current method will kill your grandchildren, then it's perfectly reasonable to point out that the purposed solution will kill your grand children.
There is no reason to switch to something more expensive, complicated, or convoluted if the end result is the same even if just by another means. We are looking to get off fossil fuels because it effects the environment and has the potential of destroying a lot of life, switching to something that does the exact same thing is fucking stupid.
I am not convinced that burning fossil fuels effects the environment. The complete combustion of hydrocarbons releases energy, water, and carbon dioxide. The amount of energy, water, and carbon dioxide released is so minute compared to that of the sun and sea life that I do not believe it is causing any thing detrimental to the environment. Water and carbon dioxide is what plants need to live, by burning fossil fuels we are essentially fertilizing the earth.
If we assume for the moment that carbon dioxide is a potent greenhouse gas (I think it is a greenhouse gas, just not as potent as people claim) then we can also assume that methane is an even more potent greenhouse gas. Right now we have oil and natural gas fields off the coast of California bubbling methane into the air and oil slicks onto the beaches. If you want to improve the environment then it would make sense to bottle up that methane before it reaches the atmosphere and convert it to a lesser greenhouse gas by burning it. That oil that is washing up onto the beaches could likewise be harvested before it pollutes. It doesn't have to be burnt, that oil could be used for the production of lubricants, tires, and plastics.
I'm not against fossil fuels nor am I really for it. One thing I dislike is seeing our nation's wealth being siphoned off for energy that we can produce ourselves. We can drill for oil here. We can build nuclear power plants, windmills and solar panels. The reason we need to get off fossil fuels is because it will not be economically viable in some future date. Until that time comes I see no need to artificially enforce the movement to an alternative. If people want to see the world stop burning fossil fuels then come up with a viable alternative FIRST then people will move naturally. By forcing people away from fossil fuels before a viable alternative exists is suicide. We need that energy to keep our standard of living, by reducing that standard of living people will die.
Every summer we hear about the large number of people that die from heat exposure with the implicit or explicit blame on global warming. First, I don't believe global warming is happening any more since, for example, Iceland has seen polar bears for three years in a row after a 25 year absence. Second, we have things like running water, shelter, and electricity in "civilized" society. Why is it that people are dying of heat in France when the temperature has reached 90F? That is not "hot" by my standards. I see that every summer around here, or at least I used to. The last few summers have been rather mild in comparison. The only reason I can fathom that people are dying from 90F heat in France is either from their own stupidity or because of poverty. With clean running water, shade, and an electric fan I would think that most anyone can survive 90F outdoor temperatures.
I don't believe that continuing to burn fossil fuels will kill your grandchildren. I do believe that not burning fossil fuels, before a viable alternative exists, will likely kill you before they are born.
I agree that Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be a convenience store and not a government agency but you should know that the ATF is more about enforcing inter-state tax laws (which is why alcohol and tobacco are lumped in there) and not about dealing with illegal objects.
I recall that the BATFE has a very sophisticated arson lab, so it's more than regulating interstate commerce. Despite all of the things that the BATFE does most of them are unnecessary (for example regulating firearms), or are essentially duplicate of what other agencies do (IRS enforces tax law, FBI investigates federal crimes). Hand over the tax enforcement to the IRS. Put the FBI in charge of investigating shootings, bombings, and arson.
Most of what BATFE does is outright unconstitutional since the federal government is explicitly restricted from regulating arms. What parts that are left after lifting all federal control of arms, handing over tax enforcement to the IRS, and domestic law enforcement to the FBI, should be handled by the states.
I'm still quite confused about why we need the DEA. The DEA has no exclusive jurisdiction, whatever laws the DEA is tasked to enforce is also under the jurisdiction of the FBI. Any transport of goods over the border is for the Coast Guard and Border Patrol to deal with. Even stolen firearms, which the DEA runs across quite a bit, have to be handed over to the FBI or BATFE.
I think that we will still need the IRS but it should not be as large as it is today. Right now the IRS must deal with something on the order of 300 million tax returns every year. If the fedgov followed the Constitution as originally intended there would be no direct taxation of individuals by the federal government (with the possible exceptions of those living on federal lands). We would still need an IRS to handle the tax returns of the states, possibly inhabitants of federal lands, and possibly the taxes from interstate companies. The IRS (which would need a new name since it would no longer be "internal") could also handle the taxation of imports and exports. Instead of millions of records it would handle only thousands.
Besides transmission issues, what about land use? I mean, what will we eat if all our agricultural land is covered by wind turbines? It is a nice mental exercise to cover all the world's non-aquatic, non-forested, non-urban, and non-polar land with wind turbines, but do wind turbines really integrate well with all the other rural land uses (particularly agriculture) that we have?
We'd have plenty to eat if we stop turning food into fuel. It think harvesting wind would help us along that path. Besides, the land underneath the windmills is still usable for crops, just not the land where the windmill pedestal sits. I heard from someone that works in the windmill industry that habitable buildings need to be kept at a great distance from the windmills to prevent death, injury, and property damage in the unlikely event of a windmill failure. Those windmills just might protect that farmland from urban development.
It seems to me that researching improved transmission efficiencies and putting wind turbines in the ocean and polar regions (and solar in the deserts) would be a better solution. This is particularly the case as population expands, and previously rural areas become more developed.
The laws of physics still apply. We can research improved transmission technologies all we like but it still won't allow us to break Ohm's law. I2R losses will always favor keeping the power generation close to where it is used.
but now, we'll spend more time outside enjoying our world.
