Why is everyone so opposed to alternative energy? Why blame Obama?

Just curious?

All the attack ads against Obama center on expensive gas, the loans to Solyndra, the resistance to a massive pipeline, the push for a move away from coal/oil, etc?

What are people waiting for in terms of energy? Do they think we can just keep using/expanding our use of fossil fuels until the day they run out completely and then just flip a switch and use something else instantly? Do people really believe we should just rely on such fuel until the last possible second and then begin to research/transition to alternatives?

I am all for political discourse as it allows for people to see what is what and make decisions... But I am baffled at these ads? They go on about ending our reliance on foreign oil by allowing the pipeline for example, why not end the nation's reliance on foreign oil by ending our reliance on oil in general? About how expensive our gas is (despite being less than half what everyone else pays) for example, wouldn't an end of gasoline usage and a start in the usage of a renewable limitless energy be cheaper (cheaper in that it is abundant, renewable, not scarce/unlimited)?

------------------

I am not wanting to argue about other issues that no one agrees upon because arguing about such things is pointless, people are blinded by their own biases in won't accept anything else. This is about energy and I am curious how people can advocate further expansion/reliance on a fuel that gets more and more expensive as it depletes further and further and be critical of someone for opposing such a reliance/supporting (or at least attempting to support (lol solyndra)) alternatives...

No one is opposed to alternative energy. We're opposed to Obama's blatant lies of how much reserves our country actually has and the idea that fossil fuels are bad.

Secondly, it's naive liberal drivel to think we can end our reliance on fossil fuels. That won't happen ANY time soon. Fossil fuels need to be exploited as much as possible while alternatives are pursued.

I am opposed to using taxpayer money to subsidize it. I'm opposed to using taxpayer money to do anything really.

No one is opposed to alternative energy. We're opposed to Obama's blatant lies of how much reserves our country actually has and the idea that fossil fuels are bad.

airshocker

This is the kind of negativity I am describing... What is this? Lying about something investigated by non-partisan governmental agencies? Are you implying Republicans are paragons of truth regarding oil reserves considering their biggest donors and lobby contributors are oil coporate groups?

And what?

"And the idea that fossil fuels are bad."

What is good about them then? Limited, expensive to recover/refine/transport, wasteful, oviously hurts the environment?

No one is opposed to alternative energy. We're opposed to Obama's blatant lies of how much reserves our country actually has and the idea that fossil fuels are bad.

Secondly, it's naive liberal drivel to think we can end our reliance on fossil fuels. That won't happen ANY time soon. Fossil fuels need to be exploited as much as possible while alternatives are pursued.

airshocker

That is entirely the point, what incentive is there to pursue alternatives/how can they be pursued when Republicans criticize Obama for attempting to finance such pursuits, criticize him for encouraging transition away from oil to them, incentivizing it even (tax breaks on those with fuel efficient vehicles and the likes, etc)...

This is why I am baffled as you say we need oil while we transition to alternatives in the same sentence you say the want and push for a transition is liberal nonsensicalness...

This is the kind of negativity I am describing... What is this? Lying about something investigated by non-partisan governmental agencies? Are you implying Republicans are paragons of truth regarding oil reserves considering their biggest donors and lobby contributors are oil coporate groups?

And what?

"And the idea that fossil fuels are bad."

What is good about them then? Limited, expensive to recover/refine/transport, wasteful, oviously hurts the environment?

C2N2

Don't strawman. This has to do with Obama lying and nothing else. He blatantly lied regarding the 2% number. A number that his own government agencies have said is nowhere near the truth. Thus, we are in no danger and running out of fossil fuels anytime soon.

They power our economy, our homes, our business, our transportation. We would have to sacrifice millions of acres of land to "green" options in order to enjoy the same standard of living as we do now. I like how you left all of that out.

You speak of negativity, but it's not me being negative. It's Obama and people like you with your one-sided arguments and lies.

That is entirely the point, what incentive is there to pursue alternatives/how can they be pursued when Republicans criticize Obama for attempting to finance such pursuits, criticize him for encouraging transition away from oil to them, incentivizing it even (tax breaks on those with fuel efficient vehicles and the likes, etc)...

This is why I am baffled as you say we need oil while we transition to alternatives in the same sentence you say the want and push for a transition is liberal nonsensicalness...

C2N2

We criticize his inefficiency when trying to finance such ventures. He's failed miserably in that regard.

You need to brush up on your reading skills. I said, quite clearly, "it's naive liberal drivel to think we can end our reliance on fossil fuels." I never said anything about the desire to pursue alternative energies as nonsensical.

If you aren't going to represent what I say accurately, I believe I'm done talking with you.

[QUOTE="C2N2"]

This is the kind of negativity I am describing... What is this? Lying about something investigated by non-partisan governmental agencies? Are you implying Republicans are paragons of truth regarding oil reserves considering their biggest donors and lobby contributors are oil coporate groups?

And what?

"And the idea that fossil fuels are bad."

What is good about them then? Limited, expensive to recover/refine/transport, wasteful, oviously hurts the environment?

airshocker

Don't strawman. This has to do with Obama lying and nothing else. He blatantly lied regarding the 2% number. A number that his own government agencies have said is nowhere near the truth. Thus, we are in no danger and running out of fossil fuels anytime soon.

They power our economy, our homes, our business, our transportation. We would have to sacrifice millions of acres of land to "green" options in order to enjoy the same standard of living as we do now. I like how you left all of that out.

You speak of negativity, but it's not me being negative. It's Obama and people like you with your one-sided arguments.

How is arguing against a one sided argument not just arguing in favor of your own one sided argument?

And in terms of sacrificing land for green energy, obviously I am not advocating we stop using oil right now and cover the planet in solar arrays... Hence why every post I have made here is in regards to research of more efficient/available green energy and the gradual transition as opposed to two extreme abrupt endings of oil, (either now with highly inefficient alternatives, which I am not suggesting or later when there is no choice as it is gone, which is what I am arguing against waiting for)...

And you say we aren't running out of oil anytime soon? Based on what? Our usage (humanity as a whole, primarily India and China) is going to increasing further while the supply lessens... How is that supposed to last very long? A limited supply that gets smaller every day being harvested more and more each day?

[QUOTE="C2N2"]

This is the kind of negativity I am describing... What is this? Lying about something investigated by non-partisan governmental agencies? Are you implying Republicans are paragons of truth regarding oil reserves considering their biggest donors and lobby contributors are oil coporate groups?

And what?

"And the idea that fossil fuels are bad."

What is good about them then? Limited, expensive to recover/refine/transport, wasteful, oviously hurts the environment?

airshocker

Don't strawman. This has to do with Obama lying and nothing else. He blatantly lied regarding the 2% number. A number that his own government agencies have said is nowhere near the truth. Thus, we are in no danger and running out of fossil fuels anytime soon.

They power our economy, our homes, our business, our transportation. We would have to sacrifice millions of acres of land to "green" options in order to enjoy the same standard of living as we do now. I like how you left all of that out.

You speak of negativity, but it's not me being negative. It's Obama and people like you with your one-sided arguments and lies.

That is entirely the point, what incentive is there to pursue alternatives/how can they be pursued when Republicans criticize Obama for attempting to finance such pursuits, criticize him for encouraging transition away from oil to them, incentivizing it even (tax breaks on those with fuel efficient vehicles and the likes, etc)...

This is why I am baffled as you say we need oil while we transition to alternatives in the same sentence you say the want and push for a transition is liberal nonsensicalness...

C2N2

We criticize his inefficiency when trying to finance such ventures. He's failed miserably in that regard.

You need to brush up on your reading skills. I said, quite clearly, "it's naive liberal drivel to think we can end our reliance on fossil fuels." I never said anything about the desire to pursue alternative energies as nonsensical.

