The Myth of Fossil Fuel

It may only be 2 percent, but as someone else already said, the tundra is an extremely delicate ecosystem and drilling it will destroy that 2%. All the wildlife depend on lichens to survive, and this isn't just 2% of all available land to them; it's a much larger percentage once you take out the populated areas of Alaska.

Finally, current estimates for the amount of oil in Alaska is less than a year at our current consumption rates... is a year of oil really worth digging up 2% (30,000 acres) of Alaska? Not to mention spills and other things that may happen that could "take" even more land up.
 
I don't believe the earth is as delicate as I keep hearing folks say.......if it was we wouldn't be here.

You know, there is a river where I lived as a kid....it was soooo grossely polluted that we didn't even want to go near it. It smelled, there was black gunk covering anything that the water touched and it would be a different color each week or so depending on what they were dumping into it at that particular period of time. NOTHING lived in it or near it !

Well, all they did was stop dumping in it and within 10 years that river was clean....the blue herons are back, the fish/frogs are back....birds of prey....it's ALIVE again....within only 10 short years of just not dumping in it anymore.

Yeah, that 2% might get messed up for a bit, but I believe and I think there is plenty of evidence that it would come back when we were through with it and alot more quickly than folks would have you believe.

How's the sound doing where the Valdez opened up...how many years ago ? Not too bad I think.... I also read about a bay in France (someplace in europe anyway) that suffered a big nasty oil spill and within about 10 years you'd never know it had happened. Funny, you never hear how those areas are doing after those big spills...if they were still a mess you just bet they'd keep bringing them up, but they don't. "????"

I keep hearing others say that when you cut down trees in the rainforest, that environment is gone forever, it can never be replaced....and yet......in S. America the Aztecs and Incans made huge cites of rock...I believe they had to cut down alot of trees to do that, not to mention the fields they needed for thier crops....and yet the rainforest grew back up around these cities and fields and completely covered them.....how can that be ??? I thought they couldn't be replaced ?

OH Dan....lol......we pay at this time in my area....about $2.37 a gallon.
 
While I don't have the figures handy for the volcanic source of CO2 (you can dig through the IPCC report yourself, if you're so inclined, it contains the best scientific information available on climate change - whether natural or anthropogenic, alternatively, you can check NOAA's or the WMO site for equally credible numbers). Suffice it to say that in pre-industrial years atmospheric CO2 levels were generally around 275 ppmv (part per million by volume), currently they're just below 400 ppmv. This is not necessarily entirely anthropogenic, but throughout the glacial - inter-glacial oscillation (which is the trend of global warming and cooling that climate change deniers like to bring up) the atmospheric CO2 levels were never as high as they are currently. I could also post a chart off the NOAA site that shows the rise in anthropogenic CO2 emissions and the rise in atmospheric CO2 levels. But I did that last time and was still called a "junk scientist", to paraphrase.

Out of curiosity, what do you think is happening with the CO2 produced by cars and factories? Where is it going? Is it magically disappearing?

You seem very eager to dismiss the volumes of science that show your arguments to be incorrect in favour of the few instances that support them. TKOS is right, this argument is exasperating. If you want to make an argument on the basis of science, then actually post some science - show the numbers and reference a credible source. If you don't have the science - or a credible source - then just stop arguing, you've got nothing worth saying.

As for drilling in the tundra, Raskolnikov already answered that issue thoroughly.
 
EMG, you can't compare shorelines and rivers to the tundra, they are completely different ecosystems. Rivers and oceans and dillute the pollution and eventually wash it away... lichens and permafrost a far more delicate; there's less rainfall per year in the tundra than there is in the deserts... oil won't just "wash away."
 
Emg said:
I don't believe the earth is as delicate as I keep hearing folks say.......if it was we wouldn't be here.
Click to expand...

Nature does have a level of resiliency, but it's a big difference between human beings living as part of the natural ecosystem, rather than treating it as ours to do with what we want. Too many species of animals have become extinct at the hands of humans, whether its clear cutting forests, polluting and/or diverting waters or damaging the tundra. What about simply preserving land in its natural state?
 
Lobo. said:
joe you are the king of conspiracy!
Click to expand...
Not really, I just 'by-pass' the bs - at least most of it... :D ..."the world is not flat.."
 
Have to put my two cents in, as far as volcanic eruptions go. The eruptions spew out materials that are very deadly to animal and human life alike. However, after the fact, it nutrifies the soils for rich plant growth, and the magma flows of Hawaii are currently creating new land masses. The other thing I'd like to point out is that most of the materials being spewed out and upward are all native elements to the Earth itself. In the beginnings of the development of the planet, volcanic activity was very prevalent, in fact, it is one step of the process of the forming of a planet. These elements from eruptions are not as detrimental to the environment itself, given that they eventually are reabsorbed by the earth and used by other forms of life. They are more of a catalyst for its change and development, whether it destroys plant, animal, human life in its process, there is usually a return to normalcy.

Man-made toxins are not as tolerable by our environment, being that they are of compounds of unnatural makeup, therefore nothing has the ability to reall deal with it well. These are chemicals that have never existed naturally before, and so the affects are very different in contrast. I don't push any agenda, I just want us to make better effort to change before its too late. Believe me, I do not want to live in a world where water and food are barely safe for consumption, and where there is little or no natural world left.
Alternative fuels should be sought after now so that at least we can be prepared for the day we run out of oil.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
AquariaCentral.com
Top Bottom