So you're sitting indoors bitching on Slashdot... why?
Because it's raining? Another possibility is that you've made an incorrect assumption and this person is outside enjoying our world while bitching on Slashdot. Laptops with Wi-fi are wonderful things.
Ethanol probably is a scam. That doesn't change the fact that extracting and burning even more oil is a totally stupid answer to our energy problems.
You may be right. You pointed out the Exxon Valdez spill as a reason to stop drilling for oil. I pointed out that if the oil was closer to where it was used we could use the much safer pipelines instead of the large oil ships that tend to leak oil onto pristine shores. Domestic oil is only a hazard when shipped over sea, and the Valdez spill proved it. Pipeline spills are rare, small, and easily repaired.
If we don't drill for oil then we need something else. Coal is an alternative but that has many of the problems that oil does. What we need is more nuclear power. Lots of nuclear power. We don't have much of a choice, oil and coal, nuclear power, or we are left with horses and buggies. I would rather see nuclear power.
First of all I am not convinced that human produced CO2 is causing global warming. Second, global warming (caused by greenhouse gasses) do not create more chaotic weather, it produces calmer weather. Global warming from solar activity would cause more chaotic weather patterns. No matter what we do here on Earth the sun is going to do what it wants to do.
The cause of global warming is largely irrelevant, and you are correct that if (and I emphasized IF) human produced CO2 is creating more chaotic weather then it would make sense to not keep pumping CO2 into the air. So, if we stop drilling for oil we will need something else for our power. Then I suggest we move from coal as our primary energy to nuclear power. Add in some wind, solar, and hydroelectric and we can be energy independent. We will still need hydrocarbons for lubrication, rubber, and all kinds of neat stuff. We can continue to drill for oil as an industrial feedstock while we develop synthetic replacements produced from the energy from nuclear, solar, wind, and hydro.
If people do not want to drill for oil then we need to have alternatives. So far that alternative has been foreign oil, which is not really an alternative. I'm OK with not drilling for oil, I'm just saying if we need oil we can get it domestically. If we don't drill for oil or mine for coal then we are left with nuclear, wind, solar, and hydro. We've pretty much dammed up all the rivers we can for hyro power. Wind and solar are too unpredictable to base our electric needs upon. That only leaves nuclear.
We need nuke reactors now and should be building them in large numbers. If you are right that oil and coal burning is ruining the world for our children then we need to build nuclear power plants or our children will be living in the dark and cold.
Its not. we only import a small percentage of our oil. about 20%.
Citation please. I've seen info that shows the USA imports about 70% of its oil.
we do not import oil from middle east. That would be stupid. Our imported oil comes from Canada, Mexico and Venezuela. Even if we get 100% of our oil from American sources OPEC still controls the largest amount of the worlds oil and thus the price of all oil!!!! Do you really think if Oil doubles in price in europe that Exxon will sell us our oil any cheaper.
I agree that shipping oil from the Middle East is stupid when so much is available in the Americas. I also agree that the oil produced in the USA will track the global prices. What you need to understand is that oil produced domestically means that our dollars aren't going into the pockets of countries that don't like us very much. Canada seems to like us but Mexico and Venezuela do not. Last time I checked there are a lot of people that need work. I would think that quite a few of those welders that aren't making cars right now could be working on oil drilling platforms and pipelines if the government would let them.
Increasing domestic oil production may not affect the price of oil but it does create jobs, keeps money in the USA, and improves our independence from foreign influence.
If the goal is to stop importing energy then we need to start drilling for more oil here in the USA. The article points out how ethanol can destroy an engine not designed for it, which is a good reason to not put ethanol in an engine not designed for it but a bad reason to stop putting so much ethanol in our gas tanks.
A good reason to not use ethanol as a fuel is because it has a very poor return on energy invested. The fact that people are debating whether or not one actually gets a net energy gain is a good enough sign for me. Even poor performers like solar power has a energy return on investment (EROI) of 5 to 1. Most energy sources in common use have an EROI somewhere around 10 to 1, such as coal, nuclear, hydroelectric, wind, and geothermal. Petro-fuels like gasoline and natural gas have an EROI that is even higher on average, it varies from well to well and will go down over time as the good wells are used up but still remains well above 10 to 1.
Fuels like diesel fuel, gasoline, and kerosene are very useful because they remain liquid over a wide range of temperatures at atmospheric pressure, have a relatively high energy density, are able to lubricate the pumps and engines they run through, and most of all it is cheap and plentiful.
The USA can be energy independent. If the yahoos in California would allow drilling off of its coast and the yahoos in DC would allow drilling in Alaska we would have a good start. Then those yahoos in DC need to stop holding up the building of more nuclear power plants. We need coal, uranium, natural gas and oil. We have it we just need the politicians to stop changing the rules and get out of the way so capitalism and commerce can meet the supply and demand naturally.
The meat of all this is that this is a problem of politics. We can't drill for oil because some tree hugger would rather think of the fish than people freezing to death. This is also ignoring the fact that the oil is seeping out of the ground and washing up onto California beaches. If we drill for that oil the it won't end up killing the fish. The majority of oil spills have been from oil shipped over the sea. There has been very little lost when pumped through pipes and shipped over land. If the tree huggers want to see fewer oil spills then we need to stop shipping it from other nations.
Some of those tree huggers might just rather we not use any oil at all. That's fine while your riding your bike through southern California but those of us in the Midwest need diesel fuel to harvest the corn and wheat those tree huggers like to eat. Those bike tires had to come from somewhere you know, like perhaps crude oil shipped on diesel trains and trucks.
There may come a time when the EROI of drilled oil might not make it worthwhile to use for fuel any more. We will still need oil for chain oil and bicycle tires. At that point it may make sense to synthesize hydrocarbons. The energy to synthesize those hydrocarbons has to come from somewhere. At that time, likely many decades from now, we will have to use things like nuclear power to create the hydrocarbons we need. Given the many desirable properties of hydrocarbons as a fuel we may still use hydrocarbons as a means to store and transport energy.
Ethanol is a scam. We have better alternatives. We need to stop subsidizing ethanol and put our efforts into something sustainable for our energy needs. In fact the federal government should stop subsidizing all energy and let the market figure things out. If you think the government is the solution then you do not recognize the problem.
either way the person should have just sued for slander/liable/defamation.... the cops should have known the matter was not theirs to deal with.
I believe that defamation only includes telling lies. Telling people that a certain presidential candidate used illicit drugs is not defamation if in fact the person did inhale. That candidate may not bring up defamation charges but only qualify or clarify the situation, such as pointing out how it happened long ago, the person completed rehabilitation, and/or the candidate feels such a substance should no longer be controlled as strictly.
Off topic but pertinent to my example: I find it odd how many of our elected officials feel the need to demonize certain substances because "it will ruin your life" or "it's so powerful no one can truly be free from its influence" when so many of them and their colleagues have been known to take these substances in the past. By this logic getting elected president is "ruining your life" and these elected officials are still taking cocaine, marijuana, or what have you. Considering the state of our nation I would tend to believe that many of these elected officials are in fact still taking drugs as it is difficult to explain some of their actions otherwise.
What's wrong with Biodiesel if you don't mind me asking? Honest question.
The problem with biodiesel is that it uses arable land that could be used for food crops. There is not enough land to produce the food we need along with the fuel we need. These biofuels are a solution to a problem that, in my estimation, does not exist. The claim is that the petrofuels we are digging up is damaging the environment. Now that we have stopped putting lead in our fuels, removed the sulfur, developed engines that burn these fuels nearly completely, among other things, our air is now cleaner than it has been in decades. We can still do better of course but CO2 is not the pollutant that many claim it is.
Assuming that CO2 is a problem then we are just trading one environmental disaster for another. Instead of digging up petrofuels we will be plowing up more and more land in a futile attempt to gather enough sunlight, in the form of plant matter, to fill our gas tanks and our tummies. We'd be one bad crop away from choosing between starving to death or freezing to death.
The solution lies in nuclear power. There is enough nuclear fuel on this planet to last us until the sun consumes the atmosphere, given proper management. I think we should still drill for oil and natural gas until the nuclear technology and infrastructure makes synthetic hydrocarbons a feasible replacement. Mix in some solar, wind, and hydro to spread out the load, provide backups for unplanned interruptions to the nuclear base load, and allow for some growth. Energy storage will be needed for peak power loads but that could be as simple as using some of the synthesized hydrocarbons to drive traditional internal combustion generators.
I saw something like this on Slashdot before and I think it sums up the situation nicely...
Pick one: - Nuclear power - Agrarian society - Continued use of petrofuels
Biofuels does not solve any problems. If we rely on biofuels to run our society then we will find ourselves on the road to poverty. We might as well skip the whole step of turning plants into biodiesel and use it to feed horses. Without the energy density and energy return of coal and uranium we will end up living like "Little House on the Prairie".
America is a republic. Often attributed to Ben Franklin, "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."
The problem we have in America is too many people trying to turn our republic into a democracy. Democracy is mob rule. A republic places restriction on its government so that the majority cannot simply vote away the rights of a minority. Without those restrictions on government we don't have liberty.
It saddens me when I see people demand a democracy. I don't want democracy, I want liberty.
So, does this autocratic tool run off of mains power or will I need to buy batteries for it? Will it become available at my local Home Depot or Lowe's soon?
Careful - keep it up and the feds will appoint an "Election Czar". Or maybe the UN will send "observers".
I would welcome UN observers. It might clean up some of this nonsense we are having with our elections in recent years. Besides, how can we as a nation demand observers for other countries elections and get all upset when they demand observers on our elections? A bit of a double standard I think.
Actually, funnily enough, I remember a guy that replaced his floppy on a Mac with a PC drive and had this exact problem (had to manually detect floppies after that).
How does one even connect a PC style floppy drive to a Mac and get it to work as intended? I'm not aware of any Macintosh model that had the hardware for interfacing with a PC style floppy drive. Are you perhaps mistaken and confused a PC running an emulator with a real Macintosh? I could fathom a USB floppy drive that lacked drive insertion detection during the early days of iMacs when Apple stopped making floppy drives standard equipment. How does one induce media detection on a Macintosh when the drive lacks the ability to detect that itself? Through the use of a drive utility? I suspect that would get old real quick.
Cap and trade is nonsense. It allows people to purchase carbon credits on the open market which tells polluters that it is OK to pollute as long as you have money. If CO2 is killing the polar bears then leave out the trade part of the deal. Cap the emissions only.
The problem with cap and trade is that is has nothing to do with the reduction of CO2 output and everything to do with the redistribution of wealth. The reason European countries are all on board with cap and trade is because they know that money will flow to them if cap and trade goes into effect. China, USA, India, Russia, are among many that oppose because they know that it will bring their economies to a halt if they cannot burn their abundant reserves of coal and oil which drive their industry.
Those in the USA that like the idea of cap and trade are "caveman environmentalists" that think people can and should live on nuts and berries until winter freezes them to death, big government supporters that wish to bring "smiley face" communism to the USA so we can all live in equal misery, or those that do not understand the impact on our cost of living that capping CO2 emissions will do to us since the caveman environmentalists and neo-communists are lying to them on how great we all will be after saving the polar bears from nearly inevitable extinction.
The polar bears are doing just fine. The Antarctic ice has been falling into the ocean since long before humans roamed the earth and launched satellites to see that ice move. One theory that the ice is moving so quickly into the ocean off the Antarctic continent is because the ice has become so thick in recent times.
I've told people that if cap and trade goes into effect that I'm buying a coal fired furnace. Cap and trade will only work on the large corporations. It will be impossible to track every use of carbon and only profitable for the government to track the large users. Cap and trade will either bankrupt the government or they will have to set some minimum limit to where they rise to be under governmental control. Once that limit is set everyone will make damned sure not to rise to that level. The fedgov can play whack-a-mole all they want to keep people from burning carbon fuels but they will only end up yielding because of the cost.
Slashdot Mirror
You are mistaken. Any modern car that produces carbon MONoxide is broken. Emission controls, like catalytic converters, keep CO output to a minimum. CO is produced by the incomplete combustion of hydrocarbons, and modern engines are tuned to do their best to perform a complete combustion of the fuel.
The complete combustion of hydrocarbons produce water and CO2.
Modern farming uses fertilizer which is created from... you guessed it... fossil fuels.
Fertilizer contains nitrogen, phosphorus,and potassium. Not carbon. The carbon in plants comes from carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. You know, photosynthesis.
Most ammonia used to produce fertilizers has methane as a primary feedstock. It's called the Haber Process, look it up.
I'm 6'5 185lbs and I drive a Ford Focus. Not the smallest car, but far from what most people would consider "roomy". A friend (who is bigger than I am) and I drove it from Ohio to Florida and back with no huge "cramping issues". I've been on many other trips with it as well. It's fine as long as you don't have any adults trying to ride in the back seat. :)
When I was about half my current age I was 6'5" and 165lbs and I drove a Buick Skyhawk. That was not a "roomy" car either. Nearly two decades and 40lbs later I don't think I could ever consider driving such a car for any extended period. I'm not as flexible as I was then and "cramping issues" seem to be an issue when I go to "try on" a car. That Ford Focus might work for you now but will it feel as comfortable in ten years?
People just seem to want the biggest and best of everything when medium size is usually just fine.
Drive what you want, but you'll never catch me owning an SUV.
I don't need a "big" vehicle but I do need one that accommodates my frame. That tends to mean large vehicles because the people that make those small cars must think that only small people will buy them. Fuel economy is one of many factors that I look into when choosing a vehicle but my comfort outweighs fuel economy. The fuel I might be saving becomes quite meaningless if I don't fit in the car. In these small cars the mirrors always seem in the wrong place, the windscreen is cut too low to see a stoplight without leaning forward, and my head seems to always bump into the sun visor or ceiling as I look around for traffic. Not only is that uncomfortable but unsafe since my view of the road is obstructed.
Drive what you want but I'm seriously considering a SUV for my next vehicle. Not only because of the "roomy" factor but because, where I live, every winter four wheel drive is nearly a necessity. I used to be able to work from home when the weather roads got bad but I can't do that anymore. If someone can make a 4WD car that I can fit in, gets great mileage, and I can afford it, then I will buy it. I don't see that happening any time in the near future if only because I, and people like me, don't make a viable portion of the automotive market.
Protesting RealID doesn't do anything but extend the period where your SSN is identification -- and it's a TERRIBLE form of identificaion. I want a 128-bit number, AT LEAST, not this 30-bit nonsense.
The SSN was not intended to be used for identification beyond that of Social Security Insurance. It's a terrible form of identification because we are using it for more than what it was intended. That number was not to be seen or used except in very specific correspondence with the federal government. Any identification number used widely is a bad idea, regardless of how many bits or digits in it.
When I got my driver license I got a license number, used for identification with the state government. When I got a bank account I got an account number. Same with my cable TV, phone service, cellular service, etc. Each company uses a different identifier for me. That is a good idea since if any one number is compromised I potentially lose only that account/service. If all those companies used my SSN or RealID to identify me then, having placed all my eggs in one basket, if that number is compromised then my whole life is screwed up. RealID would have REQUIRED the used of that single number for a wide number of purposes, and therefore the chances of a RealID number being compromised is very high.
If we don't do the system right, we're going to live with a system done wrong
RealID is the system done wrong. The right way to do it is to have each entity that requires an ID number should be required to generate that number. Keep it decentralized. That is the problem with SSNs, they are used all over the place and for the wrong reasons. Having 15 different ID numbers is inconvenient but then so is having your stuff stolen by identity fraud.
Side note: There is no such thing as "identity theft" since people cannot steal who you are. They can pretend to be you and that is fraud. By using the SSN for identification or authentication is a bad idea since it makes fraud that much easier, the crooks only have to find one number to really mess with your life.
In order to obtain a Drivers license you must provide a Individual Tax Identification Number. Non-Resident aliens obtain an ITIN from the IRS, Resident aliens and citizens ITIN is the SSN.
No, you are not required to provide your SSN to obtain a non-commercial drivers license. You did not need to provide an ITIN either. My drivers license contains neither of these numbers and, IIRC, I never provided it to the DMV. I took a look at the Social Security Administration website and it states that one is not required to provide a SSN for a non-commercial driver license. To obtain a commercial driver license one is required to provide their SSN, but not non-commercial.
They wouldn't issue his drivers license until he has a SSN.
Was that so the SSN could be used as the driver license number?
Around here they stopped putting SSNs on the drivers license some time ago. It must have been fairly routine to do so since I recall that about five years ago one of the staff at the license station started to ask if I wanted my SSN removed from my drivers license only to stop herself once she looked at my license. I don't think I ever had my SSN on my driver license since, even at a young age, I realized the danger in linking those two databases.
What really boggled my mind was that co-workers of mine were perplexed at my distaste for RealID even after pointing out the dangers of one's SSN getting into the wrong hands. If you think Social Security Numbers are scary you need to look at how RealID can really mess with your life.
For some reason your post induced a flashback to Oregon Trail...
You have died from dysentery.
The complete combustion of hydrocarbons releases energy, water, and carbon dioxide. The amount of energy, water, and carbon dioxide released is so minute compared to that of the sun and sea life that I do not believe it is causing any thing detrimental to the environment.
That's just an argument from personal incredulity. You need to think about what's being added to the system, not what's already there. If the bathtub is mostly full, why should I care that the tap is dripping? It's a tiny effect compared to the size of the bath. Or, as Einstein may have said, there is no force in the universe more powerful than compound interest.
If the planet's ecosystem is that delicate then we are one Mount Vesuvius or solar burp away from annihilation. The climate changes, always has. The scare used to be "global warming" but the powers that be found out that trying to carry that scare for too long would be counter productive because, wait for it... the globe is no longer warming. Now the scare is "climate change" which can be carried on in perpetuity because the climate will always change and every hurricane or snowstorm is evidence of it.
For every increase in the carbon dioxide output humanity has on the environment the plant life on earth adjusts by increasing its mass and efficiency. The atmosphere is not a "bathtub" that can overflow, it is a tank with all kinds of pipes going in and out. As the level in that tank rises so does the pressure, as the pressure rises the output increases and the input decreases. When the carbon dioxide increases plant life can grow in places it could not before. As that plant life grows it takes up more carbon dioxide.
So, yes, my argument may be out of personal incredulity but it seems to be backed up by at least a minimal amount of evidence. The primary evidence is that we have survived a number of solar burps and volcanic eruptions. The problem with testing many of these theories on "global warming" or "climate change" or whatever scare words are used this month is that people will die if we are wrong. Even if we are right people will die, that is because people die. I'm not willing to bet my life on the theory that by stopping the use of petroleum fuels we will save the environment. Without those petroleum fuels a lot of people will freeze to death this winter. Worrying about our grandchildren is rather pointless if we don't live long enough to have children of our own.
From the article:
Eleanor Coner, information officer of The Scottish Parent Teacher Council, said last year: "We accept that as a sign of the times, but schools must teach pupils not to believe everything they read.
That is dangerous coming from a teacher. If they teach the children critical thinking skills then it will be impossible to properly indoctrinate them.
I remember reading in my high school history book on how the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th amendments to the US Constitution assures rights to the individual but the 2nd amendment assures the states have the right to have a police force. My critical thinking skills at the time led me to question that interpretation, and I am quite certain now that the Constitution as amended does guarantee the right of the individual to keep and bear arms. Judging from my conversations with people about current events it would seem that many people had similar writings in their high school history books and did believe what they read.
Perhaps the Scottish Parent Teacher Council does not have that concern since they do not have the right to self defense codified as we do on this side of the Atlantic. The teaching of not believing everything you hear might work in their favor after the news articles on shootings and stabbings going up after the banning of the carrying of firearms and knives. No Scott would actually injure another with a weapon to steal a few quid from their wallet, right? Carrying weapons is illegal and no one would break that law, right? Never mind that theft is illegal as well.
Nonsense. Of you are looking to switch power generation because the current method will kill your grandchildren, then it's perfectly reasonable to point out that the purposed solution will kill your grand children.
There is no reason to switch to something more expensive, complicated, or convoluted if the end result is the same even if just by another means. We are looking to get off fossil fuels because it effects the environment and has the potential of destroying a lot of life, switching to something that does the exact same thing is fucking stupid.
I am not convinced that burning fossil fuels effects the environment. The complete combustion of hydrocarbons releases energy, water, and carbon dioxide. The amount of energy, water, and carbon dioxide released is so minute compared to that of the sun and sea life that I do not believe it is causing any thing detrimental to the environment. Water and carbon dioxide is what plants need to live, by burning fossil fuels we are essentially fertilizing the earth.
If we assume for the moment that carbon dioxide is a potent greenhouse gas (I think it is a greenhouse gas, just not as potent as people claim) then we can also assume that methane is an even more potent greenhouse gas. Right now we have oil and natural gas fields off the coast of California bubbling methane into the air and oil slicks onto the beaches. If you want to improve the environment then it would make sense to bottle up that methane before it reaches the atmosphere and convert it to a lesser greenhouse gas by burning it. That oil that is washing up onto the beaches could likewise be harvested before it pollutes. It doesn't have to be burnt, that oil could be used for the production of lubricants, tires, and plastics.
