SUVs and motorboats run on dead dinosaurs

Maybe that's because they don't.
Oil is not made of dead dinos.
It's made from decaying vegetation. Most vegetation that grows has oils in
it.
When it dies, it has to go somewhere. So, is oil so bad?



--
Bob Noble
www.sonic.net/bnoble
wrote in message
ups.com...
On Feb 18, 4:03 pm, "donquijote1954"
wrote:
T-SHIRTS TO CHANGE THE WORLD...

In any case, you may have decided you had it with the stupid beast,
and you've decided to give a chance to the smart and small, just like
a bike or canoe. "Do not feed the dinosaur" seems like a good start.

I'm OK with the sentiment, but I'm having trouble with the metaphor.
SUVs and motorboats run on dead dinosaurs. They don't feed them. Good
luck with your campaign.

Steve

Bob Noble wrote:
SUVs and motorboats run on dead dinosaurs

Maybe that's because they don't.
Oil is not made of dead dinos.
It's made from decaying vegetation. Most vegetation that grows has oils in
it.
When it dies, it has to go somewhere. So, is oil so bad?

I don't recall anyone saying oil was bad.

Petroleum comes from decaying organic matter: plants, animals, fish,
whatever, including dinosaurs. Perhaps even the little furry guys,
although i don't know if they've been around long enough.

Y'all, I apologize for responding to that DQ wacko. I should have known
better.

Steve

In article ,
Steve Cramer wrote:

Bob Noble wrote:
SUVs and motorboats run on dead dinosaurs

Maybe that's because they don't.
Oil is not made of dead dinos.
It's made from decaying vegetation. Most vegetation that grows has oils in
it.
When it dies, it has to go somewhere. So, is oil so bad?

I don't recall anyone saying oil was bad.

Petroleum comes from decaying organic matter: plants, animals, fish,
whatever, including dinosaurs. Perhaps even the little furry guys,
although i don't know if they've been around long enough.

There is some evidence that it even comes from non-biological
hydrocarbon sources, specifically methan outgassing from deed rock.

Steve Hix wrote:
In article ,
Steve Cramer wrote:

Bob Noble wrote:
SUVs and motorboats run on dead dinosaurs
Maybe that's because they don't.
Oil is not made of dead dinos.
It's made from decaying vegetation. Most vegetation that grows has oils in
it.
When it dies, it has to go somewhere. So, is oil so bad?
I don't recall anyone saying oil was bad.

Petroleum comes from decaying organic matter: plants, animals, fish,
whatever, including dinosaurs. Perhaps even the little furry guys,
although i don't know if they've been around long enough.

There is some evidence that it even comes from non-biological
hydrocarbon sources, specifically methan outgassing from deed rock.

Right, I've just come across that idea. Would be nice if it's true.
There may be more of the stuff down there than we thought. I think we
shouldn't count on that, though.

Steve

On Feb 21, 3:50 pm, "Moby Dick" wrote:


Good responses but I take issue with a few things.

I'm not convinced the government can do better at developing
alternative fuels than the competive marketplace. In fact, investors
may be holding out in hopes of getting a piece of pie from the
govenrment instead fo forging investments themselves. Also, I view the
biggest impediments to mass transit like trains and subways as the
airline and auto lobby, not the gas lobby. Oh, and our devotion to
property rights isn't helping either.

The government can do EVERYTHING if not directly, indirectly via the
private market. The private market is stupid however, just GREEDY for
the most part, so only the government can keep THE BEAST in check. The
question is WHO keeps the government (that seems to be controlled by
the beast) from doing extravagant projects (Iraq or Mars) and not the
environment? Well, WE THE PEOPLE. If only we had the right issues (not
gay marriage) before the elections...

There are many good ideas sitting out there, but the LOW OIL PRICES
don't make them competitive, and we go back to square one where
nothing is done.