If you aren't going to represent what I say accurately, I believe I'm done talking with you.

Pursuing alternatives are a means to an end... The end being an end of reliance on fossil fuels... Since ending our reliance on fossil fuels is naive liberal drivel (drivel being synonymous with nonsense), doesn't that make pursuing the alternative naive liberal drivel in and of itself considering?

These are your words sir, not mine...

No one's opposed to alternative energy. People are opposed to the government trying to pick winners and losers in the market by promoting crony capitalism. See Solyndra for example. U.S. Treasury hands them $1 billion and a year later they are bankrupt. Individuals in a free society decide who succeeds and who doesn't. Not the government. You want to know a way to promote green tech? Offer tax credits for consumers who purchase alternative energy vehicles. How about that?RandPaul

There are no alternatives currently which is what I am critical of...

And they do offer tax credit for what there is...

http://www.chevrolet.com/chevy-volt-electric-car-tax-credit/

I'm with the great Cecil Adams on this one:

In 2002, Nocera points out, the global energy consumption rate was 13.5 terawatts. What will it be in 2050? If everybody were to burn through the juice at the current U.S. rate, Nocera calculates, we'd need 102 terawatts, seven times as much. Chances of our producing that: zero.

Instead, Nocera conservatively pegs annual global energy usage circa 2050 at between 28 terawatts, which assumes average consumption at the same rate as in present-day Poland, and 35 terawatts, roughly the rate now seen in Samoa. You may say: Samoa sounds like a lifestyle I could get used to. That's sporting of you, but it still means we'll need about 15 to 20 more terawatts of energy than we're consuming right now.

Where will it come from? Nocera runs through some possibilities:

• First, biomass. If we devote all the arable land on earth to energy production rather than food crops and presumably just don't eat, we could generate 7 to 10 terawatts.
• Next, wind. If we build wind farms on 100 percent of the sufficiently windy land, we could produce 2.1 terawatts.
• Third, hydroelectric. If we dam all the remaining rivers, we could come up with 0.7 to 2 additional terawatts.
• Finally, nuclear. I know you don't like nukes, Randvek, but the professor's evident aim was to tote up all power sources that aren't net emitters of greenhouse gases. He thinks we could produce 8 terawatts by constructing 8,000 nuclear power plants, which would mean one new plant every two days for the next 40 years.

Total: around 18 to 22 terawatts. In other words, if we squeeze out every available watt of alternative energy on the planet, and build nukes at an impossibly aggressive rate, we'll barely keep up with the energy needed to support even a modest standard of living for the world's people.

...

My point isn't that the situation is hopeless, although it certainly gives one pause. All I'm saying is we need to dispense with the illusory notion of "alternative" energy, which suggests we'll get to be choosy about energy sources. Sorry, not going to happen. We'll have to use them all.

- Cecil Adams

[QUOTE="RandPaul"]No one's opposed to alternative energy. People are opposed to the government trying to pick winners and losers in the market by promoting crony capitalism. See Solyndra for example. U.S. Treasury hands them $1 billion and a year later they are bankrupt. Individuals in a free society decide who succeeds and who doesn't. Not the government. You want to know a way to promote green tech? Offer tax credits for consumers who purchase alternative energy vehicles. How about that?C2N2

There are no alternatives currently which is what I am critical of...

And they do offer tax credit for what there is...

http://www.chevrolet.com/chevy-volt-electric-car-tax-credit/

I am opposed to using taxpayer money to subsidize it. I'm opposed to using taxpayer money to do anything really.

scoots9

Do you equally oppose using taxpayer money to subsidize oil?

airshocker

because the oil companies and gas companies and such keep us afraid of it....Its socialist communist you know to have cheap effective and carbon neutral energy.

