NationStates Jolt Archive

Having just watched Sir David Attenborough's "Can we save planet Earth?", which mentioned seven things we can do which will stop our CO2 emmissions rising, I was wondering to what extent people who believe humans are affecting the climate will actually take action.

Here's a rough list of the ones that people can do domestically:
1. Buying goods from the local area as often as possible. Transportation over long distances produces large amounts of CO2.
2. Using public transport or walking as often as possible, and buying a fuel efficient car. Apparently each car on average produces 10 tonnes of CO2 a year.
3. Turning the thermostat down, for every 1 degree centigrade it's turned down, you prevent 1 third of a tonne of CO2 being released into the atmosphere.
4. Producing less waste, a lot of waste in landfill sites decomposes giving of lots of CO2, recyle and compost.
5. Not leaving appliances on, apparently 10% of energy we use goes to waste, from things like T.V.s being left on standby and other electrical appliances being left on for hours without being used. Energy efficient lightbulbs in place of regular ones can save a lot too.

Even those who don't think it's something to be concerned about could save money on electricity and gas/petrol bills.

I switched from a Mercury with a V8 to a Nissan with a 4 cylinder engine. What more can I do that will have a measurable impact?

Eh nothing really. Mainly because I don't believe we are the cause of global warming, I believe that it's a natural process that's part of the earth's cycle.

I switched from a Mercury with a V8 to a Nissan with a 4 cylinder engine. What more can I do that will have a measurable impact?
Well, if you were really committed, you'd stop breathing. With each breath you are expelling the deadly greenhouse gas carbon dioxide.

Think about that next time you're so selfish as to breath.

*Nods*

I'm going to steal several oil tankers and blow them up. Since supply will be drastically cut short, new fuels will have to be developed unless they want to world to be like that Mad Max series.

Here's a rough list of the ones that people can do domestically:
1. Buying goods from the local area as often as possible. Transportation over long distances produces large amounts of CO2.
2. Using public transport or walking as often as possible, and buying a fuel efficient car. Apparently each car on average produces 10 tonnes of CO2 a year.
3. Turning the thermostat down, for every 1 degree centigrade it's turned down, you prevent 1 third of a tonne of CO2 being released into the atmosphere.
4. Producing less waste, a lot of waste in landfill sites decomposes giving of lots of CO2, recyle and compost.
5. Not leaving appliances on, apparently 10% of energy we use goes to waste, from things like T.V.s being left on standby and other electrical appliances being left on for hours without being used. Energy efficient lightbulbs in place of regular ones can save a lot too.

I already do all those things. Green education was big when I was a kid, so all those things are what we were taught to do.

Having just watched Sir David Attenborough's "Can we save planet Earth?", which mentioned seven things we can do which will stop our CO2 emmissions rising, I was wondering to what extent people who believe humans are affecting the climate will actually take action.

Here's a rough list of the ones that people can do domestically:
1. Buying goods from the local area as often as possible. Transportation over long distances produces large amounts of CO2.
2. Using public transport or walking as often as possible, and buying a fuel efficient car. Apparently each car on average produces 10 tonnes of CO2 a year.
3. Turning the thermostat down, for every 1 degree centigrade it's turned down, you prevent 1 third of a tonne of CO2 being released into the atmosphere.
4. Producing less waste, a lot of waste in landfill sites decomposes giving of lots of CO2, recyle and compost.
5. Not leaving appliances on, apparently 10% of energy we use goes to waste, from things like T.V.s being left on standby and other electrical appliances being left on for hours without being used. Energy efficient lightbulbs in place of regular ones can save a lot too.

Even those who don't think it's something to be concerned about could save money on electricity and gas/petrol bills.


I agree with most of these points except for the thermostat.How does turning the Thermostat down affect CO2 emmisions.Regardless of this I think it is vital we do cut back unecceasry things like leaving appliances on and such.

Eh nothing really. Mainly because I don't believe we are the cause of global warming, I believe that it's a natural process that's part of the earth's cycle.

So, polluting is ok?

I agree with most of these points except for the thermostat.How does turning the Thermostat down affect CO2 emmisions.Regardless of this I think it is vital we do cut back unecceasry things like leaving appliances on and such.
A furnace is an appliance, and usually one that runs on gas or other petroleum products. Turning down the thermostat causes this particular appliance to not be on as much.

Eh nothing really. Mainly because I don't believe we are the cause of global warming, I believe that it's a natural process that's part of the earth's cycle.

http://www.inklinepress.com/beast/head-in-sand-500.gif

I intend to eat less burritos. That'll cut down my emmisions ten-fold.

Eh nothing really. Mainly because I don't believe we are the cause of global warming, I believe that it's a natural process that's part of the earth's cycle.

I belive you are wrong about this.We are the cause of Global warming because the planet would not fill with Greenhouse gas if it were not for our industries.But at least you are not blind to global warming like some others. :D

A furnace is an appliance, and usually one that runs on gas or other petroleum products. Turning down the thermostat causes this particular appliance to not be on as much.

Dang! of course! Duh! (hits himself in head) :headbang:

Better yet, if we drowned all the first-born, we'd save precious oxygen. Come on who's with me?

Well, if you were really committed, you'd stop breathing. With each breath you are expelling the deadly greenhouse gas carbon dioxide.

Think about that next time you're so selfish as to breath.

*Nods*
Let's compromise. I'll go out and kill someone. It's the equivalent of a factory buying carbon credits.

Better yet, if we drowned all the first-born, we'd save precious oxygen. Come on who's with me?

Oxygen is a renewable resource.As long as there are plants there will be no need to drown infants.:p

1. It's not always easy to buy local...especially when you don't own a car to go to farmers markets.

2. I do not own a car and always use public transport.

3. I do not have central heating, therefore no thermostat.
I switch the heater on when cold...and off when warm!

4. I recycle as much as I am able, I even shred newspaper and use it
for the cats litter tray. My job involves recycling as well.

5. I am ashamed to say I always leave the tv etc on standby.

Let's compromise. I'll go out and kill someone. It's the equivalent of a factory buying carbon credits.
hmm, I suppose that will do. If you plant a tree every now and again as well, you get bonus points and first place on the giant raft that will carry us all to safety when the great global warming flood arrives.

Oxygen is a renewable resource.As long as there are plants there will be no need to drown infants.:p
Well, er..let's do it anyway!

Eh nothing really. Mainly because I don't believe we are the cause of global warming, I believe that it's a natural process that's part of the earth's cycle.