NATURAL CAPITALISM
"The book will find its audience, regardless. It is that important.
The authors are setting out a boldly different framework for
understanding the ecological crisis.... This perspective has something
to offend nearly everyone: Business interests will choke on the
apocalyptic description of the earth in crisis but may be flattered by
the suggestion that they have the means to solve it. Most
environmentalists agree on the vast dimensions of the threat to nature
but may dismiss the authors' can-do optimism as dangerously naive. I
have particular doubts of my own. Nevertheless, Natural Capitalism
poses an intelligent challenge to lazy assumptions on both sides of
the political divide and ought to jump-start a reinvigorated
environmental debate." -William Greider

http://www.natcap.org/


I've spent a lot of time in Europe. I don't think the price of gas is
preventing them from pollutiong. I think they have population density
advantages. When a European can afford a big car, they get one, just
like Americans. That's just my experience, not a scientific study.

So are many Americans too affluent too drive anything but the biggest
behemoths they can lay their hands on? How about taxing gas to
SUBSIDIZE OTHER ALTERNATIVES THAT INCLUDE THE BIKE. Yep, it's not
always high tech, sometimes it's simple, like GOING BACK TO BASICS,
you know. HOW ABOUT LAUNCHING A NATIOWIDE CAMPAIGN TO ENCOURAGE
*SAVING*.

You know the message people get from watching commercials? Yep, YOU
NEED AN SUV, even if you pollute whatever is left. YOU ARE THE KING OF
THE JUNGLE AND... PHUCK (?) THE WORLD.


Regarding the Kyoto protocol and the "worst predator": heck no I
wouldn't join up for these either since somehow China and India are
left out. On the whole those countries may be second or third world
but regions are definitely some of the world's worse polluters, east
China for example.

Well America uses 25% of resources and pollutes accordingly and it's
the only major power to retire from any Kyoto commitment. We're only
committed to victory in Iraq... (?)


Regarding public works -- FDR proved deficit spending can spur the
econmy. Various presidents have used that technique again and again.
Putting someone or something on Mars wilpsur technology just like
putting a man on the moon did. BTW, IIIRC, Bush is spending a lot on
fuel cells and clean coal. Both are good things. We should be allowing
nuclear power, too.

And BIKES and SAVING too. Any real change must take into account the
individual who can then ride a bike, switch to fluorescent lights,
plant trees, etc, etc.

The rest is BS and balloney.

ECONOMIC APARTHEID?
Is there a solution? Maybe. A massive public works project that did
not expand the deficit would help; something like a massive clean
energy program or nationwide high-speed rail network financed by new
taxes on pollution and fossil fuels. A more progressive tax system
would help as well. Both seem inconceivable since the Bush
administration wants to spend public works dollars on Mars not earth,
and Congress that has just enacted tax breaks that exacerbate the
wealth gap.

http://www.eugenelinden.com/news280.html


Just my opinion. Not wanting to start a fight.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

No fight. We follow here Jesus on the donkey --or canoe. And he was
still crucified!

On Feb 22, 8:44 am, "donquijote1954"
wrote:
On Feb 21, 3:50 pm, "Moby Dick" wrote:



Good responses but I take issue with a few things.

I'm not convinced the government can do better at developing
alternative fuels than the competive marketplace. In fact, investors
may be holding out in hopes of getting a piece of pie from the
govenrment instead fo forging investments themselves. Also, I view the
biggest impediments to mass transit like trains and subways as the
airline and auto lobby, not the gas lobby. Oh, and our devotion to
property rights isn't helping either.

The government can do EVERYTHING if not directly, indirectly via the
private market. The private market is stupid however, just GREEDY for
the most part, so only the government can keep THE BEAST in check. The
question is WHO keeps the government (that seems to be controlled by
the beast) from doing extravagant projects (Iraq or Mars) and not the
environment? Well, WE THE PEOPLE. If only we had the right issues (not
gay marriage) before the elections...

There are many good ideas sitting out there, but the LOW OIL PRICES
don't make them competitive, and we go back to square one where
nothing is done.

NATURAL CAPITALISM
"The book will find its audience, regardless. It is that important.
The authors are setting out a boldly different framework for
understanding the ecological crisis.... This perspective has something
to offend nearly everyone: Business interests will choke on the
apocalyptic description of the earth in crisis but may be flattered by
the suggestion that they have the means to solve it. Most
environmentalists agree on the vast dimensions of the threat to nature
but may dismiss the authors' can-do optimism as dangerously naive. I
have particular doubts of my own. Nevertheless, Natural Capitalism
poses an intelligent challenge to lazy assumptions on both sides of
the political divide and ought to jump-start a reinvigorated
environmental debate." -William Greider

http://www.natcap.org/



I've spent a lot of time in Europe. I don't think the price of gas is
preventing them from pollutiong. I think they have population density
advantages. When a European can afford a big car, they get one, just
like Americans. That's just my experience, not a scientific study.

So are many Americans too affluent too drive anything but the biggest
behemoths they can lay their hands on? How about taxing gas to
SUBSIDIZE OTHER ALTERNATIVES THAT INCLUDE THE BIKE. Yep, it's not
always high tech, sometimes it's simple, like GOING BACK TO BASICS,
you know. HOW ABOUT LAUNCHING A NATIOWIDE CAMPAIGN TO ENCOURAGE
*SAVING*.

You know the message people get from watching commercials? Yep, YOU
NEED AN SUV, even if you pollute whatever is left. YOU ARE THE KING OF
THE JUNGLE AND... PHUCK (?) THE WORLD.



Regarding the Kyoto protocol and the "worst predator": heck no I
wouldn't join up for these either since somehow China and India are
left out. On the whole those countries may be second or third world
but regions are definitely some of the world's worse polluters, east
China for example.

Well America uses 25% of resources and pollutes accordingly and it's
the only major power to retire from any Kyoto commitment. We're only
committed to victory in Iraq... (?)



Regarding public works -- FDR proved deficit spending can spur the
econmy. Various presidents have used that technique again and again.
Putting someone or something on Mars wilpsur technology just like
putting a man on the moon did. BTW, IIIRC, Bush is spending a lot on
fuel cells and clean coal. Both are good things. We should be allowing
nuclear power, too.

And BIKES and SAVING too. Any real change must take into account the
individual who can then ride a bike, switch to fluorescent lights,
plant trees, etc, etc.

The rest is BS and balloney.

ECONOMIC APARTHEID?
Is there a solution? Maybe. A massive public works project that did
not expand the deficit would help; something like a massive clean
energy program or nationwide high-speed rail network financed by new
taxes on pollution and fossil fuels. A more progressive tax system
would help as well. Both seem inconceivable since the Bush
administration wants to spend public works dollars on Mars not earth,
and Congress that has just enacted tax breaks that exacerbate the
wealth gap.

http://www.eugenelinden.com/news280.html



Just my opinion. Not wanting to start a fight.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

No fight. We follow here Jesus on the donkey --or canoe. And he was
still crucified!




We let's agree to disagree. I do not believe government should be in
the social engineering business or the wealth redistribution business.
I also don't beleive in progressive tax. How do you decide how
progressive it should be -- so progressive that everybody makes the
same? I believe in equal opportunity but no equal outcomes. I believe
government is the solution of last resort, not first resort.

Deficits don't matter much. Read P.J O'Rourkes new book on the Wealth
of Nations.

Stop griping about the Iraq war and help us win it.

On Feb 22, 7:55 pm, "Moby Dick" wrote:
On Feb 22, 8:44 am, "donquijote1954"
wrote:





On Feb 21, 3:50 pm, "Moby Dick" wrote:

Good responses but I take issue with a few things.

I'm not convinced the government can do better at developing
alternative fuels than the competive marketplace. In fact, investors
may be holding out in hopes of getting a piece of pie from the
govenrment instead fo forging investments themselves. Also, I view the
biggest impediments to mass transit like trains and subways as the
airline and auto lobby, not the gas lobby. Oh, and our devotion to
property rights isn't helping either.

