• 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!

Even if you dont believe in global warming, do we want to burn fossil fuels forever?

ModerationNow!

ModerationNow!

I identify as "non-Bidenary".
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 22, 2013
Messages
2,693
Reaction score
1,350
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Lets say the top global warming scientists come out in a press conference tomorrow, and they say, "April Fools! We made up the whole global warming thing". Even if it became obvious that we may not have much or anything to do with climate change, or if human-effected climate change is disproven 100%, do we really want to keep shaving mountains into parking lots in order to mine coal? Ever seen a coal mining area where they removed half or more of a mountain? Do we want to keep burning zillions of tons of coal every day to power our TV's? Do we want to keep adding to acid rain(which has been proven) and smog by burning gasoline and petroleum derived diesel fuel in the vast majority of autos and trucks? Do we really want to keep causing our landfills to fill up because we consume and throw away so much Styrofoam and plastics? Do we want to allow some companies to continue polluting?

We have greatly reduced corporate pollution compared with the early and mid parts of the industrial revolution, because we now force companies to scrub dangerous chemicals from their gaseous discharge that we see emanating from smokestacks, but there is still often lots of carbon dioxide and other gasses that may not be helpful. We have also greatly reduced liquid and solid pollution so that companies can be shut down if they dump into streams and lakes, etc.

But if they can find new, cheaper, efficient sources of energy that DONT require the burning of coal and petroleum, shouldnt we use that instead? I love old cars from the 60's, and they do run on gasoline, and I'd love to own more of them eventually, but I'd like eventually to have a primary vehicle that runs on something else. The diesel engine high performance market has made major advances in making diesel engined cars and trucks FAST, and maybe they could also run fast on other sources of fuel aside from petroleum based fuel.

I tend to think we do have a negative effect on the environment, and even if you dont believe in global warming, wouldnt it be nice to get cheaper electricity from natural sources that dont have to be burned? I am not a fan of our one(monopoly) power company and couldnt care less if they make less money because of reduced coal powered energy. How about your own energy generation setup where you dont have to pay much or anything to the electric companies!

If your answer is no to the primary question, or to other questions, why?
 
Re: Even if you dont believe in global warming, do we want to burn fossil fuels forev

Until there is a more economical option...yes, burn fossil fuels.

Now, I prefer nuclear power for our electrical. But our government won't approve new permits, so we are stuck with coal until Obama does the right thing. Don't hold your breath.

Battery powered cars will NEVER be as efficient, powerful or capable as gas. So, we'll have to develop something better. We are at least 40 years away from doing that.
 
Re: Even if you dont believe in global warming, do we want to burn fossil fuels forev

We should steer away from reliance on fossil fuels. There are alternative energies out there, we should develop and take advantage of them.
 
Re: Even if you dont believe in global warming, do we want to burn fossil fuels forev

There are people working around the clock trying to develop viable replacements for fossil fuels.

Until that technology TRULY is a viable replacement, we continue to burn fossil fuels. They are the most efficient.

Like government, people do not surrender power willingly. And this is a conversation about power.
 
Re: Even if you dont believe in global warming, do we want to burn fossil fuels forev

Even if you dont believe in global warming, do we want to burn fossil fuels forever?
Click to expand...

no. i don't want the country to be involved in wars for diminishing resources.
 
Re: Even if you dont believe in global warming, do we want to burn fossil fuels forev

We are going to be using fossil fuels to power our cars and trucks for quite some time. There really are no good alternatives at this point. However, that doesn't mean that in the meantime we should not be trying to build vehicles that are as efficient as possible. Moreover, we need to do a better job of investing in mass transit and building walkable communities that don't require you to get in your car or truck to go everywhere.
 
Re: Even if you dont believe in global warming, do we want to burn fossil fuels forev

ModerationNow! said:
Lets say the top global warming scientists come out in a press conference tomorrow, and they say, "April Fools! We made up the whole global warming thing". Even if it became obvious that we may not have much or anything to do with climate change, or if human-effected climate change is disproven 100%, do we really want to keep shaving mountains into parking lots in order to mine coal? Ever seen a coal mining area where they removed half or more of a mountain? Do we want to keep burning zillions of tons of coal every day to power our TV's? Do we want to keep adding to acid rain(which has been proven) and smog by burning gasoline and petroleum derived diesel fuel in the vast majority of autos and trucks? Do we really want to keep causing our landfills to fill up because we consume and throw away so much Styrofoam and plastics? Do we want to allow some companies to continue polluting?

We have greatly reduced corporate pollution compared with the early and mid parts of the industrial revolution, because we now force companies to scrub dangerous chemicals from their gaseous discharge that we see emanating from smokestacks, but there is still often lots of carbon dioxide and other gasses that may not be helpful. We have also greatly reduced liquid and solid pollution so that companies can be shut down if they dump into streams and lakes, etc.

But if they can find new, cheaper, efficient sources of energy that DONT require the burning of coal and petroleum, shouldnt we use that instead? I love old cars from the 60's, and they do run on gasoline, and I'd love to own more of them eventually, but I'd like eventually to have a primary vehicle that runs on something else. The diesel engine high performance market has made major advances in making diesel engined cars and trucks FAST, and maybe they could also run fast on other sources of fuel aside from petroleum based fuel.

I tend to think we do have a negative effect on the environment, and even if you dont believe in global warming, wouldnt it be nice to get cheaper electricity from natural sources that dont have to be burned? I am not a fan of our one(monopoly) power company and couldnt care less if they make less money because of reduced coal powered energy. How about your own energy generation setup where you dont have to pay much or anything to the electric companies!

If your answer is no to the primary question, or to other questions, why?
Click to expand...

I believe in climate change.I just think it is something that occurs naturally on its own like it has been for billions of years on this planet. Just because am not some man made global warming fairy tale believer doesn't mean I am all for poisoned water and air.
 
Re: Even if you dont believe in global warming, do we want to burn fossil fuels forev

ModerationNow! said:
Lets say the top global warming scientists come out in a press conference tomorrow, and they say, "April Fools! We made up the whole global warming thing". Even if it became obvious that we may not have much or anything to do with climate change, or if human-effected climate change is disproven 100%, do we really want to keep shaving mountains into parking lots in order to mine coal? Ever seen a coal mining area where they removed half or more of a mountain? Do we want to keep burning zillions of tons of coal every day to power our TV's? Do we want to keep adding to acid rain(which has been proven) and smog by burning gasoline and petroleum derived diesel fuel in the vast majority of autos and trucks? Do we really want to keep causing our landfills to fill up because we consume and throw away so much Styrofoam and plastics? Do we want to allow some companies to continue polluting?

We have greatly reduced corporate pollution compared with the early and mid parts of the industrial revolution, because we now force companies to scrub dangerous chemicals from their gaseous discharge that we see emanating from smokestacks, but there is still often lots of carbon dioxide and other gasses that may not be helpful. We have also greatly reduced liquid and solid pollution so that companies can be shut down if they dump into streams and lakes, etc.

But if they can find new, cheaper, efficient sources of energy that DONT require the burning of coal and petroleum, shouldnt we use that instead? I love old cars from the 60's, and they do run on gasoline, and I'd love to own more of them eventually, but I'd like eventually to have a primary vehicle that runs on something else. The diesel engine high performance market has made major advances in making diesel engined cars and trucks FAST, and maybe they could also run fast on other sources of fuel aside from petroleum based fuel.

I tend to think we do have a negative effect on the environment, and even if you dont believe in global warming, wouldnt it be nice to get cheaper electricity from natural sources that dont have to be burned? I am not a fan of our one(monopoly) power company and couldnt care less if they make less money because of reduced coal powered energy. How about your own energy generation setup where you dont have to pay much or anything to the electric companies!

If your answer is no to the primary question, or to other questions, why?
Click to expand...

We want to burn fossil fuels for as long as they are our most efficient and cost effective power sources.
 
Re: Even if you dont believe in global warming, do we want to burn fossil fuels forev

Jack Hays said:
We want to burn fossil fuels for as long as they are our most efficient and cost effective power sources.
Click to expand...

This is true. Should a non-fossil fuel alternative be developed that can match, or even come close to matching (on a price competitive basis), the amount of energy contained in fossil fuels, the free market world will beat a path directly to the company that can produce such a thing. You can count on it.

However, mandating the use of inefficient and uneconomical means to achieve the same end, won't alter the market significantly, that market distortion won't have as lasting effect as a real alternative solution.

The serious discussion and decision making needs to be limited to adults that can do math.

Do date, all the green technologies combined are incapable of servicing the energy demand that exists in the market, and yet, there are some that falsely believe that it can. That's flat out wrong. The green technologies can't.

More puzzling yet, the same groups of people are demanding that fracking be banned, not considering for a moment that fracking and the cleaner burning and less environmentally damaging NG that it provides could be a means for reducing the demand for coal, as many coal fired generation facilities could quickly and relatively inexpensively burn the much cleaner NG instead. Providing, of course, that fracking not be banned. The two stated desires are antithetical to each other, and these groups refuse to acknowledge it.

And these are the people that you would take energy policy guidance from? Seriously?
 
Re: Even if you dont believe in global warming, do we want to burn fossil fuels forev

jamesrage said:
I believe in climate change.I just think it is something that occurs naturally on its own like it has been for billions of years on this planet. Just because am not some man made global warming fairy tale believer doesn't mean I am all for poisoned water and air.
Click to expand...

