How is this oil spill not a big deal? - Page 13

Papa_Complex · 05-06-2010, 02:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amber Lamps

completely. stop. using. petrolium. based. products.

If I was a tree hugger, I might agree with you on that. I'm not, and I'm hoping for massive roll-out of nuclear power.

Amber Lamps · 05-06-2010, 02:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Papa_Complex

If I was a tree hugger, I might agree with you on that. I'm not, and I'm hoping for massive roll-out of nuclear power.

what was it you said to me before?... I quoted a specific person.... I agree with nuclear power...

Kaneman · 05-06-2010, 02:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amber Lamps

completely. stop. using. petrolium. based. products.

I don't understand, can you please explain why I should completely. stop. using. petroleum. based. products.

Papa_Complex · 05-06-2010, 02:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amber Lamps

what was it you said to me before?... I quoted a specific person.... I agree with nuclear power...

You quoted a specific person, but your sentiment regarding "tree huggers" seemed to include me

the chi · 05-06-2010, 03:01 PM

KM, what I assume he is referring to is the use of petroleum based products negatively impacts the whole nature thing on a chain of events scale.

Like, drilling for oil will harm the ocean, then when its screwed up and we spill it destroys the universe because everyone is using petroleum based products, causing the need for it in the first place.

I'd LOVE to be able to live 100% naturally without using chemical, petroleum and what not. Unfortunately it doesnt work that way, for now anyway. I do however do everything I can to reduce my "footprint", so that consoles me when people make fun of my animal loving tree hugging ways and what a hypocrite I am for not living in the dirt, using an outhouse and riding a bike everywhere.

azoomm · 05-06-2010, 03:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amber Lamps

completely. stop. using. petrolium. based. products.

Work smarter, not harder.

There's a better way to do it.

goof2 · 05-06-2010, 04:11 PM

Even if we replaced every internal combustion engine with electric (except jets, that may be a little impractical even for this exercise), only fed the increased energy demand with nuclear, and replaced every existing power plant with nuclear as I understand it we would still need over 5 million barrels per day of refined products from oil. Nuclear can play a large part in reducing our dependance on oil but even in fantasy land it only takes us so far.

As for the impact of this spill, I'm not arguing that it won't be huge due to its concentration, but lets put it in to some perspective. According to the National Research Council's best estimates over 1.1 million barrels of oil enter the seas in North America due to natural seepage from the ground every year. Worldwide their best estimate is almost 4.4 million barrels per year. While we do add to the total oil is going to get in the ocean no matter what.

Amber Lamps · 05-06-2010, 04:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by goof2

Even if we replaced every internal combustion engine with electric (except jets, that may be a little impractical even for this exercise), only fed the increased energy demand with nuclear, and replaced every existing power plant with nuclear as I understand it we would still need over 5 million barrels per day of refined products from oil. Nuclear can play a large part in reducing our dependance on oil but even in fantasy land it only takes us so far.

As for the impact of this spill, I'm not arguing that it won't be huge due to its concentration, but lets put it in to some perspective. According to the National Research Council's best estimates over 1.1 million barrels of oil enter the seas in North America due to natural seepage from the ground every year. Worldwide their best estimate is almost 4.4 million barrels per year. While we do add to the total oil is going to get in the ocean no matter what.

I avoided this tactic because they covered it with Rush Limbaugh...it could also be said that by draining off the pressure with drilling, we actually reduce the amount of oil that seeps into the ocean....

In other words, if we left oil alone, we would have hundreds of tar pits around the world....

the chi · 05-06-2010, 05:08 PM

But then we would all die like the dinosaurs cuz hoomans are too stupid not to drive into things like that...

Homeslice · 05-06-2010, 05:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by askmrjesus

Define mainstream.

http://www.biotech-info.net/EI_testimony_NZ.html

http://www.gmwatch.org/latest-listin...r-klebsiella-p

JC

I wouldn't call those mainstream.

But since we're trading links.....

http://www.botanischergarten.ch/deba...amRebuttal.pdf

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

05-06-2010, 04:11 PM	#127
goof2 AMA Supersport Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 4,756	Even if we replaced every internal combustion engine with electric (except jets, that may be a little impractical even for this exercise), only fed the increased energy demand with nuclear, and replaced every existing power plant with nuclear as I understand it we would still need over 5 million barrels per day of refined products from oil. Nuclear can play a large part in reducing our dependance on oil but even in fantasy land it only takes us so far. As for the impact of this spill, I'm not arguing that it won't be huge due to its concentration, but lets put it in to some perspective. According to the National Research Council's best estimates over 1.1 million barrels of oil enter the seas in North America due to natural seepage from the ground every year. Worldwide their best estimate is almost 4.4 million barrels per year. While we do add to the total oil is going to get in the ocean no matter what.