The government can do EVERYTHING if not directly, indirectly via the
private market. The private market is stupid however, just GREEDY for
the most part, so only the government can keep THE BEAST in check. The
question is WHO keeps the government (that seems to be controlled by
the beast) from doing extravagant projects (Iraq or Mars) and not the
environment? Well, WE THE PEOPLE. If only we had the right issues (not
gay marriage) before the elections...

There are many good ideas sitting out there, but the LOW OIL PRICES
don't make them competitive, and we go back to square one where
nothing is done.

NATURAL CAPITALISM
"The book will find its audience, regardless. It is that important.
The authors are setting out a boldly different framework for
understanding the ecological crisis.... This perspective has something
to offend nearly everyone: Business interests will choke on the
apocalyptic description of the earth in crisis but may be flattered by
the suggestion that they have the means to solve it. Most
environmentalists agree on the vast dimensions of the threat to nature
but may dismiss the authors' can-do optimism as dangerously naive. I
have particular doubts of my own. Nevertheless, Natural Capitalism
poses an intelligent challenge to lazy assumptions on both sides of
the political divide and ought to jump-start a reinvigorated
environmental debate." -William Greider

http://www.natcap.org/

I've spent a lot of time in Europe. I don't think the price of gas is
preventing them from pollutiong. I think they have population density
advantages. When a European can afford a big car, they get one, just
like Americans. That's just my experience, not a scientific study.

So are many Americans too affluent too drive anything but the biggest
behemoths they can lay their hands on? How about taxing gas to
SUBSIDIZE OTHER ALTERNATIVES THAT INCLUDE THE BIKE. Yep, it's not
always high tech, sometimes it's simple, like GOING BACK TO BASICS,
you know. HOW ABOUT LAUNCHING A NATIOWIDE CAMPAIGN TO ENCOURAGE
*SAVING*.

You know the message people get from watching commercials? Yep, YOU
NEED AN SUV, even if you pollute whatever is left. YOU ARE THE KING OF
THE JUNGLE AND... PHUCK (?) THE WORLD.

Regarding the Kyoto protocol and the "worst predator": heck no I
wouldn't join up for these either since somehow China and India are
left out. On the whole those countries may be second or third world
but regions are definitely some of the world's worse polluters, east
China for example.

Well America uses 25% of resources and pollutes accordingly and it's
the only major power to retire from any Kyoto commitment. We're only
committed to victory in Iraq... (?)

Regarding public works -- FDR proved deficit spending can spur the
econmy. Various presidents have used that technique again and again.
Putting someone or something on Mars wilpsur technology just like
putting a man on the moon did. BTW, IIIRC, Bush is spending a lot on
fuel cells and clean coal. Both are good things. We should be allowing
nuclear power, too.

And BIKES and SAVING too. Any real change must take into account the
individual who can then ride a bike, switch to fluorescent lights,
plant trees, etc, etc.

The rest is BS and balloney.

ECONOMIC APARTHEID?
Is there a solution? Maybe. A massive public works project that did
not expand the deficit would help; something like a massive clean
energy program or nationwide high-speed rail network financed by new
taxes on pollution and fossil fuels. A more progressive tax system
would help as well. Both seem inconceivable since the Bush
administration wants to spend public works dollars on Mars not earth,
and Congress that has just enacted tax breaks that exacerbate the
wealth gap.

http://www.eugenelinden.com/news280.html

Just my opinion. Not wanting to start a fight.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

No fight. We follow here Jesus on the donkey --or canoe. And he was
still crucified!

We let's agree to disagree. I do not believe government should be in
the social engineering business or the wealth redistribution business.
I also don't beleive in progressive tax. How do you decide how
progressive it should be -- so progressive that everybody makes the
same? I believe in equal opportunity but no equal outcomes. I believe
government is the solution of last resort, not first resort.

Deficits don't matter much. Read P.J O'Rourkes new book on the Wealth
of Nations.