Fantastic point! Thanks for pointing it out.

Often the propagandists of the dem party try to stereotype conservatives as being completely uncaring and insensitive to the environment. If you don't say you believe that man has caused all or most of the negative consequences of global warming, then that means you want to pollute, you want to get rid of environmental regulations and allow 'evil' corporations to pollute at will.

But of course that's nonsense in the case of the vast majority of conservatives! They don't want pollution, dirty air, and flooded cities due to rising seawater. The point is that they have long realized that the nearly unaccountable Democratic party and their willing allies in the media and elsewhere have proven that they will use and abuse ANY situation for ideological and political gain. They have proven that they are very capable of fabricating scandals and issues in order to advance their goals, or to demonizes those who don't agree with them politically. That's why many conservatives don't believe them, after all, if certain persons have a long and storied history of deceipt, are you going to put your trust into them now?

But even if they don't believe in human caused global warming, that doesn't mean they are anti-environment. Things aren't as black and white as many liberals are too willing to accept. Stereotyping entire groups negatively is a bad habit.......
 
Re: Even if you dont believe in global warming, do we want to burn fossil fuels forev

When a viable alternative is invented, we will begin to switch to it. In the meantime, fossil fuels will continue to dominate.
 
Re: Even if you dont believe in global warming, do we want to burn fossil fuels forev

eohrnberger said:
This is true. Should a non-fossil fuel alternative be developed that can match, or even come close to matching (on a price competitive basis), the amount of energy contained in fossil fuels, the free market world will beat a path directly to the company that can produce such a thing. You can count on it.

However, mandating the use of inefficient and uneconomical means to achieve the same end, won't alter the market significantly, that market distortion won't have as lasting effect as a real alternative solution.

The serious discussion and decision making needs to be limited to adults that can do math.

Do date, all the green technologies combined are incapable of servicing the energy demand that exists in the market, and yet, there are some that falsely believe that it can. That's flat out wrong. The green technologies can't.

More puzzling yet, the same groups of people are demanding that fracking be banned, not considering for a moment that fracking and the cleaner burning and less environmentally damaging NG that it provides could be a means for reducing the demand for coal, as many coal fired generation facilities could quickly and relatively inexpensively burn the much cleaner NG instead. Providing, of course, that fracking not be banned. The two stated desires are antithetical to each other, and these groups refuse to acknowledge it.

And these are the people that you would take energy policy guidance from? Seriously?
Click to expand...


Also, remember that the same people who try to put an end to natural gas extraction through fracking are the same ones who have effectively blocked the creation of newer, safer, more efficient nuclear plants, which has literally kept the coal industry in business in a big way, and has directly led to unimaginable amounts of greenhouse gasses being pumped into the atmosphere!!
If we had started building newer, safer nuclear plants 40 years ago, there would have been an enormous reduction in greenhouse gasses, but the same people who scream the loudest about pollution are the ones who have greatly prevented this country from cutting back on greenhouse gasses!

These same people usually tell us to look to Europe for "progressive ideas" that will make the world better, yet it's the Europeans who switched to safer nuclear power several decades ago with little to no issues, and are MUCH less dependent on fossil fuels, but liberals in America have worked hard to prevent us from doing the same by blocking the creation of safer nuclear power for the last few decades, until some better source came along. They have also prevented the creation of newer, safer, cleaner petroleum refineries in America for about 40 years, and by making sure not a single new refinery was opened, they have helped keep the older, less efficient, less safe, more pollution causing refineries in business!

So, should it come as a shock they are trying to curtail the use of cleaner natural gas at a time when renewable energy sources aren't ready for prime time use, which will just lead to more coal being burned and more pollution?
 
Last edited:
Re: Even if you dont believe in global warming, do we want to burn fossil fuels forev

I would love to find a viable alternative to do a better job with polution. AGW is a myth. But this insistance on wasting money on sun and wind which has hardly made a dent in becoming viable is insane. But govt will fund nothing else which is the problem.

Leave it to private enterprise and it will find viable as it would have to in order to prosper.

Its an easy convert to natural gas and we have loads of it to bide time finding something else.
 
Re: Even if you dont believe in global warming, do we want to burn fossil fuels forev

ModerationNow! said:
But if they can find new, cheaper, efficient sources of energy that DONT require the burning of coal and petroleum, shouldn't we use that instead?
Click to expand...

This is the core of the argument. When you find new, cheaper, efficient sources of energy you might start winning the argument. However, when every alternative to date can only power a miniscule part of a thriving society's energy needs and does so at exorbitant cost, people are not going to give up their lifestyle for a cause that is far from proven.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom