Reality Greg, is that the entire industrialized world has a great deal of thanks to offer for the invention of fossil fuels, but that it's time to move on and stop paying homage to the carbon gods.
And of equal reality Greg, is that most of the world hardly needs a neophytic primer on what makes the world turn, much less what happens when the world's skids run dry of grease. But Bushies and other mindless sorts might, as they are of the mentality that we suck the resources dry with abandon until the straw starts to pull air - all the while failing miserably, if not intentionally, to move into renewable energy supplies and legislate them into full blown market reality as have always been fossil and nuclear fuels. That's reality. Perfectly ignorant, but none the less reality. And your death "without oil" mindset is not exactly what one would call "well rounded." So which 53% of ["me"] can't subsist without fossil fuels? The top 53 % or the bottom 53%? No Greg. What you're actually saying is that the comfort level of 53% of the globe's population will be out the window and they'll be forced to actually live and fend for themselves for once in their lives if the despotism of the westernized corporate economy is permitted to pluck all the plums and then burn all the branch stock. Of course it would be nice if "Old Whistleass" http://dean2004.bmgbiz.net/defeatbush.html would put into reserve enough liquid fossil so that plowshares can be somewhat readily transported to the masses for the next thousand or more years and a painless market stabilization/de-escalation could occur in our immediate future, rather than the inevitable market, social and environemental chaos that will occur as a result of radical shortages in liquid fossil fuel supply. But ahhh heck. What the hell. Let's drill the bejeebers out of whatever oil is remaining under the Earth's crust. Damn the caribou burn it up in a flash pan as you would have it. Then leave the world's sons, daughters, grandchildren and great grandchildren to deal with the crushing consequences brought on by present day greed and avarice that leaves them without adequate mineral supplies to parachute safely to a moderately soft landing. As for "YOUR" (quote unquote) no roads crap.... "A solution in search of a problem?" You're oh so close to having that mantra down to a stand-up comedy routine. Nice phraseology your premise that forests should be "at the disposal of every [A]merican," for that is exactly the end result of road networks. Forests have survived remarably well with no human help for millions of years. Roads will enlist a quicker end to that track record. Perhaps someone should point you back to your original remark that people "might have to WALK through the woods." But you want to make the walks nothing but day trips with pick-a-nick baskets ("eh, Booboo?") through green islands surrounded by roads - one gigantic Central Park if you had your way. Sorry. But the courts have already agonizingly plowed through the concept that there should be an access ramp for the handicapped to every mountaintop on public lands. There response was a resounding no. And you might want to research the decision before you think about blithering that they were liberal judges. (No doubt you, Rush, Ann and George would declare them conservatively wise had they rendered differently.) Oh...by the by bucko. I've worked a few more crews fighting forest fires than you've roasted marshmallows in your junior forestry career. So you can refold your ill founded surmise nice and tightly and refile it back in any one of those poorly lit corners of your mind. As for your portrayal of being a hardened and macho survivalist type? It's a safe bet that the balance of the population outside of yourself would perceive you as something consderably less than that, as would the horse that you rode in on. [Horse thinks: "Why doesen't he get of his ass and my back and walk through those woods for three weeks like he says everyone else should or could?"] Naw Greg. You're one of those guys who's perfectly in his comfort zone - armchair bitching because the road doesn't encroach another 30 miles deep, all the while sitting at the wheel of your idling Jeep Cherokee with a still full reserve tank of petrol. And no need to apologize for not going into any further depth on your platform of how technology is going to pull our collective bums out of the deep fat fryer in the nick of time. You plumbed that shallow puddle rather well in the course of but one or two breaths. It's not the technology that's the problem, but the will (actually the lack thereof) that is perfectly evidenced by empty mindsets of ["drill, mine, grade, gravel and pave into oblivion."]. Given another four years Bush & Co. will push the US so far behind the curve of energy efficient and renewable energy markets that it will take half a full human lifetime just to climb to a level of par with countries that already have the leadership and will to make the changes required in the face of inevitable end to a liquid fossil fuel economy. Todd Swearingen ----- Original Message ----- From: "Greg Jahnke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <biofuel@yahoogroups.com> Sent: Wednesday, December 24, 2003 11:56 PM Subject: Re: [biofuel] opinions on alaska forest situation? > Well, let me introduce you to the realities of the world. The economy of the entire inustrialised world is based on oil. We use it to produce goods, transport goods, power our homes and vehicles. Without oil, there is no economy. Without an economy, 53% of you are DEAD (FEMA). > > Clintons idiotic "no roads" crap was a solution in search of a problem. It is pretty apparent from your post that you have never been to the region in question. An overabundance of roads is NOT a problem. There is a problem, though, with a myriad of random trails made by trucks and 4 wheelers. > > Roads, while they are ugly eyesores, prevent every swingin' dick who comes along from cutting their own road. There are several areas in colorado where vehicular traffic is limited to the roads. There doesn't seem to be a problem with getting people to adhere to this. The simple fact of the matter is, people passing through an area on foot or on horseback leave a a lot less of a mark than people on 4 wheelers or in 4x4 trucks. > > What Clinton did was not control access to the area. He simply deregulated it. If you go ahead and build the roads, you can regulate the access. > > There are those, of course, who would argue that we need to restrict access to the entire region. Besides being idiotic, that is illegal. Those are public lands, owned by the US government and at the disposal of every american. That is the way it should be. > > As much as your "real environmentalist" hate to admit it, we have now seen he effects of limited logging and they are not detrimental. And as for the oil question, that oil WILL be pumped out of there. The question is, now, or later. As the worlds petroleum supplies dwindle, there will be a lot less support for the argument against drilling in the alaskan wilderness. If we do it now, it can be done under regulation. Later, we might not be so lucky. If you look at the history of oil worldwide, you can see the pattern there. Things that they would not have dared try int he 40's and 50's are commonplace now. What do you think it will be like in anothr 20 or 30 years? > > The simple fact of the matter is, there is nothing ont he horizon right now that can replace oil. Solar is not cost effective, wind is unreliable, biomass has problems with regulation and scalibility, hydrogen fuels cells (despite what some of the pliticians in washington would like you to believe) are years away from being useful. > > Oil is it for now. That leads us back to our original question.......Pump it now or pump it later. History has shown us that dealing with the situation as soon as it arises is FAR better than the crossing your fingers and hoping approach. Look at WWII. Could have been handles in the beginning pretty easily, we chose to wait w/ crossed fingers and toes. > > Aliens are not going to drop out of space tommorow and solve our energy problems, and there is no real relief in the forseeable future. This is the real world. > > I spent 3 weeks in traveling through that area on horseback 2 summers ago. I did not see another person, or a road, the entire time. I did see a bunch of trails that ahad been cut by morons in off road vehicles. I would suggest that you pay the region a visit and then maybe you will understand my viewpoint on this. IMNSHO If you haven't been there to see the problem for yourself, you have no business lecturing those of us who have. > > A few more realities for you: > If we have ladders, people are going to fall off them > If we are going to travel in SUV's and build factories, we are going to have dirty air. > If we are going to base our economy on oil, we have to drill it. The carribou will just have to deal with this. > > These are just the ways of the world. Personally, I would fully support shutting down all the power plants, stopping all the oil pumps and doing away with all non-renewable sources of energy. Millions would die, of course, but that really doesn't bother me. > > Short of going back to the dark ages (and again, I have no problem with that) the world is what it is. We are stuck with it and wishful thinking is not going get us anwhere. Sorry that I didn't go into more depth on this in the original posting (such as why the no road policy was idiotic). It seemed to me that the simple common sense of the situation was apparent. > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Appal Energy > To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Wednesday, December 24, 2003 9:33 PM > Subject: Re: [biofuel] opinions on alaska forest situation? > > > Greg, > > You should really listen to yourself. If you don't happen to up-chuck right > off the bat at your classic disassociation tactics and sweeping > generalizations, you'll quickly see them for what they are (or actually > aren't). > > Yes. An "environmental realist" - as you describe yourself - understands > that we need a few momentary drops of oil rather than a robust policy of > renewables, efficiency and conservation. After all, "It's there." "It's only > a little bit of land." Such a perfectly convenient application of the > proverbial "drop in a bucket" analogy. > > Funny how you can sweepingly declare a no road policy as a "poor one" while > offering no qualifiers. But you'll probably try to apply the "incredibly > small section of land" argument to road building as well. "Golly. It's only > a 12' narrow strip of land. Think about all the acreage on both sides!" > > Well "Duh, Bullwinkle!" That's exactly what real environmentalists are > precisely concerned about - all the acreage on both sides of every new road. > Roads mean access. Access mean people. People mean degradation. Build roads > for access and then shake your finger at the off-rudders and tell them "No, > no. You can't go there." > > I suppose you're going to play traffic cop and keep all the off-rudders in > check? > > You said you're a realist, eh? Well, the least I can do is thank you for > that little holiday chuckle. Funny how "realism" is that which is in line > with what you perceive. I suppose that leaves everything else in the realm > of "unrealistic," eh? All rather convenient and tidy. Grossly selfish and > near-sighted but rather tidy. > > By your account "environmentalists" should capitulate to your conception of > reality so that they can better focus on other things. In corporate-speak > that means focusing on the one