Re: This is awful

J, interesting point of view. A couple of quick points.

1) Corporations will spend any amount of YOUR money to make a buck. If
it takes $100 of taxpayer money for Halliburton to make $1, they'll
take the deal.

2) People make mistakes. That doesn't mean that environmentalism is a
bad thing.

3) California is one of the most eco friendly states around. I just
priced a solar system with the current high electric prices, and the
new incentives just enacted. Bottom line? I'd still be loosing more
money than I can afford to right now. (I may try to install it myself
to make it cost effective, we'll see).


In article <8BVyf.20468$he.7347@trnddc03>, <mill.tek@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> ***,
> Maybe the poster you replied to did come across as lacking, but your
> reply shows your own inflexibility. At no point did Mr.Foster dismiss
> or devalue the loss of human life.
>
> Anyway, in my opinion, bringing Chernobyl into this discussion was
> wrong. Chernobyl is about as valid a case of industrial pollution as
> Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Just reading the material on that young ladies
> web-site it is clear that the event was caused by monumental stupidity
> and the worst excesses of the Soviet system of government. (Note that
> I didn't say that Chernobyl hasn't caused pollution. It has and the loss
> of life is horrific.)
>
> As an employee of the EPA perhaps you can enlighten us about the current
> status of MTBE pollution in California's groundwater. Is it true that
> MTBE was required to be added to gasoline by the EPA? Is the EPA going
> to penalize itself for causing the pollution.
>
> I'm not trying to be personal or nasty, just making the point that
> sometimes the supposed cure is worse than the problem.
>
> I've never been to ANWR, nor have I ever been anywhere near a large oil
> rig or pipeline. What I do know is that "Western-style" countries are
> currently locked into an oil-dependant economic model. Presently the
> global population is expanding as is the number of people living under
> various free forms of government. (Personal energy consumption was very
> low under Soviet/Communist regimes.) Consequently, everyone wants to
> have a nice lifestyle. Part of that is a means of transport. At this
> point in humanity's development that involves oil. Vast quantities of
> it. So unless someone develops a realistic means of providing energy it
> is inevitable that ANWR will be accessed some day. Surely it makes sense
> to make that access take place under controlled and managed conditions?
>
> I would also agree with a previous poster regarding the volume of oil
> under ANWR. There must be more than several months worth. Even the oil
> companies wouldn't invest so much money for a projected useful life of
> less than a year.
>
> Mr. Foster's point about windsurfing's dependency on petro-chemicals is
> also well made. Apart from our willingness to use the products of the
> oil industry, we also use the products of the military and defense
> industries. Our much-loved carbon masts and booms would not be possible
> without it.
>
> The reality we all live under today is that there are simply too many
> humans alive to go back to life-styles that were acceptable before oil
> entered the picture. Millions would starve just because we had no means
> of transporting food to them. (That's assuming we could produce enough
> food without oil-based fertilizers and oil-powered farm equipment in the
> first place.)
>
> Personally, I really wish we could start moving towards using energy
> from sustainable sources. I also like vast unspoiled areas of
> wilderness. Having said that, I can't agree with ecological policies
> that are making it progressively harder for senior citizens to stay warm
> in Winter. (Just one facet of the problem). So the politician trying to
> sell me on the sanctity of ANWR and the Caribou has a really tough job.
>
> There are a few things we could do. We could write/call our political
> reps every week demanding to know what they did last week about our
> energy problem. We could buy shares in oil companies, electric
> utilities, vehicle manufacturers and home builders. Then we go to the
> annual shareholders meeting and demand that OUR companies get serious
> about making progress.
>
> Sad to say, I feel that we have to accept that there will be continuing
> damage until energy alternatives are developed. Unfortunately, that
> damage will be worse the longer it takes to develop those alternatives.
> The only way I can see to shorten that development is to start demanding
> it from industry and government.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *** wrote:
> > Let me tell you something. I'm an environmental hydrogeologist working
> > in soil and groundwater contamination for the last 9 years, currently
> > working for DTSC (Cal EPA).
> >
> > What you just said tells me you have no f..ing clue what you are
> > talkinhg about. It's the dumbest opinon on the issue I've ever read.
> > Just to talk about Chernobyl without mentioning loss of human lives and
> > the long term damage after the accident...seriously are you for real?
> >
> >
> >
.

Loading