What leads you to this conclusion?

What if global warming doesn't happen? I definately think that it is better to play it safe, but scientists do actually think that the chance of global warming happening on a disastarous level is slightly less then it not being so bad.

hmm, I suppose that will do. If you plant a tree every now and again as well, you get bonus points and first place on the giant raft that will carry us all to safety when the great global warming flood arrives.

Better yet.Why a raft when we could build a super raft with an indoor swiming pool?:D

I belive you are wrong about this.We are the cause of Global warming because the planet would not fill with Greenhouse gas if it were not for our industries.But at least you are not blind to global warming like some others. :D

Isn't it possible that the earth was always filled with Greenhouse gases? I was reading an article on a bulletin board one time stating that if we didn't have green house gases, that this world would be very very cold.

What if global warming doesn't happen? I definately think that it is better to play it safe, but scientists do actually think that the chance of global warming happening on a disastarous level is slightly less then it not being so bad.

I do not think so.I don't think it will be a literal flood but since the polar ice caps will melt eventually if we dont drastically cut back on emissions that add to the Green House Effect the sea level will raise and cover areas below sea level.

Example, Almost the entire state of Florida is at or below sea level.If global warming takes effect the ocean might move 3 or 4 miles inland.

Better yet.Why a raft when we could build a super raft with an indoor swiming pool?:D
Well, it does sound nice, but given the trouble all the big cruise ships have been having recently, what with the mutinies and the vomitting bugs and the strikes and all, I think it would be best if we kept it simple.

We'll stop every now and again though so people can jump off the side and have a swim.

Isn't it possible that the earth was always filled with Greenhouse gases? I was reading an article on a bulletin board one time stating that if we didn't have green house gases, that this world would be very very cold.

Yes,the world has some Green House gases naturally that if we did not have we would not be here.However, We produce a high level of green house gases ourselves with emmisions that are used in day to day life like CO2.Its not the Green House effect itself in which is causing it,its to much of it.

Isn't it possible that the earth was always filled with Greenhouse gases? I was reading an article on a bulletin board one time stating that if we didn't have green house gases, that this world would be very very cold.

Without greenhouse gases the earth would be 30 degrees centigrade cooler, but a significant increase in the amount of greenhouse gases than there are at present could completely alter our climate.

Well, it does sound nice, but given the trouble all the big cruise ships have been having recently, what with the mutinies and the vomitting bugs and the strikes and all, I think it would be best if we kept it simple.

We'll stop every now and again though so people can jump off the side and have a swim.

Fine but it must be 40 feet in length with a tent on it.Also, no more than 5 other people on it with us.I'll begin building if you want.

Fine but it must be 40 feet in length with a tent on it.Also, no more than 5 other people on it with us.I'll begin building if you want.
Oh dear, well with you, me and DCD on it already, that leaves only four more spaces.

Sign up quickly, people!

Oh dear, well with you, me and DCD on it already, that leaves only four more spaces.

Sign up quickly, people!
3 I'm bringing my girlfriend.

3 I'm bringing my girlfriend.
No, you have to be a NS poster to qualify for a place. She can have a rope and an armband off the back.

:eek:
Your girlfriend must be huge if she takes the room of two people.

4. Producing less waste, a lot of waste in landfill sites decomposes giving of lots of CO2, recyle and compost.

Your waste will produce the same CO2 in your compost pile that it would in the landfill. Changing the location doesn't change the chemistry of decomposition.

Recyclables don't produce CO2. Recycling plants do.

Climate Change is not because of Pollution. But we still should try not to pollute as much, as Pollution does have effects on earth.

Here's a rough list of the ones that people can do domestically:
1. Buying goods from the local area as often as possible. Transportation over long distances produces large amounts of CO2.
2. Using public transport or walking as often as possible, and buying a fuel efficient car. Apparently each car on average produces 10 tonnes of CO2 a year.
3. Turning the thermostat down, for every 1 degree centigrade it's turned down, you prevent 1 third of a tonne of CO2 being released into the atmosphere.
4. Producing less waste, a lot of waste in landfill sites decomposes giving of lots of CO2, recyle and compost.
5. Not leaving appliances on, apparently 10% of energy we use goes to waste, from things like T.V.s being left on standby and other electrical appliances being left on for hours without being used. Energy efficient lightbulbs in place of regular ones can save a lot too.

I do pretty much all of this. I rarely use any method of transport other than my bike for distances of less than 10 miles.

http://www.inklinepress.com/beast/head-in-sand-500.gif
I love it.

My wife and I both work from home, 99% of the time. There isnt much more I can do there, except that I plan the short hops into town-IE: hit the bank and the library at the same time and the supermarket on the way home-instead of more than one trip. We also never sit idling on a drive up line- I always just park and go in.

I replaced all of the lightbulbs in our house with the low wattage flourescent ones that use 13 watts instead of 60-75 watts each.
Lights and appliances are never on unless they are being used here.

I set up a clothes line and drying rack to line dry clothes on it, only finishing them in the dryer for 10 minutes to soften and smooth them out. Since I set it up, I hang the laundry out- I dont expect my wife to do it. (that saves a lot of hot gas right there). For a family of 6, this is about 10 loads of laundry a week not running in the dryer for 60 minutes each.




My primary reasons are to save money, but I also act with conservation in mind as well. My kids understand and are with the program.
Comparing our current bills to older ones- we are saving significant money on monthly energy bills.

Stop farting for one thing...

Climate Change is not because of Pollution. But we still should try not to pollute as much, as Pollution does have effects on earth.

You dont know if its because of pollution or not. However, the smart thing to do is not take the risk until we know for sure. Studies have been done that show children becoming more prone to asthma and other respiratory maladies when they grow up in more polluted areas like New Jersey ;). So if its not for the environment, do it for personal health.

Despite all of the peer pressure, I am refusing to learn how to drive a car. My reasoning is that once I get the knack of driving I will become addicted, and once I'm addicted I'll end up driving all over't shop. So I'm treating it like heroin, stay away, avoid addiction, live a happy smack/drive-free life.

Also when/if I am a (not dirt poor) home owner I'll switch to a green energy supplier. Ooh, and I've signed a couple of pro-Nuclear petitions.

I'm going to steal several oil tankers and blow them up. Since supply will be drastically cut short, new fuels will have to be developed unless they want to world to be like that Mad Max series.

Either way, I win. :)

I'm going to fight global warming by setting fire to cattle farms.

i'm going live in harmony with nature maaaaaaan

Well.

Our recycle bin is three times the size of our trash bin. I am studying solar as part of my house gets direct sunlight most of the day. I am studying wind patterns to see if it's feasible for a generator. Might not be enough for anything serious but a small one might be good enough for outside lighting.

What sucks is the power company. They just canceled energy buyback program. The reason (lie) is that too many people are doing it now. Yet I don't see that much in the way of solar or wind in the area.

I wonder how long the federal and state programs will last before we hear. We need to cut the budget (more tax breaks for millionairs and corporate welfare)?

We are do to replace a car so it will by a hybrid.....

I've stopped eating beans, if that helps.

2. Using public transport or walking as often as possible, and buying a fuel efficient car. Apparently each car on average produces 10 tonnes of CO2 a year.

I could not give up my SUV.

I think people should buy hybrid, or bike. And solar panels to get electricity would be good. We're going to kill the planet if dont.

I think all this talk of 'global warming' and 'melting ice caps' is way overblown.

One of the biggest problems is that our transportation system emits nearly80% of CO2 emmissions in the US, yet the US government continues to subsidize it by building roads and not charging people to drive on them.:headbang: You would have to increse the federal gas tax by 80% just to break even, without the environmental factor thrown in.

I think the whole "cap and trade" idea is a waste of time; it will just serve to divert production to countries that are too poor and desparate to grow their economies to care about emissions. But transit is a completely different ball of wax.

I guess I should stop burning those big piles of carbon in the garden.

I think all this talk of 'global warming' and 'melting ice caps' is way overblown.
In what way exactly? Do you not trust the tons of mounting edvince that says its occuring.

I try to combine trips and reduce my use of gas heating and cooling, but other than that there is not much I can do.

The main sources of conserving CO2 will be alternative energy, more efficient vehicles and buildings, and new forms of transportation free from fossil fuels or similar CO2 producers. Solar power, wind, and other alternatives will eliminate the need for natural gas and petroleum power, while geothermal/biomass/hydro will provide the load stabilizers as will flow batteries, fuel cells, and other technologies.

Tackling the CO2 problem is still a problem of economics, but the rise in prices of fossil fuels and falling cost of alternative energy is creating a perfect environment for the rapid growth of alternative fuels. The next few decades will be a period of rapid growth in these fields and we will reduce or eliminate fossil fuels in power and transportation, but it will require significant changes in certain aspects of our lifestyles and the way we design our cities, suburbs, and economic infrastructure.

Having just watched Sir David Attenborough's "Can we save planet Earth?", which mentioned seven things we can do which will stop our CO2 emmissions rising, I was wondering to what extent people who believe humans are affecting the climate will actually take action.

Here's a rough list of the ones that people can do domestically:
1. Buying goods from the local area as often as possible. Transportation over long distances produces large amounts of CO2.
2. Using public transport or walking as often as possible, and buying a fuel efficient car. Apparently each car on average produces 10 tonnes of CO2 a year.
3. Turning the thermostat down, for every 1 degree centigrade it's turned down, you prevent 1 third of a tonne of CO2 being released into the atmosphere.
4. Producing less waste, a lot of waste in landfill sites decomposes giving of lots of CO2, recyle and compost.
5. Not leaving appliances on, apparently 10% of energy we use goes to waste, from things like T.V.s being left on standby and other electrical appliances being left on for hours without being used. Energy efficient lightbulbs in place of regular ones can save a lot too.

Even those who don't think it's something to be concerned about could save money on electricity and gas/petrol bills.Well, so far I unplug my stuff when I go on longer trips, I don't drive, I hardly even heat my room in winter...

Having just watched Sir David Attenborough's "Can we save planet Earth?", which mentioned seven things we can do which will stop our CO2 emmissions rising, I was wondering to what extent people who believe humans are affecting the climate will actually take action.

Here's a rough list of the ones that people can do domestically:
1. Buying goods from the local area as often as possible. Transportation over long distances produces large amounts of CO2.
2. Using public transport or walking as often as possible, and buying a fuel efficient car. Apparently each car on average produces 10 tonnes of CO2 a year.
3. Turning the thermostat down, for every 1 degree centigrade it's turned down, you prevent 1 third of a tonne of CO2 being released into the atmosphere.
4. Producing less waste, a lot of waste in landfill sites decomposes giving of lots of CO2, recyle and compost.
5. Not leaving appliances on, apparently 10% of energy we use goes to waste, from things like T.V.s being left on standby and other electrical appliances being left on for hours without being used. Energy efficient lightbulbs in place of regular ones can save a lot too.

Even those who don't think it's something to be concerned about could save money on electricity and gas/petrol bills.

I was thinking of becoming a phosynthetic lifeform....

I think all this talk of 'global warming' and 'melting ice caps' is way overblown.

Unfortunately, denial has consistently failed to be an effective form of protection. Except for crocodiles.

Eh nothing really. Mainly because I don't believe we are the cause of global warming, I believe that it's a natural process that's part of the earth's cycle.

Never in the past did it happen that quickly. Ice caps are melting more in the latest 10 years than it does in a normal 1000 years of warming. Natural cycle take millenia to happen. Not decennia.

I've recently switched to a Volvo, bringing my fuel economy up to almost 9 miles/gallon.. I burn less than 700 gallons of diesel fuel per week now. Pretty decent, if you ask me.

I've recently switched to a Volvo, bringing my fuel economy up to almost 9 miles/gallon.. I burn less than 700 gallons of diesel fuel per week now. Pretty decent, if you ask me.

What is it, a yacht?

What is it, a yacht?

Nah, truck. I switched to a Volvo from a Freightliner Columbia. It's terribly cramped.. I have to keep my reefer strapped to the passenger seat because it won't fit in the back.. on the plus side, it's heavier, which adds to stability.. less bounce in high winds.

I've recently switched to a Volvo, bringing my fuel economy up to almost 9 miles/gallon.. I burn less than 700 gallons of diesel fuel per week now. Pretty decent, if you ask me.

That's one big ass vehicle...

Nah, truck. I switched to a Volvo from a Freightliner Columbia. It's terribly cramped.. I have to keep my reefer strapped to the passenger seat because it won't fit in the back.. on the plus side, it's heavier, which adds to stability.. less bounce in high winds.

What kind of nightmarish consumption did the Freightliner have!!!?

:o

Greetings

I have installed a woodburning centralheater instead of the old oilburning,
besides from saving CO2 its half the price compared to oil.

We also installed solarpanels which allow us to shut off the heater all summer.
Free hot water rules !!

What kind of nightmarish consumption did the Freightliner have!!!?

:o

Between 4.9 and 5.8 mpg, fully loaded.. (80,000 lbs GVW). Of course, it was an older model, with 1.7 million miles on it, versus the newer Volvo which had only 230,00 on it when I got it, so that figures in.

Having just watched Sir David Attenborough's "Can we save planet Earth?", which mentioned seven things we can do which will stop our CO2 emmissions rising, I was wondering to what extent people who believe humans are affecting the climate will actually take action.

Here's a rough list of the ones that people can do domestically:
1. Buying goods from the local area as often as possible. Transportation over long distances produces large amounts of CO2.
2. Using public transport or walking as often as possible, and buying a fuel efficient car. Apparently each car on average produces 10 tonnes of CO2 a year.
3. Turning the thermostat down, for every 1 degree centigrade it's turned down, you prevent 1 third of a tonne of CO2 being released into the atmosphere.
4. Producing less waste, a lot of waste in landfill sites decomposes giving of lots of CO2, recyle and compost.
5. Not leaving appliances on, apparently 10% of energy we use goes to waste, from things like T.V.s being left on standby and other electrical appliances being left on for hours without being used. Energy efficient lightbulbs in place of regular ones can save a lot too.

Even those who don't think it's something to be concerned about could save money on electricity and gas/petrol bills.1. I've always done that, though CO2 doesn't have anything to do with it. I'd rather shop locally & keep the local community alive.
2. I don't own a car. I rely exclusively on my legs, my bike & public transportation.
3. I've rarely had to use the radiators. Fortunately, the owner-group (which I'm part of) responsible for the building, have also passed various rules about this, as well as a long term plan for increasing the energy efficiency in the building & minimizing the environmental impact (not limited to CO2).
4. The above mentioned owner-group, have been lucky enough to convince the entire block to participate in a city-organic initiv regarding waste disposal.
5. I make extensive use of both electric clocks & low-energy appliances, as well as low energy lightbulbs. Even my computers are customised to use as little energy as possible - they're, for example, all passively cooled (no mean feat to pull off with a 7800GT card, trust me).

I'll jack off less.

Between 4.9 and 5.8 mpg, fully loaded.. (80,000 lbs GVW). Of course, it was an older model, with 1.7 million miles on it, versus the newer Volvo which had only 230,00 on it when I got it, so that figures in.

I guess the weight is a big factor, but... it sems to me there could be some real savings in terms of emissions, etc... if they'd find a cleaner way to fuel these big users.

I don't have a car, I ride my bike and walk when I have to go somewhere.

I guess the weight is a big factor, but... it sems to me there could be some real savings in terms of emissions, etc... if they'd find a cleaner way to fuel these big users.

Yeah, but biodeisel isn't quite up to snuff just yet.. I doubt electric is ever going to be able to do the job.. not for freight..

Yeah, but biodeisel isn't quite up to snuff just yet.. I doubt electric is ever going to be able to do the job.. not for freight..

I think biodeisel is missing the boat, anyway. It's not fossil, but it's still carbon - and I really think we need to be looking in some other direction.

I think they need to invest in those long-fabled hydrogen engines or something...

I think biodeisel is missing the boat, anyway. It's not fossil, but it's still carbon - and I really think we need to be looking in some other direction.

I think they need to invest in those long-fabled hydrogen engines or something...

I have a feeling there is some hardcore research and development going on right now by the big automakers and private industry to make these reliable and affordable. I saw a report a few weeks ago that showed some import succesfully running on hydrogen, but stating that right now, its costing over $200,000.00 per unit to build.
I think we'll see some version of it generally available in the next 10 years.

I may be wrong.

I'll jack off less.

I'm waiting for someone to find a way to convert semen in to biofuels...the porn industry could become the new OPEC.

Yeah, but biodeisel isn't quite up to snuff just yet.. I doubt electric is ever going to be able to do the job.. not for freight..

there are already rumblings about people concerned about private individuals brewing this in their garages or basements. I dont think that this will be that widespread without laws and taxes to control it better.

They will start by some tax or restriction on the collection of waste cooking oil at restaurants-like its unsafe to transport or have on residential property-or something else tha twill make it hard to refine yourself for cheap private use.

there are already rumblings about people concerned about private individuals brewing this in their garages or basements. I dont think that this will be that widespread without laws and taxes to control it better.

A reactor has been developed that accelerated biodiesel production from hours to minutes; it has a lot of promise for farmers because they can produce biofuels for their farm on site rather than requiring a major facility and purchasing it via a refiner. Biodiesel has a major advantage in that it is not only more energy positive than diesel but actually improves lubricity and fuel economy; ethanol does not have these same advantages.

Distributed generation of energy is really the next big thing for the field; it has major advantages over centralized production that are now greater than the cost to implement the systems. For example, if a hurricane hits the Gulf Coast we could lose 25-30% of our oil refining and production capacity; however, in a distributed generation system the overall supply would not be affected because the production facilities are so dispersed and there are so many small ones that can meet local or individual needs.

Your waste will produce the same CO2 in your compost pile that it would in the landfill. Changing the location doesn't change the chemistry of decomposition.

I'll look into that, It does sound a bit odd and I could've miss heard it. Composting would however, means less CO2 is burnt when transporting the waste, and/or incinerating it.

Recyclables don't produce CO2. Recycling plants do.

You're forgetting that extracting the resources and processing them to make new products takes masses more energy than recyling used material.

I have a feeling there is some hardcore research and development going on right now by the big automakers and private industry to make these reliable and affordable. I saw a report a few weeks ago that showed some import succesfully running on hydrogen, but stating that right now, its costing over $200,000.00 per unit to build.
I think we'll see some version of it generally available in the next 10 years.

I may be wrong.

Should be a conversion for sale for about $10000 in the next 2 years.

I'll look into that, It does sound a bit odd and I could've miss heard it. Composting would however, means less CO2 is burnt when transporting the waste, and/or incinerating it.
Compost decays differently when it is allowed to breathe than when it's left in a landfill. I think either way it releases CO2, but if allowed to compost, it doesn't release methane or something like that.

I'm waiting for someone to find a way to convert semen in to biofuels...the porn industry could become the new OPEC.
Then I won't need my geology degree.

