christo930, you fail to understand the corrupting effect of government doing what government should not be doing. Government funding tends to lead to political crusading rather than true scientific inquiry and skepticism. Also, the "scientists" were basing most of their predictions on one set of data, shown to be questionable. The IPCC is a political body. Also, their "catostrophic" predictions have proven incorrect. If everyone agrees the world is flat, that doesn't make it so.
They could have kept using DDT if they weren't overusing it so much. DDT was probably the most overused chemical ever invented and if they hadn't banned it, it would have lost effectiveness. In any event, to the best of my knowledge, limited DDT use is permitted for malaria control.
The problem with putting that much DDT into an environment is that it doesn't just kill the bugs, it gets into the water and the food supply and invariably back into the people. Now not having Malaria is great, but if you are dying from and getting mutations from the DDT you really have to wonder if it is worth it.
So what are the consequences of introducing a very unnatural poison into our environment in relation to suffering from a natural hazard?
Most European nations that have adopted the Kyoto Protocol rules are far from meeting the goals. It's a waste of time! They can't even do what their regulations say, much less account for the costs of these regulations.
Environmentalism was never necessary. We can do fine with minimal restrictions to protect the health of the people, but I'm kind of skeptical about this whole "global warming" thing, esp. considering that the Earth's temperature has only risen about .7 degrees Celsius. Catastrophism is bullshit.
The Endangered Species Act has done much more harm than good, yet its idiotic proponents stand by it, and not a damn Congressman has tried, to my knowledge, to repeal it.
Ever since I got into college here at Mizzou, I've had to deal with these idiots, esp. with their silly-named group Sustain Mizzou. "Sustainability" is the new fashionable buzzword among environmentalist nutjobs. "If we don't do something, Earth will die!"
Sustain Mizzou. Wtf is that implying, that if we don't become massive environmentalists on campus the place is gonna crumble, and we're all gonna get sick? Do they even know the definition of "sustain"?
How can every major scientific organization in the world agree that AGW is real and that the results will be catastrophic if it weren't true? Climate is not a common sense type thing. An example of common sense not working (in another area) is the world being round. Why doesn't the water all gather in one spot? Common sense says it should.
I never much cared for environmentalists. Even when I was a hardcore liberal, that was one of the groups that REALLY pissed me off! Environmentalism is just a fad to look "cool" to all your fellow liberals. We should have minimal restrictions to prevent things like toxic dumping in rivers and clean water and air, but let's not go overboard and enact Kyoto or any of that other nonsense.
terrible. you should pose your last question to yourself.
What could be the consequences of imposing restrictions (lower growth economy) or doing nothing (not much to catastrophic worldwide chances with a resulting large scale depression).
The answer should be obvious but i think you choose not to believe in what most scientist agree on:
The influence of mankand on our climate is highly likley and the there is a high chance that the resulting changes are very negative for our society.
The problem is that man is incapable of long term thinking. People choose immediate small reward over a much larger (but in the future) reward. This has been confirmed in tests all over the world.
Damned, I really hate scripted stuff on YouTube being passed off as real stuff. Good for convincing people and spreading the mesage, sure... but disappointing for me, anyway.
Why can't you be a "real girl," one who actually believes this stuff? Much like the 'Ron Paul girl'... it seems we need to hire women to only pretend that they believe this stuff, instead of beliving in it of their own volition.
We welcome the new evolution. people are evolving. smog and malaria are parts of this new evolution. depleted uranium,cyanide, asbestos,flouride and barium all have short-term side affects, but no one has studied these long-term. they are all beneficial to us in the long run if you look at the big picture.
we should wipe out all forms of nature with the exception of man. we will invent trees and animal species that are in our interests. new technologies will soon make you and me obsolete.evolve
That was OK, but it seems you're generalizing, like most people. Without environmentalism/ts personal enterprise would eat up most of the world. Without regulations people would end up fucking up the air, with smog covering every inch of the atmosphere, pollution in every privatized river, and so on and so on. There something to be mad at about every group, so stop fucking generalizing.
Smog can never and will never cover "every inch" of the atmosphere, or even close to a significant per cent of the atmosphere. Besides much of the reason for smog are coal-burning power plants, which you can thank environmentalists for since they complained about nuclear power for all those years, causing restrictions to appear on nuclear power. And so people had to stick with dirty ass coal plants.
And why would it be in anybody's interest to own a highly poluted river?
yeah screw environmentalists, they do more harm than good. Their rediculous policies and regulations do nothing but waste money and hold back the progress of mankind.
