Scientists tell Exxon to stop climate change denial

farfromglorified

SundaySilence wrote:

Truth can be presented by design to elicit false perceptions.

Certainly, but such a thing is not a deceit. If someone presents to you 10% of the relevent truths and then you draw complete conclusions from that, that's your fault, not theirs. At best, that's stupidity. At worst, that's self-deceit.

El_Kabong

farfromglorified wrote:

Here's the point:

You emit greenhouse gasses everytime you exhale. Therefore you should stop breathing

Understand now?

but we can only breathe one way, that is not the case for vehicle emmissions

stuckinline

can we agree that we ALL have an impact on the environment. whether you believe in global warming or global cooling, just by existing on this planet, your daily life affects it.

farfromglorified

El_Kabong wrote:

but we can only breathe one way, that is not the case for vehicle emmissions

Certainly, but that's not relevant to the point. Just because cars can produce no emissions (just like your body could if you stopped breathing) doesn't mean they have to produce no emissions. Furthermore, a mindless drive to force car manufacturers to sell vehicles that consumers do not want to buy potentially does more harm than good.

Again, I'm not saying that we as a society shouldn't start moving to low or no emissions vehicles. Such a thing would be great. I'm just rejecting the statement that we should do so in the name of global warming and that "waiting for the proof" is irrelevant. Much stupidity and bad has happened in this world in the name of politio-science and I have no interest in seeing that continue. The last thing we need is an emissions witchhunt.

These are consumer issues. Car manufacturers are producing more hybrids than ever and zero-emissions fuel cell vehicles will start being produced en masse in a couple of years. This, of course, doesn't stop the state of California from suing 6 major car manufacturers over "their" emissions. Meanwhile, millions of Americans are still buying and driving gas-guzzling vehicles. It's up to energy-conscious people like us to start buying these low emission vehicles and start setting examples for others. Believe me, when you're driving a fuel-cell vehicle and laughing at your idiotic neighbor who still pays $2 / gallon for gasolene, it's only a matter of time until they follow suit.

farfromglorified

gluten919 wrote:

can we agree that we ALL have an impact on the environment. whether you believe in global warming or global cooling, just by existing on this planet, your daily life affects it.

Certainly! Now why is that a bad thing?

even flow?

Fuck..........Exxon still can't wrap their head around the Valdez hitting rocks and ruining the coastline. Which is visible evidence. You don't expect them to comprehend something like global warming do you!

RockinInCanada

farfromglorified wrote:

Certainly, but that's not relevant to the point. Just because cars can produce no emissions (just like your body could if you stopped breathing) doesn't mean they have to produce no emissions. Furthermore, a mindless drive to force car manufacturers to sell vehicles that consumers do not want to buy potentially does more harm than good.

Again, I'm not saying that we as a society shouldn't start moving to low or no emissions vehicles. Such a thing would be great. I'm just rejecting the statement that we should do so in the name of global warming and that "waiting for the proof" is irrelevant. Much stupidity and bad has happened in this world in the name of politio-science and I have no interest in seeing that continue. The last thing we need is an emissions witchhunt.

These are consumer issues. Car manufacturers are producing more hybrids than ever and zero-emissions fuel cell vehicles will start being produced en masse in a couple of years. This, of course, doesn't stop the state of California from suing 6 major car manufacturers over "their" emissions. Meanwhile, millions of Americans are still buying and driving gas-guzzling vehicles. It's up to energy-conscious people like us to start buying these low emission vehicles and start setting examples for others. Believe me, when you're driving a fuel-cell vehicle and laughing at your idiotic neighbor who still pays $2 / gallon for gasolene, it's only a matter of time until they follow suit.

The point is we know emissions are bad....on a micro level...look at any large city we see that the smog that causes breathing problems comes from vehicle emissions...on a global level we do see some reaction in the atmosphere BUT we do not know the extenet...what I was getting at yesterday is that regardless of valid proof on a global level we should act on the level that we see everyday.....meaning stop polluting....because it is effecting us on a smaller scale...to refute those facts is ignorant in my mind....and that is what I mean when we should act regardless of evidence...we as a healthy species need to control our emissions to benefit us as well; along with the planet....

farfromglorified

Rockin'InCanada wrote:

The point is we know emissions are bad....on a micro level...look at any large city we see that the smog that causes breathing problems comes from vehicle emissions...on a global level we do see some reaction in the atmosphere BUT we do not know the extenet...what I was getting at yesterday is that regardless of valid proof on a global level we should act on the level that we see everyday.....meaning stop polluting....because it is effecting us on a smaller scale...to refute those facts is ignorant in my mind....and that is what I mean when we should act regardless of evidence...we as a healthy species need to control our emissions to benefit us as well; along with the planet....

Here's the problem though: you don't treat micro-level problems with macro-level solutions.

El_Kabong

farfromglorified wrote:

Certainly, but that's not relevant to the point. Just because cars can produce no emissions (just like your body could if you stopped breathing) doesn't mean they have to produce no emissions. Furthermore, a mindless drive to force car manufacturers to sell vehicles that consumers do not want to buy potentially does more harm than good.