Stop griping about the Iraq war and help us win it.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

It sounds like motorboat anti-evolutionary thinking. Canoeing thinking
sees the need to take of our own environment and our own problems
(saving gas for one) and not doubtful democracy for Iraq. I see a lot
of garbage floating out there and nobody is taking care of it. Perhaps
we should outsource it like in Iraq. Where's the money though?

I'm recycling here some post, since both bikes and canoes, represent
the same thing: David vs. Goliath...

It is a matter of historical record that bicycling groups were the first
to push the Good Roads Movement.

It's ALSO a matter of historical record that they basically failed.

No they didn't. What happened was, since bicycles and automobiles
were more-or-less contemporary with each other, drivers usurped the
developing Good Roads Movement to their advantage. So the Good
Roads Movement was originally initiated and kick-started by
bicyclists. But the car drivers later stole it.

Of course, a reason bicyclists "failed" is that motorists were able to
pay for roads due to the taxation of gas. Thank you motorists, even if
you tried to usurp bicyclists' initial efforts as your own.

Wayne

Thank you, American people, for subsidizing gas so the SUVs can
prosper and multiply...

"gas has been so crucial to our economy in the governments eyes that
they have subsidized a large portion of oil production, through
programs, tax-exemptions, and the hiding of pollution costs through
pollution permits. They have through intervention put off an
inevitable end-we will run out of gas sometime, if we continue forcing
prices down on a scarce product. In fact, government has actually
contributed to the overconsumption of oil. When government subsidizes
something (meaning they pay for a portion of it so that the consumers
don't have to) they effectively raise the demand for a product far
beyond where it naturally should be. They make it cheaper for the
companies to produce it and thus cheaper for consumers. This process
distorts market balance, because it hides costs, and creates what is
known as a moral hazard. If companies had to pay all the costs out of
their own pockets, they would produce less, and with a smaller output,
the cost would rise, and consumers would demand less and slowly ween
themselves off of this product and substitute another for it. They
would find communal travel, or alternate means of energy, things that
are both economically efficient and in the long run even better for
the environment. But because the government has absorbed the costs of
production, they have encouraged overconsumption of this good to the
extent that any miscalculation in their plan will result in the prices
skyrocketing towards the price equilibrium where oil naturally should
be, which is near 5 dollars per gallon or more. It is this type of
economic incentive that spurs innovation and gaurds scarce resources
from overconsumption.

The best solution I can think of now is to let the prices of gas..."

http://www.collegeliberty.com/?p=14

so now the gas guzzlers are the heroes?
Oil is not sold by the gallon by the way only gas.

I guess we should give the drivers a thumbs up when they get close and
intimate with us on the road.

But not knowing that fact about gov't support everyone still knew what it is
doing to the environment and resources so they are still to blame you know.
I know that is why I am a life long cyclist.
Things just seem to be getting worse.

Zen

Yep, they are the heroes judging by the bumper stickers on their gas-
guzzling SUVs: "We support our troops" and "God bless America"...

The not-so-prosperous mostly supply the troops and a few cyclists who
dare to ride out there. David doesn't have a chance nowadays. You
know, Goliath got big bucks.

I know we have a problem with the dinosaur. He's so stupid that he
doesn't see the need to change! So perhaps a wake up call could be
that we alert him that the asteroid is coming, or that we don't feed
him --or perhaps that he reads a book like this...

'Worldchanging: A Users Guide for the 21st Century' is a
groundbreaking compendium of the most innovative solutions, ideas and
inventions emerging today for building a sustainable, livable,
prosperous future.

"To build that future, we need a generation of everyday heroes, people
who - whatever their walks of life - have the courage to think in
fresh ways and to act to meet this planetary crisis head-on. This book
belongs in the library of every person who aspires to be part of that
generation."
- Al Gore

http://www.worldchanging.com/book/

I think it could be an action plan for THE REVOLUTION. It talks about
bicycle activism too, so, who knows, the cyclists may be the next
furry little mammals.