The thing is, you can make oil a million billion different ways and you will never run out. HOWEVER, if the enviroweenies decide that carbon dioxide is a pollutant, then this stuff is just as 'anti-green' as any other fuel source.
The argument in the 1970's energy crisis was that the world was running out of oil. But we don't ever need to run out of oil. Ever. So 'conservation' is no longer the issue. In the 1970's, burning oil meant lots of actual pollution (ozone, carbon monoxide). But now, we have the technology to burn 'clean' hydrocarbons. Remember how people used to commit suicide by closing the garage door and leaving the engine running? You can't do that anymore, because your car doesn't emit enough carbon monoxide.
posted on 02/16/2010 7:40:30 PM PST
by Question Liberal Authority
("My...health care plan is a Bolshevik plot... which will destroy America." - Barack Obama)
To: Question Liberal Authority
HOWEVER, if the enviroweenies decide that carbon dioxide is a pollutant, then this stuff is just as 'anti-green' as any other fuel source.
No, it's really carbon-neutral: it takes carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, converts it into fuels, you burn the fuels, regenerating the carbon dioxide, and so on. The net energy input comes from the sun, so effectively it's just bottled solar energy. There's no net CO2 gain for the atmosphere.
(Of course, this argument assumes that econuts can be swayed by facts and logic, and we all know how well that works ...)
posted on 02/16/2010 9:55:26 PM PST
("President Barack Obama" is an anagram for "An Arab-backed imposter")
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson