'Renewable energy good, but we need oil now'

[longeyes]

A bizarre and irrational attachment to oil...?

Maybe because it's like having a bizarre and irrational attachment to one's own blood?

When I think bizarre and irrational I think of Nancy Pelosi playing Mother Superior and pretending to be an environmentalist (a word she can't spell).

We bristle because we smell what's BEHIND the fancy ecological planet-saving rhetoric.  Same old tyrants, just in new clothes.  Every generation it's a different costume and a different set of reasons.

[roo_ster]

The Green tree has Red roots.

[Physics]

In my opinion, people will stop relying on oil when oil is more expensive than its alternatives.  This is of course why oil is so predominant, more bang for your buck.  For those of you who say you will never buy an electric car, I understand what you are saying, yes, current alternatives cannot compete with oil based engines in all niches.  Some, yes, like the short commute car that isn't needed for long distances. 

However, I think you guys need to look at what the scientists are saying.  Not the environmentalists, the scientists.  The combustion of oil produces NOx compounds, which is where smog comes from.  Burning oil produces Sulfur dioxide, which produces acid rain.  Burning oil produces CO2, a greenhouse gas. 

Greenhouse gases absorb IR light.  The IR light that is being absorbed by this carbon dioxide molecule makes the molecule jiggle more.  This jiggling makes the molecule hit other molecules, which absorb some kinetic energy and they hit other molecules.  So basically all the molecules in the air around this little CO2 are all moving a little bit more because the CO2 absorbed some IR light.  This means that the temperature of that little area of air is higher. 

Now, the actual atmosphere is a lot more complicated, so a localized increase in temperature on the molecular scale won't necessarily translate into a global temperature increase, but it will have some kind of impact, because the amount of CO2 put into the atmosphere is quite high.  To be honest, I don't think the scientific community really knows what to expect, but what if it does turn out bad?  This community seems to be pretty savvy on taking preventative measures on possible risks, being prepared for any situation.  Well, here is something to be preventative about. 

[De Selby]

Then there's the fact that since the wide-scale elimination of DDT Malaria, which had been pushed out of MANY nations around the world, has been making an extremely strong come back.

So strong, in fact, that DDT is now being used in large quantities again in the third world to combat malaria mosquitos.

And that's perfectly acceptable, just as it's perfectly acceptable to use engines that damage other people's air when there's no other feasible means of powering the economy. 

But I don't see any personal liberty interest in doing such harm just because one likes the smell of gas fumes from his classic car, or just becuase DDT is a penny cheaper than some safer alternative.

I don't see why that point is terribly controversial-if there's no need to do harm to others, it's unreasonable to do so, fond memories of exhaust [yikes!] notwithstanding.

[K Frame]

"some other safer alternative."

Except for the fact that there isn't a safer more effective alternative.

There's the fly in your argument. But don't let facts disuade you.

DDT's toxcicity is FAR below that of other pesticides of similar efficacy in dealing with malarial mosquitos.

As for the entire line of ad absurdam line of argumentitive discussion you've adopted re: rights to create pollution...

So you're telling us that you are the sole sinless individual in the world.

Your continuing existence doesn't impact someone else in such that you are a 0% polluter, both by commission and by association.

That's.... cute.

Retarded, but cute.

Drum circle flower child psychoses not withstanding, trying to tie this to some sort of rights argument is retarded, as is this entire thread.