You must be kidding! The progress of mankind is being held back because environmentalists want clean, renewable energy in stead of just burning fossil fuels which polute and are finite anyway. Clean energy is a business opportunity and if I ran an oil company I would spend every dollar of profit on R&D so my company would be the first in the market with a viable solution for clean, renewable energy.
I want clean energy just as much as anyone else, but what environmentalists are doing is really only holding us back from getting clean, efficient energy. You said it yourself, clean energy is a business opportunity and it's in an energy company's best interest to provide clean energy. But environmentalists impose all sorts of restrictions that only hold back progress. As a result there is tons of oil that can't be explored because of environmentalist lobbies for example..
I don't get your argument. Environmentalists are holding back the development of clean energy because they don't want oil companies to drill for more oil? Firstly, oil companies love the shortage of supply because it inflates the oil price which leads to record profits. So, if anything, that should give them the capital to do R&D on clean energy. But do they? Apart from a few token solar farms, I'm not aware of any major research. The only people holding them back is the oil execs themselves.
It's all pretty simple. As long as environmentalists don't try to get the government to use force to take money from "dirty" energy and give it to "clean" energy, then clean energy will develope on it's own through the free market.
Oil companies do not love the shortage. No company wants shortages, it is terrible for business. If oil companies were able to drill more oil, they would make much more profit even though prices would be lower for us, the consumer. It's simple supply and demand.
Ok, let's say it in other words. When demand exceeds supply profit margins are boosted. Costs stay the same, but selling price rockets. How else do you explain the recent record profits for oil companies? Record profits go together with record oil prices. Agreed, government should not force them to put dirty energy money into clean tech. It can be done by incentive, such as tax credits for investment in clean energy. Gore wanted to do this with Clinton's surplus, but sigh, Bush killed that idea.
If you are a gold dealer, would you be happy if the government restricted gold mining? After all, it would keep your supply low, and you would be able to sell high. But this doesn't mean you wouldn't be making more money if you could mine more gold, especially with a high demand. It's the same issue with oil. Right now the supply doesn't match the demand. It's in every company's best interest to price based on supply and demand, but governments are preventing this from happening.
As for record profits, that doesn't say much. they are supposed to have record profits. Every successful company increases it's profits yearly.
As for government-created incentives such as tax credits, this is exactly the same thing as taxing oil companies and giving that money to alternate energy companies. It's the artifical spread (stealing) of wealth in order to create an industry funded by taxpayer money. This is not the right thing to do.
Another thing: solar could go a long way to solve the energy crisis, but a German company owns the only patented process for silicone refining and sells the equipment at hugely inflated prices. The downstream processes (manufacturing wafers, cells and panels) add a relatively small % to the end price - an example of how big business tends to serve its selfish ends rather than a global cause. Some intervention is necessary and it won't happen if the environmentalists don't make some noise.
By getting in the way of nuclear and oil development, environmentalists are forcing people to use other forms of energy that the free market has deemed inefficient (especially up north where we get relatively little sun)
There is a reason that solar energy has not taken over the market, which is the result of the market. But what the sleezy environmentalists want to do is force us into using solar/wind even though most people don't use them for a reason, which is that they are not as efficient.
Environmentalists are sleazy? Great argument! Yes, the reason why solar hasn't taken over the market is because of a monopoly on the silicone refining technology. An example of where the market is blocking the solution. Lack of sun up north is irrelevant: you put your solar farms in the sunny states and transport it up north in the existing grid. Go Google "grid-tied solar". The technology's already there. Only obstacle is cost, due to said monopoly. Ayn Rand is outdated, girl!
Yes they are sleazy. So much so that you don't even realize how bad an impact they have had because the politicians support them so. They are the reason for the high oil prices, plain and simple. And to abandon the free market because you want solar panels is insane. If solar panels were efficient, then more people would be using them and that's all there is to it. How can the market be blocking the solution? That makes no sense. Are you saying you don't believe that patents should exist?
Are you winding me up? Because I can't believe that you're actually serious. Oil prices are controlled by a cartel. Opec, you might have heard of them. And you believe in fairytales if you think that offshore drilling's going to break Opec's stranglehold on global oil markets. It's called monopoly. Just like the monopoly on silicone refining technology, which I explained to you. But you obviously can't be bothered to inform yourself on the subject.
Obviously patents are essential. My problem is that the market does not provide enough incentive for developing competitive clean energy. I've just been to a party where I chatted to an oil engineer. He says oil companies are not interested in clean energy because they do so well with oil and today's execs don't worry about it drying up in 50 years. They'll all be dead by then. So, only government can take the lead by providing incentives.
Wrong. Oil prices are high because companies, due to restrictions in drilling on home soil, are forced to drill in the middle east. The middle eastern countries nationalize their oil. That means they have complete control on how much is drilled. They allow American companies to drill very little in order to keep the supply down. That's the reason for high prices. And do you not realize that America's proven oil reserves are only 1/6th of their totaly amount of prospective reserves? Now you know.
Really! Gosh, I didn't know America had so much oil! Please, you've got to tell the oil companies and the politicians immediately! The oil companies are sitting on all that land and they're not drilling, so much so that one of Obama's campaign slogans is "Use it or lose it, baby". If only the oil companies knew how much oil was down there, they'd turn the countryside into a pincushion. So, quick! Get word out to them!
Also, I don't understand your argument against drilling. On the one hand you are blaming the oil companies, on the other hand you are praising the government's decision to ban drilling. It is common knowledge that there is about 130 billion barrels of PROSPECITVE oil under the US. This is not included in the current supply which is only about 20 billion barrels. Oil companies know it, politicians know it, but environmentalists use their power to keep these bans up.
And despite what they might want you to think, drilling this oil would not be intrusive or any more bad for the environment than and other industry. And there is nothing wrong with using recourses, we need them.
The government has only banned drilling in nature reserves like Anwar. The oil companies have thousands of acres of existing concessions which they are choosing not to develop. Why? You tell me. Anyway, we're obviously not going to agree on this, so let's agree to disagree.
you seem to enjoy throwing the word "monopoly" around. Well guess what, it's not the oil companies who have a monopoly, its the middle eastern regimes who have nationalized their oil (nationalization is actually the only true form of monopoly). If environmentalists would get the hell out of the way, then companies would be able to explore the vast amounts of oil in America. The supply would increase, price lowered, and it would spark competition.
Yes, and oil companies will love it if there is so much oil to go around, because it would just become dirt cheap. Cheaper than water in fact and we all know how much oil companies hate making these astronomical profits. Get real! It's a carefully controlled supply to keep prices inflated and American oil companies are part of the problem. You find it even in agriculture where they prefer to destroy produce than see prices crash because of abundant supply.
haha, no oil would not become cheaper than water. And as I have already said, despite their profits, they would me making MORE profit if they had access to more oil. Right now they are in a shortage. This means that the supply is too low for the demand. No business, be it oil or anything else, wants a shortage. To make such an assumption, that companies like shortages, makes absolutely no sense. If that were the case, then why do these companies seek to expand their drilling projects at all?
Tell me, if it's in the oil company's best interest to overprice their oil, why would they need a shortage for it to happen? Remember 10 years ago when oil was a third of the price? They could have just as easily priced their oil the same way they do today. But they didn't. Because they benefit more from selling at market price than overpricing. Just like every other company.
Here's a quote you'll enjoy, Miss Freemarket Radical: "Greenspan, 82, acknowledged under questioning that he had made a mistake in believing that banks, operating in their own self-interest, would do what was necessary to protect their shareholders and institutions. Greenspan called that a flaw in the model ... that defines how the world works.- AP. You see, now even Greenspan admits that market forces need to be tempered a little.
First of all I do not "border on anarchy". I believe that having government is crucial, and we can't operate without it. But the role they play today in the economy is destructive. Greenspan's quote doesn't make sense because the banks DON'T have the freedom to act totally in their own self-interest. It's not like there were no regulations when this crisis happened. Why do you assume that, even though there is tons of government intervention already, the problem is that there isn't enough?
Greenspan is the great guru of deregulation. He said he was shocked to his core when he realised there was a flaw in his thinking, namely that markets are perfect mechanisms that work perfectly when left alone. There should definitely be regulation regarding minimum capital requirements for banks. If the bank had lost your money, you would be beating down the doors of Congress for more regulation.
To answer your question about 10 years ago: first, you statement doesn't factor in inflation. Second, profits were lower then. Third, the Wall Street bubble created the appearance that the global economy could absorb these high oil prices, so they just kept ramping it up. Now there's a global recession. It occurred to me that your ideology is so far right, you actually come out on the left because you border on anarchy! Like Aristotle said 300BC, truth lies in balance.