I'm not against fossil fuels nor am I really for it. One thing I dislike is seeing our nation's wealth being siphoned off for energy that we can produce ourselves. We can drill for oil here. We can build nuclear power plants, windmills and solar panels. The reason we need to get off fossil fuels is because it will not be economically viable in some future date. Until that time comes I see no need to artificially enforce the movement to an alternative. If people want to see the world stop burning fossil fuels then come up with a viable alternative FIRST then people will move naturally. By forcing people away from fossil fuels before a viable alternative exists is suicide. We need that energy to keep our standard of living, by reducing that standard of living people will die.
Every summer we hear about the large number of people that die from heat exposure with the implicit or explicit blame on global warming. First, I don't believe global warming is happening any more since, for example, Iceland has seen polar bears for three years in a row after a 25 year absence. Second, we have things like running water, shelter, and electricity in "civilized" society. Why is it that people are dying of heat in France when the temperature has reached 90F? That is not "hot" by my standards. I see that every summer around here, or at least I used to. The last few summers have been rather mild in comparison. The only reason I can fathom that people are dying from 90F heat in France is either from their own stupidity or because of poverty. With clean running water, shade, and an electric fan I would think that most anyone can survive 90F outdoor temperatures.
I don't believe that continuing to burn fossil fuels will kill your grandchildren. I do believe that not burning fossil fuels, before a viable alternative exists, will likely kill you before they are born.
I agree that Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be a convenience store and not a government agency but you should know that the ATF is more about enforcing inter-state tax laws (which is why alcohol and tobacco are lumped in there) and not about dealing with illegal objects.
I recall that the BATFE has a very sophisticated arson lab, so it's more than regulating interstate commerce. Despite all of the things that the BATFE does most of them are unnecessary (for example regulating firearms), or are essentially duplicate of what other agencies do (IRS enforces tax law, FBI investigates federal crimes). Hand over the tax enforcement to the IRS. Put the FBI in charge of investigating shootings, bombings, and arson.
Most of what BATFE does is outright unconstitutional since the federal government is explicitly restricted from regulating arms. What parts that are left after lifting all federal control of arms, handing over tax enforcement to the IRS, and domestic law enforcement to the FBI, should be handled by the states.
I'm still quite confused about why we need the DEA. The DEA has no exclusive jurisdiction, whatever laws the DEA is tasked to enforce is also under the jurisdiction of the FBI. Any transport of goods over the border is for the Coast Guard and Border Patrol to deal with. Even stolen firearms, which the DEA runs across quite a bit, have to be handed over to the FBI or BATFE.
I think that we will still need the IRS but it should not be as large as it is today. Right now the IRS must deal with something on the order of 300 million tax returns every year. If the fedgov followed the Constitution as originally intended there would be no direct taxation of individuals by the federal government (with the possible exceptions of those living on federal lands). We would still need an IRS to handle the tax returns of the states, possibly inhabitants of federal lands, and possibly the taxes from interstate companies. The IRS (which would need a new name since it would no longer be "internal") could also handle the taxation of imports and exports. Instead of millions of records it would handle only thousands.
Besides transmission issues, what about land use? I mean, what will we eat if all our agricultural land is covered by wind turbines? It is a nice mental exercise to cover all the world's non-aquatic, non-forested, non-urban, and non-polar land with wind turbines, but do wind turbines really integrate well with all the other rural land uses (particularly agriculture) that we have?
We'd have plenty to eat if we stop turning food into fuel. It think harvesting wind would help us along that path. Besides, the land underneath the windmills is still usable for crops, just not the land where the windmill pedestal sits. I heard from someone that works in the windmill industry that habitable buildings need to be kept at a great distance from the windmills to prevent death, injury, and property damage in the unlikely event of a windmill failure. Those windmills just might protect that farmland from urban development.
It seems to me that researching improved transmission efficiencies and putting wind turbines in the ocean and polar regions (and solar in the deserts) would be a better solution. This is particularly the case as population expands, and previously rural areas become more developed.
The laws of physics still apply. We can research improved transmission technologies all we like but it still won't allow us to break Ohm's law. I2R losses will always favor keeping the power generation close to where it is used.
but now, we'll spend more time outside enjoying our world.
So you're sitting indoors bitching on Slashdot... why?
Because it's raining? Another possibility is that you've made an incorrect assumption and this person is outside enjoying our world while bitching on Slashdot. Laptops with Wi-fi are wonderful things.
Ethanol probably is a scam. That doesn't change the fact that extracting and burning even more oil is a totally stupid answer to our energy problems.
You may be right. You pointed out the Exxon Valdez spill as a reason to stop drilling for oil. I pointed out that if the oil was closer to where it was used we could use the much safer pipelines instead of the large oil ships that tend to leak oil onto pristine shores. Domestic oil is only a hazard when shipped over sea, and the Valdez spill proved it. Pipeline spills are rare, small, and easily repaired.
If we don't drill for oil then we need something else. Coal is an alternative but that has many of the problems that oil does. What we need is more nuclear power. Lots of nuclear power. We don't have much of a choice, oil and coal, nuclear power, or we are left with horses and buggies. I would rather see nuclear power.
First of all I am not convinced that human produced CO2 is causing global warming. Second, global warming (caused by greenhouse gasses) do not create more chaotic weather, it produces calmer weather. Global warming from solar activity would cause more chaotic weather patterns. No matter what we do here on Earth the sun is going to do what it wants to do.