I have a feeling there is some hardcore research and development going on right now by the big automakers and private industry to make these reliable and affordable. I saw a report a few weeks ago that showed some import succesfully running on hydrogen, but stating that right now, its costing over $200,000.00 per unit to build.
I think we'll see some version of it generally available in the next 10 years.

I may be wrong.

I seem to remember something similar... so, if you are deluded, I must be, too...

I think the other big contender is the French car (I think) that runs on compressed air!

CEh nothing really. Mainly because I don't believe we are the cause of global warming, I believe that it's a natural process that's part of the earth's cycle.

Maybe it is, but our gas emmisions are only making it worse, and speeding up the process. global warming is the process it which our greenhouse gases trap heat...etc. Whats a greenhouse gas? Carbon dioxide! There a direct connection to higher CO2 emmisions and the degee change. You may say that it was only one degree higher in the past hundred years is no big deal. You may not be looking at the big picture. We humans that live upon the land have not noticed much, but the ocean can absorb and retain heat. That one degree has a much bigger effect on the world then some might think. The world isnt going to fall apart tomorroe but unless we dont do somthing today it is out grandchildren and there children who will have to pay the price. Have you taken into account exactly how much of the polar ice caps have metled?

And heres another topic to chew on. I would love to reduce my gas emmions but is there that many ways to do it? Though they won't admit it gas companies have bought and sat on alot of altenative power resources. It is also expensive to go put a solar panel and go stick it up on my roof. It also a bit complicated. Hooking up an invernter to transfer DC to AC, batteries, a compaciter, getting the right panel. Sadly our society is going to to bow down to greedy oil companies because of our own laziness, but its not entriley are fault. Did you know there use to solar panels

- In April 1977, in the midst of an "energy crisis," President Jimmy Carter began a bold initiative to develop solar energy and other alternative fuels when he unveiled his National Energy Plan, which included setting an example by placing solar panels on the White House...........
Support for alternative energy took a downward spiral when Ronald Reagan (a former spokesperson for General Electric) was elected U.S. president and became a staunch ally of corporate America.......The $684 million requested by Carter for alternative energy in fiscal 1982 was slashed to $83 million in Reagan's 1983 proposal......The solar panels on the White House were discarded.-
Oil, Profits, and the Question of Alternative Energy
Humanist, Sept, 2000 by Richard Rosentreter

Though they won't admit it gas companies have bought and sat on alot of altenative power resources.
Nope. Not true.

- In April 1977, in the midst of an "energy crisis," President Jimmy Carter began a bold initiative to develop solar energy and other alternative fuels when he unveiled his National Energy Plan, which included setting an example by placing solar panels on the White House...........
Support for alternative energy took a downward spiral when Ronald Reagan (a former spokesperson for General Electric) was elected U.S. president and became a staunch ally of corporate America.......The $684 million requested by Carter for alternative energy in fiscal 1982 was slashed to $83 million in Reagan's 1983 proposal......The solar panels on the White House were discarded.-
Oil, Profits, and the Question of Alternative Energy
Humanist, Sept, 2000 by Richard Rosentreter
Yep.

I'm going to steal several oil tankers and blow them up. Since supply will be drastically cut short, new fuels will have to be developed unless they want to world to be like that Mad Max series.

Right let me get this strait, you want to burn thousand of tons of oil too reduce C02 emisions.

I can see a tiny floor in your plans right there.

Though they won't admit it gas companies have bought and sat on alot of altenative power resources. It is also expensive to go put a solar panel and go stick it up on my roof. It also a bit complicated. Hooking up an invernter to transfer DC to AC, batteries, a compaciter, getting the right panel. Sadly our society is going to to bow down to greedy oil companies because of our own laziness, but its not entriley are fault. Did you know there use to solar panels

Oil companies don't sit on alternative energy inventions; up until the 1980's, they had absolutely no reason to care about alternatives because oil was so cheap and energy-positive and the alternatives were so expensive and energy negative. However, innovations in technology and the falling EROEI of oil are combining to put them in a real bind; 100 years of oil's dominance will be difficult to erode, but it will happen because the economics are supporting it.

Solar is expensive because polysilicon (the same stuff used in microchips) is extremely costly due to a supply crunch stemming from the collapse of the dot com bubble; if you want to put in solar, wait until 2008 or later to save a lot of time and money and also to get a more advanced system. Solar and wind are entering their mainstream phase, which means huge growth and major advancement in the technology.

I seem to remember something similar... so, if you are deluded, I must be, too...

I think the other big contender is the French car (I think) that runs on compressed air!
I think you're talking about the American engine just patented that is a hybrid engine that uses compressed air instead of electricity to increase fuel economy. It uses breaking and teh truning of the wheels to compress air and then forces the compressed air into the cylinders so that less fuel is used and you get more horse power at the same time. The fuel savings are supposed to be many times that of an electric hybrid.

I think you're talking about the American engine just patented that is a hybrid engine that uses compressed air instead of electricity to increase fuel economy. It uses breaking and teh truning of the wheels to compress air and then forces the compressed air into the cylinders so that less fuel is used and you get more horse power at the same time. The fuel savings are supposed to be many times that of an electric hybrid.

Moteur Developpment International

http://www.theaircar.com/

Looks French to me.

I seem to remember something similar... so, if you are deluded, I must be, too...

I think the other big contender is the French car (I think) that runs on compressed air!

oil probably seemed odd when they were using steam, so I'm optimistic the next fuel will be renewable and have less of an impact on the environment.

But I expect they will find a way for us to pay dearly for it. Thats where all the R & D will spend their time. The average consumer isnt going to be running his transportation on something really cheap or free. They'll have to make "special" tap water for vehicles

oil probably seemed odd when they were using steam, so I'm optimistic the next fuel will be renewable and have less of an impact on the environment.

But I expect they will find a way for us to pay dearly for it. Thats where all the R & D will spend their time. The average consumer isnt going to be running his transportation on something really cheap or free. They'll have to make "special" tap water for vehicles

*sigh* Indeed, I fear you speak truth. Vested interests are at work. :(

But, even though we'll get skanked at the pump/socket/faucet... at least we'll be preserving the future.

(I'll just keep telling myself that while I'm watching my wages being eaten up in my transport costs...)

Woohoo! Y'all have made your carbon dioxide footprints so small I can now expand mine and not feel bad about it. Youse guys are AOK;)

*sigh* Indeed, I fear you speak truth. Vested interests are at work. :(

But, even though we'll get skanked at the pump/socket/faucet... at least we'll be preserving the future.