Second, you are throwing the term "bubble" around, but think about it... 1) The reason oil prices went up so fast is because of the shortage 2) Why do you think there was a "bubble" on wallstreet? Because people were spending money they didn't have! (thanks to government regulated loaning and government regulated interest rates)
Bubbles actually don't even happen in free economies. Only when the flow of money is regulated by the gov which is always arbitrary, unpredictable and unnatural.
This bubble happened precisely because of insufficient regulation. You are probably the only person arguing the contrary. Warnings were sounded in the Clinton years already, but nobody listened. One problem was that credit was too easy. The unregulated derivative market is also a problem. It's nothing more than high stakes gambling with investors' money and it creates no value, but only skims off the economy.
Go build some houses in Africa, with the soon to be owners watching from the shadows of the trees sipping on beer :) trying to fight back the urge to rape you before their house is finished.
i guess it means less people starving to death when they die of malaria , saving a farther five of their ten would be children dying of starvation etc, and saving five of each of their five surving childrens ten children from dying of starvation and sundry diseaSE....AND THERES SOME BIRDS LEFT FLYING AROUND.. millions of people saved from a life of suffering and poverty ... malnourished brains saved from going to war over left over bits of food in amongst the concrete, delaying the genocide :)
HOLY FUCKING SHIT! Rachel Carson ate my mom! DDT stands for Deadly Dinosaur Teeth, LULZ. I think books lead to the end of the world, because books lead to knitting which leads to global worming. Yeah, I said worming because giant subterranean mucus worms will eat our sweaters and scarves as I have previously stated in my English final.
What is your real agenda here Angrygirl76? Your DDT argument is very simplistic and doesn't mention DDT is allowed in many countries (supported by WHO) for residential but not agricultural use because agricultural spraying leads to DDT resistant mozzies and DDT compounds in breast milk. Would you drink DDT? Would you feed it to your baby?
Can't wait to hear how you argue how lame all that regulatory CFC nonsense was. "Getting a tan is hard! The ozone layer is for pussies!"
I disagree only with one thing; the premise that they don't damn well know what they are doing.
They know they are making a power grab and playing the political game. They know that real science doesn't back them up. They did think; you're mistake is in believing that they are honest about their motives.
The environment could be better protected by the state not infringing on private property rights. Statism is not the answer. Look at the ex Soviet Union, they were horrible environmentalists.
@BWF89 You guys are somehow insanely concerned about "property rights". Even when your world collapses, your concern will be "property rights". Of course, "protection" of environment is a matter of individual awareness and responsibility. But that is a different subject than "property rights"!
BITCH YOUST FUCK UP AND SUCK MY COCK!
latino13x3 11 months ago
cute, and smart, too.
The progressives hate women like you.
rickster348 1 year ago
So, humans NEED to manufacture and release a deadly poison into the biosphere in order to survive?
The community of life is not something you own and can destroy at will. You (we) are not the lords of creation.
Revbone450 1 year ago
amen sista
cheeseUout 1 year ago
christo930, you fail to understand the corrupting effect of government doing what government should not be doing. Government funding tends to lead to political crusading rather than true scientific inquiry and skepticism. Also, the "scientists" were basing most of their predictions on one set of data, shown to be questionable. The IPCC is a political body. Also, their "catostrophic" predictions have proven incorrect. If everyone agrees the world is flat, that doesn't make it so.
lucentenor 1 year ago
Ya that is so true ignorant policies
TauBroadside 2 years ago
They could have kept using DDT if they weren't overusing it so much. DDT was probably the most overused chemical ever invented and if they hadn't banned it, it would have lost effectiveness. In any event, to the best of my knowledge, limited DDT use is permitted for malaria control.
christo930 2 years ago
That is a great anology.
I would hope people take that advice to heart.
StuffedAnimalAdvisor 2 years ago
The problem with putting that much DDT into an environment is that it doesn't just kill the bugs, it gets into the water and the food supply and invariably back into the people. Now not having Malaria is great, but if you are dying from and getting mutations from the DDT you really have to wonder if it is worth it.
So what are the consequences of introducing a very unnatural poison into our environment in relation to suffering from a natural hazard?
killerbandit 2 years ago 3
@killerbandit c'mon, no more junk science. People know better now, lol.
rickster348 1 year ago
@rickster348 I don't know if that is sarcasm or you actually think pumping known poisons into our environment can be anything but bad.
killerbandit 1 year ago
I really miss my angry girl !
gubment0cheese 3 years ago
Comment removed
dolphin812000 3 years ago
Most European nations that have adopted the Kyoto Protocol rules are far from meeting the goals. It's a waste of time! They can't even do what their regulations say, much less account for the costs of these regulations.
whoo689 3 years ago
Environmentalism was never necessary. We can do fine with minimal restrictions to protect the health of the people, but I'm kind of skeptical about this whole "global warming" thing, esp. considering that the Earth's temperature has only risen about .7 degrees Celsius. Catastrophism is bullshit.
The Endangered Species Act has done much more harm than good, yet its idiotic proponents stand by it, and not a damn Congressman has tried, to my knowledge, to repeal it.
whoo689 3 years ago
Ever since I got into college here at Mizzou, I've had to deal with these idiots, esp. with their silly-named group Sustain Mizzou. "Sustainability" is the new fashionable buzzword among environmentalist nutjobs. "If we don't do something, Earth will die!"
Sustain Mizzou. Wtf is that implying, that if we don't become massive environmentalists on campus the place is gonna crumble, and we're all gonna get sick? Do they even know the definition of "sustain"?
whoo689 3 years ago
How can every major scientific organization in the world agree that AGW is real and that the results will be catastrophic if it weren't true? Climate is not a common sense type thing. An example of common sense not working (in another area) is the world being round. Why doesn't the water all gather in one spot? Common sense says it should.
I trust in the scientists over the politicians.
christo930 2 years ago
I never much cared for environmentalists. Even when I was a hardcore liberal, that was one of the groups that REALLY pissed me off! Environmentalism is just a fad to look "cool" to all your fellow liberals. We should have minimal restrictions to prevent things like toxic dumping in rivers and clean water and air, but let's not go overboard and enact Kyoto or any of that other nonsense.
whoo689 3 years ago
Yep defiantly the top needs to go! Im one minute in and bored to tears.
notloz2 3 years ago
terrible. you should pose your last question to yourself.
What could be the consequences of imposing restrictions (lower growth economy) or doing nothing (not much to catastrophic worldwide chances with a resulting large scale depression).
The answer should be obvious but i think you choose not to believe in what most scientist agree on:
The influence of mankand on our climate is highly likley and the there is a high chance that the resulting changes are very negative for our society.
ajcrizon 3 years ago
The problem is that man is incapable of long term thinking. People choose immediate small reward over a much larger (but in the future) reward. This has been confirmed in tests all over the world.
christo930 2 years ago
angrygirl76.... lonelygirl15......Hmmm. Similarity.... yep.
Damned, I really hate scripted stuff on YouTube being passed off as real stuff. Good for convincing people and spreading the mesage, sure... but disappointing for me, anyway.
Why can't you be a "real girl," one who actually believes this stuff? Much like the 'Ron Paul girl'... it seems we need to hire women to only pretend that they believe this stuff, instead of beliving in it of their own volition.
AlexAnCapAdvocate 3 years ago
We welcome the new evolution. people are evolving. smog and malaria are parts of this new evolution. depleted uranium,cyanide, asbestos,flouride and barium all have short-term side affects, but no one has studied these long-term. they are all beneficial to us in the long run if you look at the big picture.
we should wipe out all forms of nature with the exception of man. we will invent trees and animal species that are in our interests. new technologies will soon make you and me obsolete.evolve
F3loniousMonk 3 years ago
That was OK, but it seems you're generalizing, like most people. Without environmentalism/ts personal enterprise would eat up most of the world. Without regulations people would end up fucking up the air, with smog covering every inch of the atmosphere, pollution in every privatized river, and so on and so on. There something to be mad at about every group, so stop fucking generalizing.
SpaceCowboy941 3 years ago
Smog can never and will never cover "every inch" of the atmosphere, or even close to a significant per cent of the atmosphere. Besides much of the reason for smog are coal-burning power plants, which you can thank environmentalists for since they complained about nuclear power for all those years, causing restrictions to appear on nuclear power. And so people had to stick with dirty ass coal plants.
And why would it be in anybody's interest to own a highly poluted river?
Thill029 3 years ago
yeah screw environmentalists, they do more harm than good. Their rediculous policies and regulations do nothing but waste money and hold back the progress of mankind.
Thill029 3 years ago
You must be kidding! The progress of mankind is being held back because environmentalists want clean, renewable energy in stead of just burning fossil fuels which polute and are finite anyway. Clean energy is a business opportunity and if I ran an oil company I would spend every dollar of profit on R&D so my company would be the first in the market with a viable solution for clean, renewable energy.
