Welcome to PatsFans.com

The Law of Unintended Consequences Strikes Again

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by patsfan13, Jan 21, 2009.

  1. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,855
    Likes Received:
    107
    Ratings:
    +236 / 8 / -13

  2. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,626
    Likes Received:
    216
    Ratings:
    +509 / 13 / -11

    #24 Jersey

    Ah, the irony :

    "But today, mounting evidence indicates that producing biofuels — particularly those derived from food crops such as corn and oil palm — may be doing considerably more harm to the planet than good, actually increasing greenhouse gas emissions and driving up food prices worldwide."
  3. Fogbuster

    Fogbuster Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2005
    Messages:
    13,674
    Likes Received:
    10
    Ratings:
    +10 / 0 / -0

    This is excellent information. Right on target. The push for bio-fuels has diverted too much land from needed food supplies, driving up the prices of basic foods, such as corn, rice, wheat, oats, flax and other grains. Bad, bad, bad news for all the people on the planet who rely on grains -- and who doesn't -- in their daily diet.


    Drill, baby, drill. And develop alternatives: wind, solar, thermal, ocean currents/tides, even safe nuclear. They're all good. Bio-fuels are a big mistake. Should be scrapped, from today.



    //
  4. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    27,121
    Likes Received:
    218
    Ratings:
    +519 / 6 / -2

    I'd laugh if this weren't so sad. People are so stupid on this planet.
  5. apple strudel

    apple strudel Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2008
    Messages:
    5,894
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    The term "do-gooders" is such a neat little attack. Of course, logically, if doing good is bad, then doing nothing or doing bad are desirable. Is this really your position?
  6. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    27,121
    Likes Received:
    218
    Ratings:
    +519 / 6 / -2

    The point is that in the name of "doing good" (hence the nic do-gooders) said retahd's do bad. So in reality, no good is being done, and things are simply being made worse.

    For example, to save the planet from those eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeevil fossil fuels, we're going to put our food supply into our gas tanks. We think we're "doing good", but in reality, food is now more expensive (people are starving), and all the forests are being chopped down so this food fuel can be harvested (increasing greenhouse gases). Penny cheap dollar foolish.
  7. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,855
    Likes Received:
    107
    Ratings:
    +236 / 8 / -13



    Do gooders are people who think they have all the answers who tend to make things worse.
  8. wistahpatsfan

    wistahpatsfan Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    15,675
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -1

    #75 Jersey

    Yes...fossil fuels are harmless as we all know.....:rolleyes:

    …(The) Columbia Center for Children’s Environmental Health have led various studies examining the health effects of exposure of pregnant women and babies to indoor and outdoor air pollutants, pesticides, and allergens. Their ongoing multi-year research project begun in 1998, “The Mothers and Children Study in New York City,” has found in utero exposure to polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) as a result of mothers breathing polluted air during pregnancy was associated with lower birth weight, reduced birth head circumference, preterm birth, small size for gestational age, and developmental delay in childhood, as well as a contributor to respiratory problems….

    Environmental Health Scientist Highlights Association Between Fossil Fuel Pollutants and Multiple Risks to Children’s Health - Mailman School News

    Children who live close to major transport hubs are more at risk of dying of cancer, a study says. University of Birmingham researchers found those living within 500 metres of a bus station were six times more likely to die of cancer.
    ... Researchers analysed details about the deaths of 22,500 children between 1955 and 1980 from cancers such as leukaemia, lymphoma, and brain and spinal cancers, the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health reported. They found carbon monoxide and 1,3-butadience, both of which are produced by vehicle exhausts and particularly diesel engines, were the major cause of the increased risk. But other chemicals, including nitrogen oxides and dioxins, were also cited in the report. They calculated there could be a 12-fold increase in risk for children living near bus stations and emission hotspots.
    Fossil fuel health risks | Seven Generational Ruminations


    And "all the forests are being chopped down so this food fuel can be harvested"...??

    Really?...All of them?...Ya think the cost of food (when it shot up this year might) have something to do with the rising cost of fuel for transporting and running the harvesting machinery as well as the rising cost of petro-based fertilizers. Ya also think that market speculators might have played a factor in any of this?

    I've always said the thread of global climate changes due to fossil fuel burning is nothing compared to the immediate and painful biological impact of the effects from the extraction, transportation, storage and burning of fossil fuels. Crude oil is not that bad for you. The solvents and VOC's used to refine it will kill you. That is a fact.
    Last edited: Jan 22, 2009
  9. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    27,121
    Likes Received:
    218
    Ratings:
    +519 / 6 / -2

    Hmmm....so where exactly did I say they were as healthy as one of the four food groups? Oh, that's right, I didn't. I simply charactorized them in the fashion that most of the tree huggers do. You know, the tree hugging 1 square per bathroom break toilet paper using arseholes, while flying in fresh lobster from Maine, helicoptering to a mall 100 miles from their estate, or using 20 times the electricity the average home uses, in one of their 9 mansions across the globe.

    Oh, and :rolleyes: to you too. ;)
  10. lostjumper

    lostjumper Rookie

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2006
    Messages:
    981
    Likes Received:
    2
    Ratings:
    +2 / 0 / -0

    Hey, stop picking on Al Gore! Yeah, he may do all those things but he purchases carbon credits to off-set it!!! (from his own company)

    :rolleyes:
  11. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    27,121
    Likes Received:
    218
    Ratings:
    +519 / 6 / -2

    Ah, someone who understands what eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeevil fossil fuels means. ;)
  12. wistahpatsfan

    wistahpatsfan Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    15,675
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -1

    #75 Jersey

    No you didn't. You did imply that they (fossil fuels) were not as dangerous economically or in regards to food supply as bio fuels. You didn't outright say it, but it was sufficiently implied, IMO. You have to decide which is more important and costly in the big picture.

    I use more than one square of TP, too. I tried the one-sheet theory, but ......let's just say it wasn't nearly enough to handle the amount of food I eat in a day.:eek:...can't stand environmental extremists, either. They are counter-productive.

    I posted those exerpts from the studies in the hopes that you would link them and read them because no one...not the media, govt, or anyone seems to get the toxic nature of fossil fuels. If pollution of the air, soil and water and its effects on health got the same attention as MMGW does, we would all be driving electric cars and let the Indians and Chinese poison their kids with petrol.


    Point is, these diversions from the really dangerous threats to the environment and our children's bodies get washed over with straw-man arguements like forests being burned for biodeisel corn or polar bears dying, or the cost of food.....food costs rose because the price of oil went through the roof. The effects of agricultural land being used for fuel had very little to do with the abrupt rise of food prices...

    :rolleyes:...to YOUZ!
  13. PressCoverage

    PressCoverage Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2005
    Messages:
    8,609
    Likes Received:
    13
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -0

    You had me in your corner on this thread premise... Until this quip above...

    I've never supported biofuels... Not once... And I don't know any progressives who do...

    About the closest I've come is when you provided decent reading about biodiesel -- burning algae... Quite different from corn fields.
    Last edited: Jan 22, 2009
  14. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,855
    Likes Received:
    107
    Ratings:
    +236 / 8 / -13


    Wel I agree YOU have never supported any biofuels. Fair enough. But you need to look at the dem caucus before you try to imply that the left hasn't doesn't support biofuels, that dog won't hunt...

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>