(I'll just keep telling myself that while I'm watching my wages being eaten up in my transport costs...)


We already set a bad precedent. We showed we will pay over $2.75 a gallon for gas over an extended period of time without revolting.

Fuel, diamonds, cars etc... dont cost what they're worth-It depends on what we'll pay.

and now they know.

Woohoo! Y'all have made your carbon dioxide footprints so small I can now expand mine and not feel bad about it. Youse guys are AOK;)

That's ironic, because in many cases that is what the outcome of conservation and efficiency improvements are; for example, with fuel economy people simply start doing more driving once prices fall from the levels that motivated the improvements.

The only way to ensure conservation and efficiency result in permanently lower demand is to keep prices high; consumption of energy per capita has been falling with each passing year, and high prices are encouraging new alternatives and efficiency improvements so hopefully prices will remain enough to ensure that demand for fossil fuel energy peaks in nominal terms in addition to its already peaked usage per capita...the economy and the environment will benefit considerably if that happens.

We already set a bad precedent. We showed we will pay over $2.75 a gallon for gas over an extended period of time without revolting.

Fuel, diamonds, cars etc... dont cost what they're worth-It depends on what we'll pay.

and now they know.

Not only do they know we'll pay... they know we'll pay whatever 'they' tell us is fair.

That's ironic, because in many cases that is what the outcome of conservation and efficiency improvements are; for example, with fuel economy people simply start doing more driving once prices fall from the levels that motivated the improvements.

The only way to ensure conservation and efficiency result in permanently lower demand is to keep prices high; consumption of energy per capita has been falling with each passing year, and high prices are encouraging new alternatives and efficiency improvements so hopefully prices will remain enough to ensure that demand for fossil fuel energy peaks in nominal terms in addition to its already peaked usage per capita...the economy and the environment will benefit considerably if that happens.
We are a dumb bunch of monkeys, aren't we?

Not only do they know we'll pay... they know we'll pay whatever 'they' tell us is fair.

That's the way the market works; the equilibrium price of oil is around $70/barrel and $6/Mcf for natural gas, and that price will not fall until demand starts to decline. Falling demand brings lower prices; the main reason why oil was below $20/barrel from 1986-2000 was due to the fall in world demand since the 1970's.

The current price of oil is 100% fair and justified by the market; if anything, today's market-driven commodities sector is highly preferable because it optimizes the allocation of scarce resources and helps trim overconsumption and waste by having the price actually reflect the supply-demand balance.

Increasing supply does not result in falling prices unless demand falls or stagnates relative to the increase in supply; the only way that happens is if prices rise enough to encourage conservation, substitution, and improved efficiency. As commodity traders say "it takes high prices to cure high prices, and it takes low prices to cure low prices".

That's the way the market works; the equilibrium price of oil is around $70/barrel and $6/Mcf for natural gas, and that price will not fall until demand starts to decline. Falling demand brings lower prices; the main reason why oil was below $20/barrel from 1986-2000 was due to the fall in world demand since the 1970's.

The current price of oil is 100% fair and justified by the market; if anything, today's market-driven commodities sector is highly preferable because it optimizes the allocation of scarce resources and helps trim overconsumption and waste by having the price actually reflect the supply-demand balance.

Increasing supply does not result in falling prices unless demand falls or stagnates relative to the increase in supply; the only way that happens is if prices rise enough to encourage conservation, substitution, and improved efficiency. As commodity traders say "it takes high prices to cure high prices, and it takes low prices to cure low prices".

The obvious flaw in the argument is that the rise in price of UNREFINED oil, versus the price of REFINED oil, cannot be explained by the shortage of SUPPLY... since the US was refining at capacity.

The justification for price hikes based on shortages in the Middle East must be capitalising on perceptions, then - since we COULDN'T refine any more oil, so it didn't matter how great the overseas supply was.

Similarly - the whole ANWAR thing is a band-aid, and a lie... raw resource isn't the problem in this country, while we are unable to refine any more.

The evidence is clear that the cost of supply to consumer, was not balanced in cost of supply to producer. $80 billion in windfall profits is a pretty convincing argument.

As to the argument that: "The current price of oil is 100% fair and justified by the market"... it only works if you ACCEPT that market as fair. OPEC sets artificial controls, so it is not a 'fair' market, anyway... it is little more than a cartel.

The last point I address: "if anything, today's market-driven commodities sector is highly preferable because it optimizes the allocation of scarce resources and helps trim overconsumption and waste by having the price actually reflect the supply-demand balance..." is an easily observable nonsense. The ONLY way in which this kind of price-control mechanism optimises allocation - is that it favours the dollar. Whoever has the greatest wealth, has the greatest share of the resource.

The problem being - the greatest wealth is FAR FROM representative of the NEEDS of the market. Most industries have failed to absorb rising fuel costs - which means, the average punter pays for it at the pump. The people who are driving to work are paying three times as much now, as they were a half decade ago... which is nowhere near matched by increases in average earnings. The transportation industries - all of them - are taking huge hits, while the oil companies are getting windfall profits.

It is a ridiculous situation. The places where oil fules are needed, are in the hands of the workers, the carriers of people, and the carriers of goods.

Moteur Developpment International

http://www.theaircar.com/

Looks French to me.
I thought you were talking about this:

http://www.marketwatch.com/News/Story/Story.aspx?guid=%7B32B2D995%2DC999%2D4D2C%2D9CD2%2D12737807DA98%7D&siteid=mktw&dist=nbk&symb=

I thought you were talking about this:

http://www.marketwatch.com/News/Story/Story.aspx?guid=%7B32B2D995%2DC999%2D4D2C%2D9CD2%2D12737807DA98%7D&siteid=mktw&dist=nbk&symb=

That's crazy! How can they be claiming it as a new technology, and... well, maybe French patents don't count... doesn't sound right to me...

I've been watching this French situaton for more than a year...

That's crazy! How can they be claiming it as a new technology, and... well, maybe French patents don't count... doesn't sound right to me...

I've been watching this French situaton for more than a year...
Don't know. Could be simple case of the cotton gin. If you remember right, that was invented by two different people at the same time, too. Also, they probably do the same thing in different ways. We'll see which one comes out on top. Doesn't matter, though. I'm just glad they're engineering these kinds of things because we sorely need them.