Again, I'm not saying that we as a society shouldn't start moving to low or no emissions vehicles. Such a thing would be great. I'm just rejecting the statement that we should do so in the name of global warming and that "waiting for the proof" is irrelevant. Much stupidity and bad has happened in this world in the name of politio-science and I have no interest in seeing that continue. The last thing we need is an emissions witchhunt.

These are consumer issues. Car manufacturers are producing more hybrids than ever and zero-emissions fuel cell vehicles will start being produced en masse in a couple of years. This, of course, doesn't stop the state of California from suing 6 major car manufacturers over "their" emissions. Meanwhile, millions of Americans are still buying and driving gas-guzzling vehicles. It's up to energy-conscious people like us to start buying these low emission vehicles and start setting examples for others. Believe me, when you're driving a fuel-cell vehicle and laughing at your idiotic neighbor who still pays $2 / gallon for gasolene, it's only a matter of time until they follow suit.

i think ppl would want them. it's not as easy as boycotting as you can normally do...like i don't like the practices of coke so i don't buy it or their products...if i don't like the emissions i pretty much have no choice or veeeery few.

there are several options, look at what brazil did

they don't try to develop renewable energy b/c that wouldn't be profitable. will they tax you for the sun? the wind? they drag their feet when this already could be widely developed. also, i think if you move to something like say ethanol you will not see a drop in price at the pump. i've seen a few gas stations that have ethanol fuel and the price is always pretty much the same as regular unleaded

farfromglorified

El_Kabong wrote:

i think ppl would want them.

????

Only 205,749 hybrid cars were sold in the US last year. That's the highest ever, but still accounts for only 1% of the vehicles sold.

it's not as easy as boycotting as you can normally do...like i don't like the practices of coke so i don't buy it or their products...if i don't like the emissions i pretty much have no choice or veeeery few.

????

You have lots of choices. Get a hybrid. If you can't do that, get a used Honda Civic -- an economy 4-cylinder engine produces economy emissions. Get a scooter. Ride a bike. Walk. Don't drive as much.

Again, you're going to produce emissions regardless of your lifestyle. But emissions aren't a bad thing. Excessive emissions are a bad thing.

there are several options, look at what brazil did

What? Transfer their environmental problems from the cities to the farms? I hope we can do better than that here.

they don't try to develop renewable energy b/c that wouldn't be profitable.

Then develop it yourself! "They" don't owe you renewable energy.

will they tax you for the sun? the wind? they drag their feet when this already could be widely developed.

It already is "widely developed". We can, today, cut our emissions probably in half by making different decisions in our lives. Who's dragging their feet again?

also, i think if you move to something like say ethanol you will not see a drop in price at the pump. i've seen a few gas stations that have ethanol fuel and the price is always pretty much the same as regular unleaded

Then produce it yourself! That's a common practice in a lot of places. Furthermore, a fuel cell economy will be much less dependent on fueling stations, giving you the opportunity to install processors at your home or in your neighborhood.

I'm tired of this "they" talk. No one is stopping us. Just because Exxon or the US Government or someone else doesn't want you to switch from oil doesn't mean you can't.

El_Kabong

farfromglorified wrote:

????

Only 205,749 hybrid cars were sold in the US last year. That's the highest ever, but still accounts for only 1% of the vehicles sold.

i'm curious to know what % these hybrids are compared to other gasoline models?

farfromglorified wrote:

????

You have lots of choices. Get a hybrid. If you can't do that, get a used Honda Civic -- an economy 4-cylinder engine produces economy emissions. Get a scooter. Ride a bike. Walk. Don't drive as much.

Again, you're going to produce emissions regardless of your lifestyle. But emissions aren't a bad thing. Excessive emissions are a bad thing.

the car i drive gets 34-36 miles to the gallon i also walka nd don't drive that much. or lots of nonexcessive emissions can add up to a big ball of excessive...cut where you can, right? if it doesn't need ot be than while you may not deem it as excessive, less of a bad thing is still good, right?

farfromglorified wrote:

What? Transfer their environmental problems from the cities to the farms? I hope we can do better than that here.

no, move away from foreign oil and as much pollution.

farfromglorified wrote:

Then develop it yourself! "They" don't owe you renewable energy.

but they can and they know overall it would be better for the planet and us. while they might not owe it to me it doesn't take away from me seeing it as the right thing to do.

farfromglorified wrote:

It already is "widely developed". We can, today, cut our emissions probably in half by making different decisions in our lives. Who's dragging their feet again?

lots of ppl

farfromglorified wrote:

Then produce it yourself! That's a common practice in a lot of places. Furthermore, a fuel cell economy will be much less dependent on fueling stations, giving you the opportunity to install processors at your home or in your neighborhood.

oooook...that still doesn't mean it will cost you less. maybe that matters to some, maybe it doesn't, but let's not act like just b/c we move away from oil it will be cheaper

farfromglorified wrote:

I'm tired of this "they" talk. No one is stopping us. Just because Exxon or the US Government or someone else doesn't want you to switch from oil doesn't mean you can't.

right b/c the avg citizen has as much sway and creates things like ENERGY POLICIES than the power companies and politicians...oh wait, energy companies and dick wrote our energy policy....again, it's the right thing to do for the planet and us.

farfromglorified

El_Kabong wrote:

i'm curious to know what % these hybrids are compared to other gasoline models?

Then do some research! In most categories, hybrids perform excellently in emissions when compared to gasoline models. In some areas they do slightly worse. Overall, a hybrid car could reduce your total emissions by up to 90%.

the car i drive gets 34-36 miles to the gallon i also walka nd don't drive that much.

Cool. Then you're doing a good thing. Replace that car with a fuel-cell in a couple of years when it dies, you'll be doing an even better thing!

or lots of nonexcessive emissions can add up to a big ball of excessive...cut where you can, right? if it doesn't need ot be than while you may not deem it as excessive, less of a bad thing is still good, right?

Less of a bad thing is still good, but emissions are not necessarily bad. Again, for example, humans exhale CO2. Is that bad? No. Plants need to "inhale" that CO2 to give us the oxygen we inhale. Many industrial emissions are completely harmless in small quantities.

no, move away from foreign oil and as much pollution.

The move away from foreign oil part I'm completely on board with. If you think Brazil is drastically reducing it's total pollution, you need to do some research there as well. Brazil is just trading air quality problems for land/water quality problems. Agriculture is not the solution to energy problems.

but they can and they know overall it would be better for the planet and us. while they might not owe it to me it doesn't take away from me seeing it as the right thing to do.

You can do a lot of things too that you're not doing. That doesn't mean you're going to do them or that anyone has the right to force you to do those things.

lots of ppl

Yes! And the vast majority of those ppl aren't faceless CEOs sitting on top of oil wells with fistfulls of cash or slimy politicians.

oooook...that still doesn't mean it will cost you less. maybe that matters to some, maybe it doesn't, but let's not act like just b/c we move away from oil it will be cheaper

It certainly will cost you less in the case of hydrogen. Energy costs are sill primarily dependent on supply. And hydrogen, very much unlike oil, is the most plentiful resource in the universe. Furthermore, extracting it, unlike oil, is not a gargantuan task full of risk and other costs.

Hydrogen will be much cheaper than oil.

right b/c the avg citizen has as much sway and creates things like ENERGY POLICIES than the power companies and politicians...oh wait, energy companies and dick wrote our energy policy....again, it's the right thing to do for the planet and us.

What you're failing to realize is the ENERGY POLICIES have very little to do with these issues. I know you're predisposed to see the world as a series of smoke-filled back rooms, but nothing Dick Cheney et al are doing can stop us from making the necessary changes.

If you're sitting around waiting for idiotic politicians or corrupt oil barons to fix the emissions problems, you're going to be very disappointed.

El_Kabong

farfromglorified wrote:

Then do some research! In most categories, hybrids perform excellently in emissions when compared to gasoline models. In some areas they do slightly worse. Overall, a hybrid car could reduce your total emissions by up to 90%.



Cool. Then you're doing a good thing. Replace that car with a fuel-cell in a couple of years when it dies, you'll be doing an even better thing!



Less of a bad thing is still good, but emissions are not necessarily bad. Again, for example, humans exhale CO2. Is that bad? No. Plants need to "inhale" that CO2 to give us the oxygen we inhale. Many industrial emissions are completely harmless in small quantities.



The move away from foreign oil part I'm completely on board with. If you think Brazil is drastically reducing it's total pollution, you need to do some research there as well. Brazil is just trading air quality problems for land/water quality problems. Agriculture is not the solution to energy problems.



You can do a lot of things too that you're not doing. That doesn't mean you're going to do them or that anyone has the right to force you to do those things.



Yes! And the vast majority of those ppl aren't faceless CEOs sitting on top of oil wells with fistfulls of cash or slimy politicians.



It certainly will cost you less in the case of hydrogen. Energy costs are sill primarily dependent on supply. And hydrogen, very much unlike oil, is the most plentiful resource in the universe. Furthermore, extracting it, unlike oil, is not a gargantuan task full of risk and other costs.

Hydrogen will be much cheaper than oil.



What you're failing to realize is the ENERGY POLICIES have very little to do with these issues. I know you're predisposed to see the world as a series of smoke-filled back rooms, but nothing Dick Cheney et al are doing can stop us from making the necessary changes.

If you're sitting around waiting for idiotic politicians or corrupt oil barons to fix the emissions problems, you're going to be very disappointed.

the government is supposed to function for teh betterment of society when in reality it is working to benefit corporate profits and influence. so in a way, yes, it is partially their fault b/c they are subsidizing ways that are wasteful and harmful and have a very wide area of impact. they help sustain it.

shit, lincoln saw it, even eisenhower say the danger and destruction of the republic in exchange for a corporate state. the 'danger of democracy'

not smoke filled back rooms but congressional offices, lunch w/ lobbyists, campaign fund raisers, those 'weapons fairs' where the defense industry try to get new contracts, the company rummy owns stock in getting that bird flu contract, , the trillions unaccounted for from the defense budget, most of all, in this case, the subsidies and corporate welfare given to the industry...any way you look at it it is a failure of the government as they are helping hold back change and helping prop up the status quo