• 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!

The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels

I don't consider the CO2 and greenhouse gas issue to be a matter of "belief", but rather an issue of whether or not a person is ignorant of the facts.

Nonetheless, "belief" or not, fossil fuels are on their way out. The world still has huge reserves but they are increasingly difficult to tap into. Our usage of fossil fuels is exponential. Even something like oil... the demand increases by millions of barrels per day. It's not sustainable, not just environmentally but economically. We have to excavate increasingly precarious locations in order to find what we need.

It would make more sense to convert what we can to renewable energy sources, while using fossil fuels in areas that we can't yet compromise on, until further solutions are invented.

In other words, why does it have to be a zero sum game? Most countries are implementing dual policies. It's foolish to do otherwise.
I agree with much of what you say, but perhaps for different reasons.
I think the market will force the energy suppliers to produce man made fuels, because the feedstock to the refineries
will be cheaper to make than to find and extract from the ground.
They may have a different pump color at the gas station for the carbon neutral fuel, but beyond that it's use would be transparent.
We need to be busy putting up solar roofs, because the surplus photo voltaic power is what will be stored in the hydrocarbon fuels.
 
The record is there. Some of it is quoted in the OP.

A couple random dudes say that. Most of the opposition to nuclear power is based on fear of radiation-related issues. To suggest that even a significant portion of "green energy advocates" reject nuclear because they hate abundant energy is comically disingenuous. The fact that you believe this speaks volumes. You are far beyond any rational discussion on the issue, as you have demonstrated substantially warped perceptions of the discussion.
 
There has been no harm that outweighs the good.

Or can there be by your estimation. That makes all your posts moot, I'm afraid. You have decided and only look for confirmations of your decision. That is not how scientists work. You are simply a zealot.

Simple Definition of zealot
: a person who has very strong feelings about something (such as religion or politics) and who wants other people to have those feelings : a zealous person
 
I agree with much of what you say, but perhaps for different reasons.
I think the market will force the energy suppliers to produce man made fuels, because the feedstock to the refineries
will be cheaper to make than to find and extract from the ground.
They may have a different pump color at the gas station for the carbon neutral fuel, but beyond that it's use would be transparent.
We need to be busy putting up solar roofs, because the surplus photo voltaic power is what will be stored in the hydrocarbon fuels.

You are dreaming. It will always be cheaper to pull energy out of the ground if you don't take the costs of CO2 pollution into account. That is why we need a carbon tax.
 
A couple random dudes say that. Most of the opposition to nuclear power is based on fear of radiation-related issues. To suggest that even a significant portion of "green energy advocates" reject nuclear because they hate abundant energy is comically disingenuous. The fact that you believe this speaks volumes. You are far beyond any rational discussion on the issue, as you have demonstrated substantially warped perceptions of the discussion.

Really? How many major US environmental activist organizations advocate for nuclear power?
 
Or can there be by your estimation. That makes all your posts moot, I'm afraid. You have decided and only look for confirmations of your decision. That is not how scientists work. You are simply a zealot.

This is not a scientific issue. It is an issue of human well being.
 
You are dreaming. It will always be cheaper to pull energy out of the ground if you don't take the costs of CO2 pollution into account. That is why we need a carbon tax.
What do you base such an open ended statement on? (And always is a very long time!)
There is a real cost of goods sold number attached to organic oil.
It is even a traded commodity based on that cost.
There is also a real cost associated with say building gasoline from scratch,
currently that number is expressed as Kilowatt hours (roughly 55 Kwh per gallon)
but wait, there is a commodity price for Kilowatt hours, roughly $.05 per.
.05 *55= $2.75 per gallon, $2.75 * 35 gallons per barrel= $96.25 per barrel.
(35 gallons of fuel being the yield of a 42 gallon barrel or oil.)
As oil becomes harder to find , and harder to extract, the real cost of bringing
the oil feedstock to the refinery will increase, within a decade, the current surplus will
be consumed, and the price will rise on it's own.
The difference is that now there is a ceiling in place.
 
You really are going to value the opinion of someone who says this?

"The book argues that even if fossil fuels created no waste, including no CO2, if they were even cheaper, if they would last forever, the “Green” movement would still oppose them."​

Jack Hays, if every gallon of gas directly killed a baby, you'd still support them. This is a worthwhile discussion we should take very seriously.

I am one that believes out of context quotes, often constitutes a lie. You forgot this important part of that thought process:

"The Green movement is not just for a pristine environment untouched by man, they are against human progress. . . . "​

But then you are OK with such deceptions, as long as it is your side doing it.
 
Really? How many major US environmental activist organizations advocate for nuclear power?

.... what? Jack, I'm explaining that they oppose nuclear power out of fear. How did your brain get to this question?
 
This is not a scientific issue. It is an issue of human well being.

You are right in this respect. Humans have often chosen temporary gains in exchange for long term losses. Short-sightedness is one of our foibles.
 
.... what? Jack, I'm explaining that they oppose nuclear power out of fear. How did your brain get to this question?

They oppose nuclear power out of know-nothing ignorance. The point is that their mindless opposition is what makes fossil fuels so important.
 
You are right in this respect. Humans have often chosen temporary gains in exchange for long term losses. Short-sightedness is one of our foibles.


We are poor planners. We lie on a track and feel the ropes around us and see the train coming our way. We do not do anything to free ourselves from the bind until the train is upon us. Sometimes we let it run us over and deal with the aftermath. America is stuck on short-sighted quarterly perspective while at the same time attempting to work on the future, fighting itself going somewhat forward.
 
Last edited:
They oppose nuclear power out of know-nothing ignorance. The point is that their mindless opposition is what makes fossil fuels so important.

Horse****. You were claiming they opposed nuclear power because they oppose "abundant energy."

They oppose environmental harm and risk to humanity, and they wrongfully believe nuclear power represents such a threat. Don't think you get to lie about their motivations because you can dig up a couple quotes from random ass people because I can do the same about you. Fossil fuel proponents are almost inherently AGW skeptics, and AGW skeptics hold those beliefs due to religion. I already proved that, right? This is your standard, after all.
 
Horse****. You were claiming they opposed nuclear power because they oppose "abundant energy."

They oppose environmental harm and risk to humanity, and they wrongfully believe nuclear power represents such a threat. Don't think you get to lie about their motivations because you can dig up a couple quotes from random ass people because I can do the same about you. Fossil fuel proponents are almost inherently AGW skeptics, and AGW skeptics hold those beliefs due to religion. I already proved that, right? This is your standard, after all.

Both can be true simultaneously. They oppose nuclear power out of ignorance AND because they believe mankind cannot be trusted with abundant energy. This leads them to oppose fossil fuels as well.
 
Both can be true simultaneously. They oppose nuclear power out of ignorance AND because they believe mankind cannot be trusted with abundant energy. This leads them to oppose fossil fuels as well.

Could be, but aren't. Check all the environmentalist anti-nuke fearmongering sites. You'll see lots of talk about radiation, long half-lives, proliferation of nuclear weapons, fukushima, etc. Virtually nothing claiming that "free, clean energy is bad."

Next, read all the talk about fossil fuels. You'll see talk about pollution, climate change, ocean acidification, etc. Again, virtually nothing saying "energy is bad!"
 
Could be, but aren't. Check all the environmentalist anti-nuke fearmongering sites. You'll see lots of talk about radiation, long half-lives, proliferation of nuclear weapons, fukushima, etc. Virtually nothing claiming that "free, clean energy is bad."

Next, read all the talk about fossil fuels. You'll see talk about pollution, climate change, ocean acidification, etc. Again, virtually nothing saying "energy is bad!"

Thank you for the summary of anti-human propaganda memes. The book reviewed in the OP cuts through all that.
 
Thank you for the summary of anti-human propaganda memes. The book reviewed in the OP cuts through all that.

Ahh yes, it's all a big secret agenda. hang on, I forgot my tinfoil hat.
 
There is not a single anti-nuclear statement in the OP.

There's a statement that's anti any other type of energy:
How could someone argue to take away fossil fuels if they valued human life?

I argue to take away fossil fuels because there's a better source, but apparently I don't value human life.
 
Not a secret agenda. Just focus-group tested media themes, like any advertising or political campaign.

Right. The Trump defense. "You can't judge people by what they say!"
 
There's a statement that's anti any other type of energy:


I argue to take away fossil fuels because there's a better source, but apparently I don't value human life.

If you argue to take away fossil fuels then indeed you don't value human life.
 
Back
Top Bottom