• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Another train carrying oil crashes & catches fire...this time in North Dakota

Renewables have never been taken seriously. And as long as that black nasty can be pumped out of the ground for easy profit, they won't be.

Germany TRIED to take them seriously.

Now they're more reliant on browm coal than they were before they started their " energy revolution ".

Since renewables have to be HEAVILY subsidized by the Government ( tax payers ) and consumers ( surcharge ) the German citizens now pay 300 percent more for their electricity than the average American citizens.

And their air is dirtier because they are so reliant on Coal to fill the gaps caused by " renewables ".

No one should take inferior technology seriously.
 
i didn't state a criteria, i asked a question

the theme of posts like this is that because there are environmental disasters that result from the transportation of oil, then we need to stop using oil and switch to renewables. it is my opinion that despite these occasional accidents, the goods provided still far outweigh these negatives.

i'd like to know from the posters who are against fossil fuels, exactly how much damage they feel we can tolerate as a society, like a cost/benefit ratio, before a given activity or industry is outlawed. your post suggests that we might agree, as there are a lot of activities that we engage in that damage the environment yet are still legal due to the benefits they provide

Nobody should throw away their old pair of shoes before they acquire their new pair. The problem here is that we've only seen a lack lustre attempt at supplying the new pair. But of course we all know why.
 
Germany TRIED to take them seriously.

Now they're more reliant on browm coal than they were before they started their " energy revolution ".

Since renewables have to be HEAVILY subsidized by the Government ( tax payers ) and consumers ( surcharge ) the German citizens now pay 300 percent more for their electricity than the average American citizens.

And their air is dirtier because they are so reliant on Coal to fill the gaps caused by " renewables ".

No one should take inferior technology seriously.

Lol. Crude and coal are base elements, nothing technological about them. They are nasty and dirty from start (take a look at coal miners exiting the mine, and oil field workers coming off the rig), to their finish when burnt in our cars (sit in your car with the engine running and the garage door shut for 30-45 minutes). They pollute the atmosphere, as you noted, and they cause cancers and a host of other maladies. But renewables haven't been taken seriously enough. And they likely won't be as long as the nasty black flows cheaply.
 
Lol. Crude and coal are base elements, nothing technological about them. They are nasty and dirty from start (take a look at coal miners exiting the mine, and oil field workers coming off the rig), to their finish when burnt in our cars (sit in your car with the engine running and the garage door shut for 30-45 minutes). They pollute the atmosphere, as you noted, and they cause cancers and a host of other maladies. But renewables haven't been taken seriously enough. And they likely won't be as long as the nasty black flows cheaply.
Price is only one leg of the stool. Until your side demonstrates that other energy sources can be just as reliable as coal, and oil then your stuck with it regardless of whatever pejorative label you attach to it.

Which is silly BTW, do you think that by calling oil some schoolyard name is going to hurt its feelings or something? Laughable
 
Price is only one leg of the stool. Until your side demonstrates that other energy sources can be just as reliable as coal, and oil then your stuck with it regardless of whatever pejorative label you attach to it.

Which is silly BTW, do you think that by calling oil some schoolyard name is going to hurt its feelings or something? Laughable

It's not name calling when it's an inanimate object. You should know that. It's an adjective, descriptive of the toxicity of the product. Whether or not you like it, that barrel has a bottom.

Think these guys are trying to hurt oils feelings too?

The Hidden Cost of Fossil Fuels

Fossil fuels—coal, oil, and natural gas—are America's primary source of energy, accounting for 85 percent of current US fuel use. Some of the costs of using these fuels are obvious, such as the cost of labor to mine for coal or drill for oil, of labor and materials to build energy-generating plants, and of transportation of coal and oil to the plants. These costs are included in our electricity bills or in the purchase price of gasoline for cars.

But some energy costs are not included in consumer utility or gas bills, nor are they paid for by the companies that produce or sell the energy. These include human health problems caused by air pollution from the burning of coal and oil; damage to land from coal mining and to miners from black lung disease; environmental degradation caused by global warming, acid rain, and water pollution; and national security costs, such as protecting foreign sources of oil.

Since such costs are indirect and difficult to determine, they have traditionally remained external to the energy pricing system, and are thus often referred to as externalities. And since the producers and the users of energy do not pay for these costs, society as a whole must pay for them. But this pricing system masks the true costs of fossil fuels and results in damage to human health, the environment, and the economy.

http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/...r-fossil-fuels/the-hidden-cost-of-fossil.html
 
Last edited:
It's not name calling when it's an inanimate object. You should know that. It's an adjective, descriptive of the toxicity of the product. Whether or not you like it, that barrel has a bottom.

Think these guys are trying to hurt oils feelings too?

The Hidden Cost of Fossil Fuels

Fossil fuels—coal, oil, and natural gas—are America's primary source of energy, accounting for 85 percent of current US fuel use. Some of the costs of using these fuels are obvious, such as the cost of labor to mine for coal or drill for oil, of labor and materials to build energy-generating plants, and of transportation of coal and oil to the plants. These costs are included in our electricity bills or in the purchase price of gasoline for cars.

But some energy costs are not included in consumer utility or gas bills, nor are they paid for by the companies that produce or sell the energy. These include human health problems caused by air pollution from the burning of coal and oil; damage to land from coal mining and to miners from black lung disease; environmental degradation caused by global warming, acid rain, and water pollution; and national security costs, such as protecting foreign sources of oil.

Since such costs are indirect and difficult to determine, they have traditionally remained external to the energy pricing system, and are thus often referred to as externalities. And since the producers and the users of energy do not pay for these costs, society as a whole must pay for them. But this pricing system masks the true costs of fossil fuels and results in damage to human health, the environment, and the economy.

The Hidden Cost of Fossil Fuels | Union of Concerned Scientists

:lamo UCS? are you for real? That group should be named activist Scientists with an agenda....hahaha....Pfft! Just link to the goofs that fudged the reports and that would be as credible....

You waste my time.
 
:lamo UCS? are you for real? That group should be named activist Scientists with an agenda....hahaha....Pfft! Just link to the goofs that fudged the reports and that would be as credible....

You waste my time.

Lol, great rebuttal. Busted your chops, you should slink away.
 
Lol, great rebuttal. Busted your chops, you should slink away.

If you had posted something from a group that wasn't just so outrageously biased then I'd say yeah you did, but UCS is just silly....Try again.
 
If you had posted something from a group that wasn't just so outrageously biased then I'd say yeah you did, but UCS is just silly....Try again.

They are a group of scientists, educated people with very real concerns. But because their concerns step on your feelings, you dismiss them. That's fine, as you wish. You probably deny that BP ****ed up and did horrific damage to the Gulf of Mexico, and our southern state beaches. :roll: And pretend like oil traines aren't falling off the tracks, that miners never get lung cancers, oh brother, actually you're wasting my time. :2wave:
 
They are a group of scientists, educated people with very real concerns. But because their concerns step on your feelings, you dismiss them. That's fine, as you wish.

No, they don't step on my feelings. I couldn't care less about them...But, they aren't objective either, that's a fact...My suggestion is that you use more reliable sources...
 
Back
Top Bottom