Don't know. Could be simple case of the cotton gin. If you remember right, that was invented by two different people at the same time, too. Also, they probably do the same thing in different ways. We'll see which one comes out on top. Doesn't matter, though. I'm just glad they're engineering these kinds of things because we sorely need them.

I just don't want to get screwed because the US claims some weird protectionism of the US market... but - yeah - the important thing is the alternate fuel becoming reality.

I just don't want to get screwed because the US claims some weird protectionism of the US market... but - yeah - the important thing is the alternate fuel becoming reality.
They won't, but on the face the French car wouldn't work here because it would be considered too unsafe. They'd have to reengineer it like the smart car was - it comes out here this year but they had to add weight and fender strength and such. Maybe they'll just license the engine or make a car with that engine specifically for the North American market. As long as it meets our specs we won't get protectionist or we'd be crazy protectionist over Toyota right now.

We are a dumb bunch of monkeys, aren't we?

Apes! Get it right! :p

They won't, but on the face the French car wouldn't work here because it would be considered too unsafe. They'd have to reengineer it like the smart car was - it comes out here this year but they had to add weight and fender strength and such. Maybe they'll just license the engine or make a car with that engine specifically for the North American market. As long as it meets our specs we won't get protectionist or we'd be crazy protectionist over Toyota right now.

But - the reason we have to reinforce fender strength and the like, is because of the lethal deathtrap SUV's on the road... we should just flatout BAN SUV's....

I just don't want to get screwed because the US claims some weird protectionism of the US market... but - yeah - the important thing is the alternate fuel becoming reality.
Oh, BTW, it's not alternative fuel. The French car runs on gas and the American engine, it hasn't been tied to a car yet and is being touted as an engine for generators, cars, trucks, trains, etc..., runs on either gas or deisel. They just use a hell of a lot less of it.

Has anyone suggested eating fewer burritos?

I will eat fewer beans, boiled eggs, and drink less milk, as I am lactose intolerant.

That way, I will emit less methane.

But - the reason we have to reinforce fender strength and the like, is because of the lethal deathtrap SUV's on the road... we should just flatout BAN SUV's....
I don't believe in bans, but it doesn't matter because sales of SUVs are in the toilet. In anycase, the real problem is our long, straight roads that we drive down at 35, 45, 65, 70 miles per hour. I would not want to be in a crash in that French car at 70.

Oh, BTW, it's not alternative fuel. The French car runs on gas and the American engine, it hasn't been tied to a car yet and is being touted as an engine for generators, cars, trucks, trains, etc..., runs on either gas or deisel. They just use a hell of a lot less of it.

Semi-alternate... it's a hybrid tech, rather than a pure replacement tech

I don't believe in bans, but it doesn't matter because sales of SUVs are in the toilet. In anycase, the real problem is our long, straight roads that we drive down at 35, 45, 65, 70 miles per hour. I would not want to be in a crash in that French car at 70.

In general, I might oppose bans - but the statistics just insist that SUV's are WAY too dangerous. Ridiculous numbers - like a person in a car struck by an SUV is 90 times more likely to die.... crazy numbers.

The obvious flaw in the argument is that the rise in price of UNREFINED oil, versus the price of REFINED oil, cannot be explained by the shortage of SUPPLY... since the US was refining at capacity.

The price discrepancy between refined products and crude oil has to do with the shortage of refining capacity as well as the high demand for crude oil; even though the market is overall well supplied, almost all of the surplus crude oil capacity is in high sulfur, expensive to refine Saudi oil which means it will not be refinable by a good chunk of the world's refineries.

The US possesses 84% of the world's high-sulfur oil refining capacity, which means the world refining system is effectively unable to use any of the additional crude on the market. Even so, the amount of surplus supply capacity is only 1.8 million bpd; that translates to a 98% capacity utilization rate for crude oil and a 90% utilization rate for refining capacity.

In the US, refining capacity is still lower than it was in 1975 yet gasoline demand is higher. And, of course, crude oil is generally useless if not refined, which drives up the price of refined products regardless of the actual price of oil. Neither can move down if the other does not because their costs are interrelated; it makes no sense and costs money for an oil company to produce more oil if they can't refine it, so they will be forced to reduce or slow production even if the price for oil is high.

The justification for price hikes based on shortages in the Middle East must be capitalising on perceptions, then - since we COULDN'T refine any more oil, so it didn't matter how great the overseas supply was

Demand for oil at both the up and downstream is high and supply is tight at all levels of the industry. Therefore, the price will remain high until these situations are addressed.

The evidence is clear that the cost of supply to consumer, was not balanced in cost of supply to producer. $80 billion in windfall profits is a pretty convincing argument.

The cost of a gallon of gasoline in the US is broken down as follows:

59%: Cost of crude oil
20%: Taxes
11%: Distribution/Marketing
10%: Refining

Of that amount, only 5% is profit. That translated to around 15 at $3.00/gallon. The other 95% is just to cover the cost to produce it and to pay taxes on it. At the gas station level, the station owners make a profit of at best 2-4 cents per gallon meaning that no more than 20 cents per gallon is made in profits at any step of the process.

The maze of boutique blends and RFG requirements push the price up even higher in places like California or New York, and in some places taxes make up as much as 30% of the price of oil.

As to the argument that: "The current price of oil is 100% fair and justified by the market"... it only works if you ACCEPT that market as fair. OPEC sets artificial controls, so it is not a 'fair' market, anyway... it is little more than a cartel.

OPEC no longer has control over oil prices. They have been pumping at capacity for the past two years, yet prices have continued to rise; regardless of their producing decisions, oil prices are rising because supply is tight and demand is high and OPEC simply can't produce more to meet demand. The average oil project can take 8-10 years to produce; in 1998, the price of oil was $10/barrel and seemed to be stuck there, so almost no major projects were undertaken and rig counts plunged leading to a supply crunch when demand began to rise.

Also, you have to take in to account depreciation in the dollar since 1999; in order for OPEC to recieve the same revenue for their oil as they did in 1999, oil prices would have to rise by 23% just to keep up with the decline in the dollar's value.


The last point I address: "if anything, today's market-driven commodities sector is highly preferable because it optimizes the allocation of scarce resources and helps trim overconsumption and waste by having the price actually reflect the supply-demand balance..." is an easily observable nonsense. The ONLY way in which this kind of price-control mechanism optimises allocation - is that it favours the dollar. Whoever has the greatest wealth, has the greatest share of the resource.

Yes, and that makes sense. People who can afford the most of a product are the ones who have the greatest share of it; it makes absolutely no sense to allocate it any other way. Price controls always lead to shortages, so there is no other way to efficiently allocate resources without distributing them according to ability to pay.

The problem being - the greatest wealth is FAR FROM representative of the NEEDS of the market. Most industries have failed to absorb rising fuel costs - which means, the average punter pays for it at the pump. The people who are driving to work are paying three times as much now, as they were a half decade ago... which is nowhere near matched by increases in average earnings. The transportation industries - all of them - are taking huge hits, while the oil companies are getting windfall profits.

A windfall profit? No, far from it. Exxon may have earned $36 billion last year, but it had to invest nearly $400 billion just to meet their expenses; oil company profit margins are so low that they are forced to reinvest $0.90 to $0.96 for every $1.00 of profit. They are one of the least profitable industries in the entire economy. That's a profit of 10 cents per dollar...nothing compared to almost every other industry. A lot of oil is consumed, and therefore their revenues, profits, and expenditures will all be nominally higher. Compare that to a company like Cisco Systems, who makes on average 40 cents per dollar of revenue; if they were the same size as Exxon, their profits would be over $100 billion dollars.

Another thing is that Exxon's profits mostly come from overseas. In the US, Exxon pays more in taxes to the government than its profits from selling oil products which means that they couldn't even gouge us if they wanted to...it's simply not possible. They are actually losing money in the US even with record revenues and profits.

And here's another thing: When oil is cheap, the companies all face huge losses. During the 1980's, 600,000 employees in the oil and gas sector directly lost their jobs and many more had their pensions annihiliated by the collapse in oil prices. In 1987, the biggest employer of petroleum geologists was the grocery store Safeway; they had to bag groceries because their skills were rendered useless. While cheap oil is great for consumers, it destroys the fortunes of people employed in the industry...that's a little known fact that people forget.

It is a ridiculous situation. The places where oil fules are needed, are in the hands of the workers, the carriers of people, and the carriers of goods.

The place where oil is needed is where people are willing to pay for it. There is no right to cheap oil; everyone pays the price the market deems suitable for supply and demand factors. If people don't like high prices, they need to use less, improve efficiency, and implement alternatives because the only way to reduce prices is to reduce demand.

After Katrina, there were investigations of price gouging in the wake of the hurricane. The government found that only one station of the hundreds in the region was guilty of price manipulation and no major refiners or oil producers were guilty of any crime whatsoever. Energy is the only industry in the nation that has a special government agency dedicated to regulating it; it would not be possible for a company to gouge consumers even if they tried.

Yes, and that makes sense. People who can afford the most of a product are the ones who have the greatest share of it;

The place where oil is needed is where people are willing to pay for it. There is no right to cheap oil; everyone pays the price the market deems suitable for supply and demand factors.

You SAY it makes sense... but it obviously doesn't.

If the workforce can't get to work, and the produce companies can't traffic produce, it doesn't matter that some rich guy has enough fuel for his fleet of Bentleys.

This is one of the areas that actively NEEDS regulation. It isn't a big deal yet, because the corporate extortion is still fairly minor... but they are pushing the envelope as far as they think they can... and we've just sent them a signal that it's a lot further than they might have previously thought safe.

snip
You know I think this is the first time I actually agreed with everything you posted.

Here's a rough list of the ones that people can do domestically:
1. Buying goods from the local area as often as possible. Transportation over long distances produces large amounts of CO2.
2. Using public transport or walking as often as possible, and buying a fuel efficient car. Apparently each car on average produces 10 tonnes of CO2 a year.
3. Turning the thermostat down, for every 1 degree centigrade it's turned down, you prevent 1 third of a tonne of CO2 being released into the atmosphere.
4. Producing less waste, a lot of waste in landfill sites decomposes giving of lots of CO2, recyle and compost.
5. Not leaving appliances on, apparently 10% of energy we use goes to waste, from things like T.V.s being left on standby and other electrical appliances being left on for hours without being used. Energy efficient lightbulbs in place of regular ones can save a lot too.
I already do everything on that list. I just don't know what else I can do to help.

Let's see.

1. We sort of do this. We like to buy local, but it's still difficult a lot of the time and downright impossible in some cases, such as hemp fibers since it's still illegal to grow in the U.S.
2. Check. I ride my bike to school (5 miles away) and wherever else I want to go in the city; I only get rides if I'm going out of the city or someone else is already taking the car (but not usually to school, as I said).
3. CHECK. 60 degrees Fahrenheit... that's how we keep the house.
4. Check, I think. We do recycle and compost.
5. We could improve this by turning off the computer occasionally, but otherwise I think we're okay on this one.

I could also probably help by not mixing baking soda and vinegar all the damn time, but that's a habit that may be hard to break.

Hey! If I put a well-watered little plant in a Ziploc bag and made a bunch of carbon dioxide with the baking soda and vinegar, then set it in the sun - do you think it'd be able to convert it all to oxygen?

A note to those who complain about gas prices-

Go out. Buy a diesel engine car. If it's new, proceed directly to the next step. If it's not, have it cleaned out and resealed (the engine, people, the engine). Then go and buy yourself some vegetable oil. Unused will work best, but if you are willing to get your car fixed every six months-two years, you can go to a fastfood restaurant and take the used vegetable oil off their hands (chances are, you'll get it free, as otherwise these chains have to pay to have it hauled off).Pour vetegable oil into gas tank. Yes, directly in. If you like, you can look up a recipe to mix it with diesel fuel, but I don't see much point in that. Now drive.

We are all aware that the original diesel engine ran on corn oil when first displayed? Good.

This is not, to the best of my knowledge, illegal (at least in the U.S., I can say nothing for elsewhere). The only problem I can see is if you, like me, live in an area that gets very cold in winter. Vegetable oil is more viscous than diesel oil, and could clog your engine if it gets cold enough. You might be able to overcome this by getting a two-tank engine, and running the diesel first for ten minutes to heat the vegetable oil, and then switching over.

...Or, if you live in the city, get yourself a Vespa. 70 miles to a gallon on city roads... it just won't get much above 55 mph, so don't go on the highway.

In what way exactly? Do you not trust the tons of mounting edvince that says its occuring.

It's planted by the liberal elite.

It's planted by the liberal elite.

There is a 'liberal elite'? Why does it seem like the authoritarians are 'in control', then?