GWEBITYALA 3 years ago
I want clean energy just as much as anyone else, but what environmentalists are doing is really only holding us back from getting clean, efficient energy. You said it yourself, clean energy is a business opportunity and it's in an energy company's best interest to provide clean energy. But environmentalists impose all sorts of restrictions that only hold back progress. As a result there is tons of oil that can't be explored because of environmentalist lobbies for example..
Thill029 3 years ago
I don't get your argument. Environmentalists are holding back the development of clean energy because they don't want oil companies to drill for more oil? Firstly, oil companies love the shortage of supply because it inflates the oil price which leads to record profits. So, if anything, that should give them the capital to do R&D on clean energy. But do they? Apart from a few token solar farms, I'm not aware of any major research. The only people holding them back is the oil execs themselves.
GWEBITYALA 3 years ago
It's all pretty simple. As long as environmentalists don't try to get the government to use force to take money from "dirty" energy and give it to "clean" energy, then clean energy will develope on it's own through the free market.
Oil companies do not love the shortage. No company wants shortages, it is terrible for business. If oil companies were able to drill more oil, they would make much more profit even though prices would be lower for us, the consumer. It's simple supply and demand.
Thill029 3 years ago
Ok, let's say it in other words. When demand exceeds supply profit margins are boosted. Costs stay the same, but selling price rockets. How else do you explain the recent record profits for oil companies? Record profits go together with record oil prices. Agreed, government should not force them to put dirty energy money into clean tech. It can be done by incentive, such as tax credits for investment in clean energy. Gore wanted to do this with Clinton's surplus, but sigh, Bush killed that idea.
GWEBITYALA 3 years ago
If you are a gold dealer, would you be happy if the government restricted gold mining? After all, it would keep your supply low, and you would be able to sell high. But this doesn't mean you wouldn't be making more money if you could mine more gold, especially with a high demand. It's the same issue with oil. Right now the supply doesn't match the demand. It's in every company's best interest to price based on supply and demand, but governments are preventing this from happening.
Thill029 3 years ago
As for record profits, that doesn't say much. they are supposed to have record profits. Every successful company increases it's profits yearly.
As for government-created incentives such as tax credits, this is exactly the same thing as taxing oil companies and giving that money to alternate energy companies. It's the artifical spread (stealing) of wealth in order to create an industry funded by taxpayer money. This is not the right thing to do.
Thill029 3 years ago
Another thing: solar could go a long way to solve the energy crisis, but a German company owns the only patented process for silicone refining and sells the equipment at hugely inflated prices. The downstream processes (manufacturing wafers, cells and panels) add a relatively small % to the end price - an example of how big business tends to serve its selfish ends rather than a global cause. Some intervention is necessary and it won't happen if the environmentalists don't make some noise.
GWEBITYALA 3 years ago
By getting in the way of nuclear and oil development, environmentalists are forcing people to use other forms of energy that the free market has deemed inefficient (especially up north where we get relatively little sun)
There is a reason that solar energy has not taken over the market, which is the result of the market. But what the sleezy environmentalists want to do is force us into using solar/wind even though most people don't use them for a reason, which is that they are not as efficient.
Thill029 3 years ago
Environmentalists are sleazy? Great argument! Yes, the reason why solar hasn't taken over the market is because of a monopoly on the silicone refining technology. An example of where the market is blocking the solution. Lack of sun up north is irrelevant: you put your solar farms in the sunny states and transport it up north in the existing grid. Go Google "grid-tied solar". The technology's already there. Only obstacle is cost, due to said monopoly. Ayn Rand is outdated, girl!
GWEBITYALA 3 years ago
Yes they are sleazy. So much so that you don't even realize how bad an impact they have had because the politicians support them so. They are the reason for the high oil prices, plain and simple. And to abandon the free market because you want solar panels is insane. If solar panels were efficient, then more people would be using them and that's all there is to it. How can the market be blocking the solution? That makes no sense. Are you saying you don't believe that patents should exist?
Thill029 3 years ago
Are you winding me up? Because I can't believe that you're actually serious. Oil prices are controlled by a cartel. Opec, you might have heard of them. And you believe in fairytales if you think that offshore drilling's going to break Opec's stranglehold on global oil markets. It's called monopoly. Just like the monopoly on silicone refining technology, which I explained to you. But you obviously can't be bothered to inform yourself on the subject.
GWEBITYALA 3 years ago
Obviously patents are essential. My problem is that the market does not provide enough incentive for developing competitive clean energy. I've just been to a party where I chatted to an oil engineer. He says oil companies are not interested in clean energy because they do so well with oil and today's execs don't worry about it drying up in 50 years. They'll all be dead by then. So, only government can take the lead by providing incentives.
GWEBITYALA 3 years ago
Wrong. Oil prices are high because companies, due to restrictions in drilling on home soil, are forced to drill in the middle east. The middle eastern countries nationalize their oil. That means they have complete control on how much is drilled. They allow American companies to drill very little in order to keep the supply down. That's the reason for high prices. And do you not realize that America's proven oil reserves are only 1/6th of their totaly amount of prospective reserves? Now you know.
Thill029 3 years ago
Really! Gosh, I didn't know America had so much oil! Please, you've got to tell the oil companies and the politicians immediately! The oil companies are sitting on all that land and they're not drilling, so much so that one of Obama's campaign slogans is "Use it or lose it, baby". If only the oil companies knew how much oil was down there, they'd turn the countryside into a pincushion. So, quick! Get word out to them!
GWEBITYALA 3 years ago
Also, I don't understand your argument against drilling. On the one hand you are blaming the oil companies, on the other hand you are praising the government's decision to ban drilling. It is common knowledge that there is about 130 billion barrels of PROSPECITVE oil under the US. This is not included in the current supply which is only about 20 billion barrels. Oil companies know it, politicians know it, but environmentalists use their power to keep these bans up.
Thill029 3 years ago
And despite what they might want you to think, drilling this oil would not be intrusive or any more bad for the environment than and other industry. And there is nothing wrong with using recourses, we need them.
Thill029 3 years ago
The government has only banned drilling in nature reserves like Anwar. The oil companies have thousands of acres of existing concessions which they are choosing not to develop. Why? You tell me. Anyway, we're obviously not going to agree on this, so let's agree to disagree.
GWEBITYALA 3 years ago
you seem to enjoy throwing the word "monopoly" around. Well guess what, it's not the oil companies who have a monopoly, its the middle eastern regimes who have nationalized their oil (nationalization is actually the only true form of monopoly). If environmentalists would get the hell out of the way, then companies would be able to explore the vast amounts of oil in America. The supply would increase, price lowered, and it would spark competition.
Thill029 3 years ago
Yes, and oil companies will love it if there is so much oil to go around, because it would just become dirt cheap. Cheaper than water in fact and we all know how much oil companies hate making these astronomical profits. Get real! It's a carefully controlled supply to keep prices inflated and American oil companies are part of the problem. You find it even in agriculture where they prefer to destroy produce than see prices crash because of abundant supply.
GWEBITYALA 3 years ago
haha, no oil would not become cheaper than water. And as I have already said, despite their profits, they would me making MORE profit if they had access to more oil. Right now they are in a shortage. This means that the supply is too low for the demand. No business, be it oil or anything else, wants a shortage. To make such an assumption, that companies like shortages, makes absolutely no sense. If that were the case, then why do these companies seek to expand their drilling projects at all?
Thill029 3 years ago
Tell me, if it's in the oil company's best interest to overprice their oil, why would they need a shortage for it to happen? Remember 10 years ago when oil was a third of the price? They could have just as easily priced their oil the same way they do today. But they didn't. Because they benefit more from selling at market price than overpricing. Just like every other company.
Thill029 3 years ago
Here's a quote you'll enjoy, Miss Freemarket Radical: "Greenspan, 82, acknowledged under questioning that he had made a mistake in believing that banks, operating in their own self-interest, would do what was necessary to protect their shareholders and institutions. Greenspan called that a flaw in the model ... that defines how the world works.- AP. You see, now even Greenspan admits that market forces need to be tempered a little.
GWEBITYALA 3 years ago
First of all I do not "border on anarchy". I believe that having government is crucial, and we can't operate without it. But the role they play today in the economy is destructive. Greenspan's quote doesn't make sense because the banks DON'T have the freedom to act totally in their own self-interest. It's not like there were no regulations when this crisis happened. Why do you assume that, even though there is tons of government intervention already, the problem is that there isn't enough?
Thill029 3 years ago
Greenspan is the great guru of deregulation. He said he was shocked to his core when he realised there was a flaw in his thinking, namely that markets are perfect mechanisms that work perfectly when left alone. There should definitely be regulation regarding minimum capital requirements for banks. If the bank had lost your money, you would be beating down the doors of Congress for more regulation.
