Great Political Cartoon -- Warming of Mass Destruction

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Stunt

Diamond Member
Jul 17, 2002
9,717
2
0
Originally posted by: nullzero
We burn natural gas however so the by product is carbon monoxide. I dont get your point please explain? Natural gas is clean because of the byproducts after combustion. I never said that Carbon dioxide was not a problem for global warming, however it takes less of methane to create more drastic effects then compared to carbon dioxide.
Methane is CH4
Even if CO (carbon monoxide) is produced, it will take out one CO2 (carbon dioxide) molecule during the burning process.

If Methane is 23 times the impact relative to carbon (dioxide which everyone is focusing on) it makes more sense to burn this fossil fuel. ie. less methane, more CO2 in a one for one reaction (one carbon in methane, one carbon in CO2)
 

nullzero

Senior member
Jan 15, 2005
670
0
0
Originally posted by: Stunt
Originally posted by: nullzero
We burn natural gas however so the by product is carbon monoxide. I dont get your point please explain? Natural gas is clean because of the byproducts after combustion. I never said that Carbon dioxide was not a problem for global warming, however it takes less of methane to create more drastic effects then compared to carbon dioxide.
Methane is CH4
Even if CO (carbon monoxide) is produced, it will take out one CO2 (carbon dioxide) molecule during the burning process.

If Methane is 23 times the impact relative to carbon (dioxide which everyone is focusing on) it makes more sense to burn this fossil fuel. ie. less methane, more CO2 in a one for one reaction (one carbon in methane, one carbon in CO2)

Oh ok I didnt know if you were being sarcastic its hard to tell since its typing on a forum.
 

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I believe the whole ice caps melting this is misinformation at its best.
Scientists aren?t sure what to make of it. Yes the ice caps on Greenland are melting, but then in other parts of the world the ice caps are growing thicker.

Sure we are having an effect on the environment, but the unknown question is how great of an effect. And are we to blame for global warming, or is it part of the natural cycle etc.

Cute little animations like this do nothing to solve the problem. All they do is spread more misinformation and fear.

Sometimes it's hard to tell if you are serious. You do realize that much of the past 6 years has been a campaign of spreading misinformation and fear . . . to avoid doing anything about domestic energy consumption and pollution?

haha you attack Bush for this. Tell me one thing ANY president has done in this regard? LOL

Carter started a serious dialogue about reduced consumption and exploring alternatives to fossil fuels. Republicans laughed at his sweater and then stuck their heads back up their rectums.

1) It's global climate CHANGE . . . not warming.
2) Drilling the continental shelf, Gulf of Mexico, and all of Alaska will help very little when homes look like this and Toyota feels compelled to develop this for ONE market.
3) American Way of Life
Q Is one of the problems with this, and the entire energy field, American lifestyles? Does the President believe that, given the amount of energy Americans consume per capita, how much it exceeds any other citizen in any other country in the world, does the President believe we need to correct our lifestyles to address the energy problem?

MR. FLEISCHER: That's a big no. The President believes that it's an American way of life, and that it should be the goal of policy makers to protect the American way of life. The American way of life is a blessed one. And we have a bounty of resources in this country. What we need to do is make certain that we're able to get those resources in an efficient way, in a way that also emphasizes protecting the environment and conservation, into the hands of consumers so they can make the choices that they want to make as they live their lives day to day.

Q So Americans should go on consuming as much more energy than any other citizens in any other countries of the world, as long as they want?

MR. FLEISCHER: Terry, the President believes that the American people are very wise and that, given the right incentives, they will know how and they will make their own right determinations about how much they can conserve, just as the President announced last week that the federal government, as part of its consumership in California will reduce energy needs -- for example, the Department of Defense facilities in California, by 10 percent. He believes the American people, too, will make the right decisions about conservation and the program he will announce shortly will also include a series of conservation items.

But the President also believes that the American people's use of energy is a reflection of the strength of our economy, of the way of life that the American people have come to enjoy.
----
Q -- use the word "conservation" in selling the energy plan, the reality is that the core of this plan to be unveiled is a call on finding more energy supplies. And everybody has emphasized that. There's a growing chorus now of not just environmental activists, but also scientists within the government who say that, in fact, conservation and renewable energies could do a lot more to cut demand than is being given credit for or even being given a try. Do you dismiss the recent DOE study that came to that conclusion?

MR. FLEISCHER: No, we do not dismiss it. But you can't prejudge what the President is going to propose because you don't know what he is going to propose in terms of conservation.

Q Well, I think we all know some of the really core outlines of it.

MR. FLEISCHER: There's also a reflection of the fact that 88 percent of America's energy comes from fossil fuels. The remaining 12 percent come from renewables, biomass, wind, solar. It's a very small percentage. And among that 12 percent -- you also have nuclear in that mix. And so the amount of energy that can come from -- let me put it to you this way.

The place that the American people get most of their energy that we are dependent on to preserve the American way of life does come from fossil fuels . . .
----

Curiously, 12 percent is a very small percentage when talking about renewables, yet drilling ANWR wouldn't even produce a tenth of that.

4) It certainly has been a bipartisan failure to the extent Detroit Dems held CAFE hostage (ensuring the future failure of domestic automakers) but there are very few Republicans that even marginally resemble Teddy Roosevelt . . . or even Nixon. I can concede that Democrats and Republicans are fruit. Democrats basically have a few bad apples in the barrel but that's nothing like a collection of over-ripe durian. Anthony Burgess and Richard Sterling are in the ballpark of describing GOP environmental/energy policy.
 
Nov 30, 2006
15,456
389
121
BaliBabyDoc, I struggle to understand your post. You obviously have some kind of issue with America's consumption of energy and it's level of affluence and technology. What exactly are you suggesting here? What's your vision for Americas future?

(minor editorial edit)