pie remaining rather than the one about to be > devoured by the dog. > > Of course the dog would call that a fair compromise - half, then half again, > and then half of that and half all over again and again until there's > nothing left and then move on to another window ledge in search of more pie > leaving everyone else shortchanged and cleaning up the mess. > > Well Greg? Sorry, but an environmental realist would take a broom handle to > the head of the dog and beat its ass away from the window and back where it > belongs. And if the broom handle broke? Move to the axe handle. > > No doubt you'll have a generous dose of corporate forgiveness in your heart > when I tell you that what you're trying to sell doesn't fly worth spit. > > Todd Swearingen > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Greg Jahnke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <biofuel@yahoogroups.com> > Sent: Wednesday, December 24, 2003 3:17 PM > Subject: Re: [biofuel] opinions on alaska forest situation? > > > > First off, I generally consider myself an environmentalist. I am also a > realist (which a lot of environmentalists don't tend to be). We need oil. > There is oil in alaska. We should drill the oil. You are talking about an > incrdibly small section of land when you look at the whole picture. > > > > The clinton era plan (no raods through the entire region) was a POOR one. > I think the far better option would be no vehicular off road > tarvel.........the four wheelers and off roaders stay at home (my go, you > might have to WALK through the woods). > > > > There is major benifit to drilling for oilin alaska, and very few > drawbacks. I think part of the problem is that people have trouble > conceptualizing 300,000 acres out of 16.8 million. that is like opening a > 5 lb bag of sugar and taking out a teaspoon. > > > > I think a lot of environmental groups need to bring their views more into > check with reality. When they take unrealistic views of things, it costs > them credibility on issues where they actually have a chance to make a > difference. > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: murdoch > > To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com > > Cc: biofuels-biz@yahoogroups.com ; > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Wednesday, December 24, 2003 1:08 PM > > Subject: [biofuel] opinions on alaska forest situation? > > > > > > http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/1224tongass24.html > > > > I'm of the view that there must be some balanced answer to exploitation > of our > > natural resources that does not go for the too-easy answer of > use-nothing > > do-nothing all-exploitation is bad. I'm trying to avoid ankle-biting > criticisms > > of this or that political administration (Bush, Clinton, whoever), so I > want to > > give credit where it's due. If credit is due for a decent policy > proposal in > > the face of a sort of dogmatic enviro opposition that in this case may > not be in > > the right, then I'd like to consider giving it. > > > > > > Biofuel at Journey to Forever: > > http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html > > > > Biofuels list archives: > > http://archive.nnytech.net/index.php?list=biofuel > > > > Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. > > To unsubscribe, send an email to: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > ---- > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > a.. To visit your group on the web, go to: > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/biofuel/ > > > > b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of > Service. > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > Biofuel at Journey to Forever: > > http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html > > > > Biofuels list archives: > > http://archive.nnytech.net/index.php?list=biofuel > > > > Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. > > To unsubscribe, send an email to: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > To visit your group on the web, go to: > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/biofuel/ > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: > > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ > > > > > > > > > > Biofuel at Journey to Forever: > http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html > > Biofuels list archives: > http://archive.nnytech.net/index.php?list=biofuel > > Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. > To unsubscribe, send an email to: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- > Yahoo! Groups Links > > a.. To visit your group on the web, go to: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/biofuel/ > > b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > Biofuel at Journey to Forever: > http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html > > Biofuels list archives: > http://archive.nnytech.net/index.php?list=biofuel > > Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. > To unsubscribe, send an email to: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > To visit your group on the web, go to: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/biofuel/ > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ > > > Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/index.php?list=biofuel Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~--> Buy Ink Cartridges or Refill Kits for your HP, Epson, Canon or Lexmark Printer at MyInks.com. Free s/h on orders $50 or more to the US & Canada. http://www.c1tracking.com/l.asp?cid=5511 http://us.click.yahoo.com/mOAaAA/3exGAA/qnsNAA/FGYolB/TM ---------------------------------------------------------------------~-> Yahoo! Groups Links To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/biofuel/ To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