No one's opposed to alternative energy. People are opposed to the government trying to pick winners and losers in the market by promoting crony capitalism. See Solyndra for example. U.S. Treasury hands them $1 billion and a year later they are bankrupt. Individuals in a free society decide who succeeds and who doesn't. Not the government. You want to know a way to promote green tech? Offer tax credits for consumers who purchase alternative energy vehicles. How about that?RandPaul

No one is opposed to alternative energy. We're opposed to Obama's blatant lies of how much reserves our country actually has and the idea that fossil fuels are bad.

Secondly, it's naive liberal drivel to think we can end our reliance on fossil fuels. That won't happen ANY time soon. Fossil fuels need to be exploited as much as possible while alternatives are pursued.

airshocker

Don't you think it's a good thing that we haven't tapped into our own oil reserves? Right now we are importing oil from foreign countries because it is relatively cheap. The price of oil will increase as it becomes more scarce. When the oil wells in the middle east run dry, we will be able to extract and sell our oil at exorbitant prices. That is why it is a good policy to delay the construction of a pipeline for as long as possible.

for some reason i think of the phrase Henry Ford said

"If i asked people what they wanted, i would of built them a better horse"

people are most familiar with the current existing technologies, of which for the most part i am not against at all. we are getting better at extracting and getting more use out of crude oil, and gas we extract all the time. but it will not last forever, and we are already starting to see the precursers of the end beginning with food shortages and gasoline prices going on.

Americans complain about the price of gas getting near $4 dollars, it is obnoxious in other countries around the world. and as the price of gas goes up so does all the commodities and foods that need to get transported by trucks.

renewable energies are crucial to the future of human civilization. and i don't usually like speaking in hyperbole.

oil and gas are literally the blood of this modern life style, without it imagine life in the late 1800's. crude oil for instance has hydrocarbons molecules that go from making propane to asphalt. Sure some of the compounds we can make in nature, but we are already reaching a massive problem on that front, when it comes to making our food. which reminds me... the petrol-based chemical fertilizers we spray over the farm land each year.

yeah...

the more you read about how much it affects the modern(izing) world, the spookier and more daunting the task it to overcome it.

what sucks is at the moment there is no one or couple combination of renewable energies can do the job. In fact i remember reading somewhere that if we were to replace all coal, gas, and oil power production and replaced it on nuclear power alone. Using the estimated supply of fuel, and NOT adjusting for power-demand growth, we only have enough supply ON THE EARTH for another 20 years.

[QUOTE="DarkOfKnight"]Nobody is opposed to it. Why would you think otherwise?Iszdope

Fool.

People's lives would probably become slightly harder if we stopped/reduced our current fuel resources and switched to alternative sources. So i'm not surprised people oppose it.

By all means, continue to hate it, especially solar. Let's see if it can get a little bit more undervalued.

Just curious?

All the attack ads against Obama center on expensive gas, the loans to Solyndra, the resistance to a massive pipeline, the push for a move away from coal/oil, etc?

What are people waiting for in terms of energy? Do they think we can just keep using/expanding our use of fossil fuels until the day they run out completely and then just flip a switch and use something else instantly? Do people really believe we should just rely on such fuel until the last possible second and then begin to research/transition to alternatives?

I am all for political discourse as it allows for people to see what is what and make decisions... But I am baffled at these ads? They go on about ending our reliance on foreign oil by allowing the pipeline for example, why not end the nation's reliance on foreign oil by ending our reliance on oil in general? About how expensive our gas is (despite being less than half what everyone else pays) for example, wouldn't an end of gasoline usage and a start in the usage of a renewable limitless energy be cheaper (cheaper in that it is abundant, renewable, not scarce/unlimited)?

------------------

I am not wanting to argue about other issues that no one agrees upon because arguing about such things is pointless, people are blinded by their own biases in won't accept anything else. This is about energy and I am curious how people can advocate further expansion/reliance on a fuel that gets more and more expensive as it depletes further and further and be critical of someone for opposing such a reliance/supporting (or at least attempting to support (lol solyndra)) alternatives...

C2N2

it would help if all the companies given funding for electric cars werent owned by GM. and that all the clean energy solution money that doesnt apply to that has gone to general electric

[QUOTE="C2N2"]

This is the kind of negativity I am describing... What is this? Lying about something investigated by non-partisan governmental agencies? Are you implying Republicans are paragons of truth regarding oil reserves considering their biggest donors and lobby contributors are oil coporate groups?

And what?

"And the idea that fossil fuels are bad."

What is good about them then? Limited, expensive to recover/refine/transport, wasteful, oviously hurts the environment?

airshocker

Quote Airshocker "Don't strawman. This has to do with Obama lying and nothing else. He blatantly lied regarding the 2% number. A number that his own government agencies have said is nowhere near the truth. Thus, we are in no danger and running out of fossil fuels anytime soon.

They power our economy, our homes, our business, our transportation. We would have to sacrifice millions of acres of land to "green" options in order to enjoy the same standard of living as we do now. I like how you left all of that out.

You speak of negativity, but it's not me being negative. It's Obama and people like you with your one-sided arguments and lies."

This post made me want to punch my screen. Talk about missing the entire point of the thread

[QUOTE="FragStains"]It's pretty expensive in terms of upfront costs.SEANMCAD

so what the internstate freeway system which despite what some might think is in fact man made

why is everyone against stem-cell research? all my bill does is takes every newborn and turns it into a lovely slury that is perfect for my needs.

i am not against stem-cell research or alternative energy. i am against the force people want to use for alternative energy that is parallel to my hypothetical kill all babies/fund stem-cell research bill. if people want to support a cause they are free to, i wont like it if you use force to make me support it too.

why is everyone against stem-cell research? all my bill does is takes every newborn and turns it into a lovely slury that is perfect for my needs.

i am not against stem-cell research or alternative energy. i am against the force people want to use for alternative energy that is parallel to my hypothetical kill all babies/fund stem-cell research bill. if people want to support a cause they are free to, i wont like it if you use force to make me support it too.

surrealnumber5

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"]

why is everyone against stem-cell research? all my bill does is takes every newborn and turns it into a lovely slury that is perfect for my needs.

i am not against stem-cell research or alternative energy. i am against the force people want to use for alternative energy that is parallel to my hypothetical kill all babies/fund stem-cell research bill. if people want to support a cause they are free to, i wont like it if you use force to make me support it too.

-Sun_Tzu-

[QUOTE="FragStains"][QUOTE="SEANMCAD"]

so what the internstate freeway system which despite what some might think is in fact man made

SEANMCAD

I am glad you understand my point depsite my typo

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"]

why is everyone against stem-cell research? all my bill does is takes every newborn and turns it into a lovely slury that is perfect for my needs.

i am not against stem-cell research or alternative energy. i am against the force people want to use for alternative energy that is parallel to my hypothetical kill all babies/fund stem-cell research bill. if people want to support a cause they are free to, i wont like it if you use force to make me support it too.

-Sun_Tzu-

Hello frag

man this is kind of awkward

[QUOTE="FragStains"][QUOTE="SEANMCAD"]

I am glad you understand my point depsite my typo

SEANMCAD

did you know that the interstate freeway isnt natural? it didnt grow nor is it part of the natural landscape. I know it can seem that way but no, at one point the entire nation was forced to pay for freeway system which was very expensive, clearly that was a bad idea because i like mountain biking better anyway!

Because it is all about money and politics. Oil people are against green people and green people are against oil people. And the fact that the politicians are siding with either one of these people for money and votes. Thats what this is all about. Really at the end of the day alternative energy I would say would be smart down the road, but in the end its being shoved down our throats because they want money and secondly it extremely expensive.

Because it is all about money and politics. Oil people are against green people and green people are against oil people. And the fact that the politicians are siding with either one of these people for money and votes. Thats what this is all about. Really at the end of the day alternative energy I would say would be smart down the road, but in the end its being shoved down our throats because they want money and secondly it extremely expensive.

xscrapzx

Because of conservative propaganda. See: the Chevy Volt.