GWEBITYALA 3 years ago
To answer your question about 10 years ago: first, you statement doesn't factor in inflation. Second, profits were lower then. Third, the Wall Street bubble created the appearance that the global economy could absorb these high oil prices, so they just kept ramping it up. Now there's a global recession. It occurred to me that your ideology is so far right, you actually come out on the left because you border on anarchy! Like Aristotle said 300BC, truth lies in balance.
GWEBITYALA 3 years ago
Second, you are throwing the term "bubble" around, but think about it... 1) The reason oil prices went up so fast is because of the shortage 2) Why do you think there was a "bubble" on wallstreet? Because people were spending money they didn't have! (thanks to government regulated loaning and government regulated interest rates)
Bubbles actually don't even happen in free economies. Only when the flow of money is regulated by the gov which is always arbitrary, unpredictable and unnatural.
Thill029 3 years ago
This bubble happened precisely because of insufficient regulation. You are probably the only person arguing the contrary. Warnings were sounded in the Clinton years already, but nobody listened. One problem was that credit was too easy. The unregulated derivative market is also a problem. It's nothing more than high stakes gambling with investors' money and it creates no value, but only skims off the economy.
GWEBITYALA 3 years ago
Go build some houses in Africa, with the soon to be owners watching from the shadows of the trees sipping on beer :) trying to fight back the urge to rape you before their house is finished.
ShalloeThought 3 years ago
As far as I remember from that ancient poisen ..it also fucks up humans.. IQ screw downs ...You do know where Oxygen comes from
ShalloeThought 3 years ago
the mostly hairless monkeys are in no danger of extinction
ShalloeThought 3 years ago
i guess it means less people starving to death when they die of malaria , saving a farther five of their ten would be children dying of starvation etc, and saving five of each of their five surving childrens ten children from dying of starvation and sundry diseaSE....AND THERES SOME BIRDS LEFT FLYING AROUND.. millions of people saved from a life of suffering and poverty ... malnourished brains saved from going to war over left over bits of food in amongst the concrete, delaying the genocide :)
ShalloeThought 3 years ago
I am a democrat and you environmentalists need to keep your mouths shut so the USA can drill for oil here at home!
padude64 3 years ago
Filed under "High Treason - Carbon Tax".
eversincealways 3 years ago
I'm a market environmentalist, if you want a clean environment invest in it one.
subach 3 years ago
HOLY FUCKING SHIT! Rachel Carson ate my mom! DDT stands for Deadly Dinosaur Teeth, LULZ. I think books lead to the end of the world, because books lead to knitting which leads to global worming. Yeah, I said worming because giant subterranean mucus worms will eat our sweaters and scarves as I have previously stated in my English final.
bubskees0607 3 years ago
Exactlty! DDT saved millions of lives.
sploggon 3 years ago
I think Ann Colter has the Republican stupid lying hypocrit gig sewn up.
DDT is a poison that spreads throughout the food chain. You "think" that is good?
Regulate your nose up my ass.
Occlane 3 years ago
Yawn.
catotheelder123 3 years ago
I didn't know that Peter Schwartz commissioned Youtube videos. You did a good job. He must be proud!
grantsinmypants2 3 years ago
you kick ass!
jaysunz 3 years ago 2
lol
this is so banal and ill-informed, she must be in the pay of the agro-chemists...wake up and smell the ozone...
gramule 3 years ago
What is your real agenda here Angrygirl76? Your DDT argument is very simplistic and doesn't mention DDT is allowed in many countries (supported by WHO) for residential but not agricultural use because agricultural spraying leads to DDT resistant mozzies and DDT compounds in breast milk. Would you drink DDT? Would you feed it to your baby?
Can't wait to hear how you argue how lame all that regulatory CFC nonsense was. "Getting a tan is hard! The ozone layer is for pussies!"
AmiBambini 3 years ago
I disagree only with one thing; the premise that they don't damn well know what they are doing.
They know they are making a power grab and playing the political game. They know that real science doesn't back them up. They did think; you're mistake is in believing that they are honest about their motives.
XOmniverse 4 years ago 2
Too true!
legendre007 3 years ago
The environment could be better protected by the state not infringing on private property rights. Statism is not the answer. Look at the ex Soviet Union, they were horrible environmentalists.
BWF89 4 years ago 5
@BWF89 You guys are somehow insanely concerned about "property rights". Even when your world collapses, your concern will be "property rights". Of course, "protection" of environment is a matter of individual awareness and responsibility. But that is a different subject than "property rights"!
karlokater 1 month ago
what a brilliant rant, thanx for sharing with us
sobranie007 4 years ago 2