The cause of global warming is largely irrelevant, and you are correct that if (and I emphasized IF) human produced CO2 is creating more chaotic weather then it would make sense to not keep pumping CO2 into the air. So, if we stop drilling for oil we will need something else for our power. Then I suggest we move from coal as our primary energy to nuclear power. Add in some wind, solar, and hydroelectric and we can be energy independent. We will still need hydrocarbons for lubrication, rubber, and all kinds of neat stuff. We can continue to drill for oil as an industrial feedstock while we develop synthetic replacements produced from the energy from nuclear, solar, wind, and hydro.
If people do not want to drill for oil then we need to have alternatives. So far that alternative has been foreign oil, which is not really an alternative. I'm OK with not drilling for oil, I'm just saying if we need oil we can get it domestically. If we don't drill for oil or mine for coal then we are left with nuclear, wind, solar, and hydro. We've pretty much dammed up all the rivers we can for hyro power. Wind and solar are too unpredictable to base our electric needs upon. That only leaves nuclear.
We need nuke reactors now and should be building them in large numbers. If you are right that oil and coal burning is ruining the world for our children then we need to build nuclear power plants or our children will be living in the dark and cold.
Its not.
we only import a small percentage of our oil. about 20%.
Citation please. I've seen info that shows the USA imports about 70% of its oil.
we do not import oil from middle east. That would be stupid. Our imported oil comes from Canada, Mexico and Venezuela.
Even if we get 100% of our oil from American sources OPEC still controls the largest amount of the worlds oil and thus the price of all oil!!!! Do you really think if Oil doubles in price in europe that Exxon will sell us our oil any cheaper.
I agree that shipping oil from the Middle East is stupid when so much is available in the Americas. I also agree that the oil produced in the USA will track the global prices. What you need to understand is that oil produced domestically means that our dollars aren't going into the pockets of countries that don't like us very much. Canada seems to like us but Mexico and Venezuela do not. Last time I checked there are a lot of people that need work. I would think that quite a few of those welders that aren't making cars right now could be working on oil drilling platforms and pipelines if the government would let them.
Increasing domestic oil production may not affect the price of oil but it does create jobs, keeps money in the USA, and improves our independence from foreign influence.
If the goal is to stop importing energy then we need to start drilling for more oil here in the USA. The article points out how ethanol can destroy an engine not designed for it, which is a good reason to not put ethanol in an engine not designed for it but a bad reason to stop putting so much ethanol in our gas tanks.
A good reason to not use ethanol as a fuel is because it has a very poor return on energy invested. The fact that people are debating whether or not one actually gets a net energy gain is a good enough sign for me. Even poor performers like solar power has a energy return on investment (EROI) of 5 to 1. Most energy sources in common use have an EROI somewhere around 10 to 1, such as coal, nuclear, hydroelectric, wind, and geothermal. Petro-fuels like gasoline and natural gas have an EROI that is even higher on average, it varies from well to well and will go down over time as the good wells are used up but still remains well above 10 to 1.
Fuels like diesel fuel, gasoline, and kerosene are very useful because they remain liquid over a wide range of temperatures at atmospheric pressure, have a relatively high energy density, are able to lubricate the pumps and engines they run through, and most of all it is cheap and plentiful.
The USA can be energy independent. If the yahoos in California would allow drilling off of its coast and the yahoos in DC would allow drilling in Alaska we would have a good start. Then those yahoos in DC need to stop holding up the building of more nuclear power plants. We need coal, uranium, natural gas and oil. We have it we just need the politicians to stop changing the rules and get out of the way so capitalism and commerce can meet the supply and demand naturally.
The meat of all this is that this is a problem of politics. We can't drill for oil because some tree hugger would rather think of the fish than people freezing to death. This is also ignoring the fact that the oil is seeping out of the ground and washing up onto California beaches. If we drill for that oil the it won't end up killing the fish. The majority of oil spills have been from oil shipped over the sea. There has been very little lost when pumped through pipes and shipped over land. If the tree huggers want to see fewer oil spills then we need to stop shipping it from other nations.
Some of those tree huggers might just rather we not use any oil at all. That's fine while your riding your bike through southern California but those of us in the Midwest need diesel fuel to harvest the corn and wheat those tree huggers like to eat. Those bike tires had to come from somewhere you know, like perhaps crude oil shipped on diesel trains and trucks.
There may come a time when the EROI of drilled oil might not make it worthwhile to use for fuel any more. We will still need oil for chain oil and bicycle tires. At that point it may make sense to synthesize hydrocarbons. The energy to synthesize those hydrocarbons has to come from somewhere. At that time, likely many decades from now, we will have to use things like nuclear power to create the hydrocarbons we need. Given the many desirable properties of hydrocarbons as a fuel we may still use hydrocarbons as a means to store and transport energy.
Ethanol is a scam. We have better alternatives. We need to stop subsidizing ethanol and put our efforts into something sustainable for our energy needs. In fact the federal government should stop subsidizing all energy and let the market figure things out. If you think the government is the solution then you do not recognize the problem.
either way the person should have just sued for slander/liable/defamation.... the cops should have known the matter was not theirs to deal with.
I believe that defamation only includes telling lies. Telling people that a certain presidential candidate used illicit drugs is not defamation if in fact the person did inhale. That candidate may not bring up defamation charges but only qualify or clarify the situation, such as pointing out how it happened long ago, the person completed rehabilitation, and/or the candidate feels such a substance should no longer be controlled as strictly.
Off topic but pertinent to my example:
I find it odd how many of our elected officials feel the need to demonize certain substances because "it will ruin your life" or "it's so powerful no one can truly be free from its influence" when so many of them and their colleagues have been known to take these substances in the past. By this logic getting elected president is "ruining your life" and these elected officials are still taking cocaine, marijuana, or what have you. Considering the state of our nation I would tend to believe that many of these elected officials are in fact still taking drugs as it is difficult to explain some of their actions otherwise.
What's wrong with Biodiesel if you don't mind me asking? Honest question.
The problem with biodiesel is that it uses arable land that could be used for food crops. There is not enough land to produce the food we need along with the fuel we need. These biofuels are a solution to a problem that, in my estimation, does not exist. The claim is that the petrofuels we are digging up is damaging the environment. Now that we have stopped putting lead in our fuels, removed the sulfur, developed engines that burn these fuels nearly completely, among other things, our air is now cleaner than it has been in decades. We can still do better of course but CO2 is not the pollutant that many claim it is.
Assuming that CO2 is a problem then we are just trading one environmental disaster for another. Instead of digging up petrofuels we will be plowing up more and more land in a futile attempt to gather enough sunlight, in the form of plant matter, to fill our gas tanks and our tummies. We'd be one bad crop away from choosing between starving to death or freezing to death.
The solution lies in nuclear power. There is enough nuclear fuel on this planet to last us until the sun consumes the atmosphere, given proper management. I think we should still drill for oil and natural gas until the nuclear technology and infrastructure makes synthetic hydrocarbons a feasible replacement. Mix in some solar, wind, and hydro to spread out the load, provide backups for unplanned interruptions to the nuclear base load, and allow for some growth. Energy storage will be needed for peak power loads but that could be as simple as using some of the synthesized hydrocarbons to drive traditional internal combustion generators.
I saw something like this on Slashdot before and I think it sums up the situation nicely...
Pick one:
- Nuclear power
- Agrarian society
- Continued use of petrofuels
Biofuels does not solve any problems. If we rely on biofuels to run our society then we will find ourselves on the road to poverty. We might as well skip the whole step of turning plants into biodiesel and use it to feed horses. Without the energy density and energy return of coal and uranium we will end up living like "Little House on the Prairie".
America is a republic. Often attributed to Ben Franklin, "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."
The problem we have in America is too many people trying to turn our republic into a democracy. Democracy is mob rule. A republic places restriction on its government so that the majority cannot simply vote away the rights of a minority. Without those restrictions on government we don't have liberty.
It saddens me when I see people demand a democracy. I don't want democracy, I want liberty.
So, does this autocratic tool run off of mains power or will I need to buy batteries for it? Will it become available at my local Home Depot or Lowe's soon?
Careful - keep it up and the feds will appoint an "Election Czar". Or maybe the UN will send "observers".
I would welcome UN observers. It might clean up some of this nonsense we are having with our elections in recent years. Besides, how can we as a nation demand observers for other countries elections and get all upset when they demand observers on our elections? A bit of a double standard I think.
Actually, funnily enough, I remember a guy that replaced his floppy on a Mac with a PC drive and had this exact problem (had to manually detect floppies after that).
How does one even connect a PC style floppy drive to a Mac and get it to work as intended? I'm not aware of any Macintosh model that had the hardware for interfacing with a PC style floppy drive. Are you perhaps mistaken and confused a PC running an emulator with a real Macintosh? I could fathom a USB floppy drive that lacked drive insertion detection during the early days of iMacs when Apple stopped making floppy drives standard equipment. How does one induce media detection on a Macintosh when the drive lacks the ability to detect that itself? Through the use of a drive utility? I suspect that would get old real quick.
Cap and trade is nonsense. It allows people to purchase carbon credits on the open market which tells polluters that it is OK to pollute as long as you have money. If CO2 is killing the polar bears then leave out the trade part of the deal. Cap the emissions only.
The problem with cap and trade is that is has nothing to do with the reduction of CO2 output and everything to do with the redistribution of wealth. The reason European countries are all on board with cap and trade is because they know that money will flow to them if cap and trade goes into effect. China, USA, India, Russia, are among many that oppose because they know that it will bring their economies to a halt if they cannot burn their abundant reserves of coal and oil which drive their industry.
Those in the USA that like the idea of cap and trade are "caveman environmentalists" that think people can and should live on nuts and berries until winter freezes them to death, big government supporters that wish to bring "smiley face" communism to the USA so we can all live in equal misery, or those that do not understand the impact on our cost of living that capping CO2 emissions will do to us since the caveman environmentalists and neo-communists are lying to them on how great we all will be after saving the polar bears from nearly inevitable extinction.
The polar bears are doing just fine. The Antarctic ice has been falling into the ocean since long before humans roamed the earth and launched satellites to see that ice move. One theory that the ice is moving so quickly into the ocean off the Antarctic continent is because the ice has become so thick in recent times.
I've told people that if cap and trade goes into effect that I'm buying a coal fired furnace. Cap and trade will only work on the large corporations. It will be impossible to track every use of carbon and only profitable for the government to track the large users. Cap and trade will either bankrupt the government or they will have to set some minimum limit to where they rise to be under governmental control. Once that limit is set everyone will make damned sure not to rise to that level. The fedgov can play whack-a-mole all they want to keep people from burning carbon fuels but they will only end up yielding because of the cost.
Yeah, I remember when a felony meant something. Now it could mean you played a DVD on linux.
I like that. I'll have to remember that one since it says something profound about our current legal system.