Oil and other natural resources...

ME - posted on 07/09/2010 ( 100 moms have responded )

2,978

18

190

On another thread, it was mentioned by someone that there is NO reason for the environmentalists to be upset about our dependence on oil. She suggested that we should continue to use antiquated drilling practices in our own country(countries) to bring oil (and I assume, other natural resources) to the surface simply because those resources are there and "available" to us. So...rather then derail that thread, I brought it over here...what do you think? Should there be a moratorium on drilling and mining until safer, more updated procedures can be developed? Should our governments put more resources into green technologies, or should they put our resources into drilling and mining, no matter how unsafe?

MOST HELPFUL POSTS

Kelly - posted on 07/10/2010

700

16

37

Ok, so I have had a chance to read through some of the responses..... I hate to be a buzzkill, but realistically, we are still DECADES away from being fossil fuel free. Yes Jenny, Canada has done a lot to "go green" and that is absolutely fabulous. But, even if they created an electric car that would be affordable, how are we going to immediately get all the gas cars off of the road? I think we can all agree that the cash for clunkers was a disaster. The electric car companies certainly aren't going to be GIVING their cars away, and people work hard to pay for the vehicles they have. I know I would not be willing to spend 50k on a new car that doesn't do what I need it to, and kiss away the 25k that I have invested in my 2008 vehicle. It would make better sense to have all future car purchases to be electric, but that still leaves a lot of gas and diesel vehicles on the road for years to come, and doesn't even touch the issue of mass transport, ships, planes, etc.....

As far as geothermal, solar panels, etc. it is somewhat of the same issue. People are not going to be able to afford to retrofit their homes at the current costs to "go green." You could again put policy in place that all NEW construction be done that way, but can you really force people out of their "not earth friendly" homes or force them to spend tens of thousands of dollars to retrofit them? The government certainly cannot afford to just "give" money out to do these things either.

I would and until recently do hunt, fish, etc to get my food. We have just moved to PA and from what I can tell they don't seem to be as "gun friendly" as the west, and besides hunting season is still months off. I shop at local farmers markets, but I do still depend on the grocery store for a lot. I cloth diaper, use all natural cleaning products, and don't waste water.

Reality is, we depend A LOT on fossil fuels for everything we do and use. My point is, yes it is possible to work towards moving away from that dependancy. But that will take time and money both to perfect realistic alternatives, and to implement them and make them affordable. With the sources we have in the US, it is very feasible for our country (and I can only speak for what I know) to tap into those sources, and use them to the benefit of everyone who lives here. Maybe if gas was 25 cents a gallon again, people could start saving towards putting geothermal heat into their homes. And like I said before, as long as Congress didn't go on some wild spending spree, we could afford to actually pay down our debt, and put hundreds of thousands of people to work in the process.

Christa - posted on 07/11/2010

3,876

14

209

Here's my thoughts. . . While what you have suggested sounds great. I'm all for some regulations for higher building standards, however in doing so you will for sure raise the cost to purchase these homes, not to mention make the home values of our existing homes plummet. In this economy do you really think that's the best idea? The only way to make these things, like solar panels, a reality is to truly make them cheaper. The only way for that to really happen (without making gov'ts go broke subsidizing) is to mass produce them. To do that the demand has to be high enough to justify such and we have to have enough supplies (I have no idea what all is needed to produce these panels) Also I don't know how much the up keep is, but I imagine a lot particularly in areas with frequent extreme whether (ie hail and wind). The problem with wind/solar/water power is it relies on things we can not control. We have to have another alternative that would be more reliable for times of extreme need or times of severe/unusual weather.

Tara - posted on 07/11/2010

2,567

14

107

I'm a bit radical on this one. I really feel that all governments should be required to phase out the use of oil. There are proven green technologies that are inexpensive and renewable. If each farmer that is failing in the agriculture sector were helped with setting up a solar farm or a wind farm on their unused (overly treated and often infertile) lands, we would be helping the farmer and supplying power to the grid, if there were subsidies in place to help the average home owner to install solar, geo-thermal, wind, etc. than each person could start to make a difference right in their own home. We know that fossil fuels will run out, we know they pollute our air and water, we know we are raping the earth to feed our greed for oil. We need to take a radical outlook and start to making products that don't rely on the oil industry.
What we are doing to our planet in the name of oil and it's by products will be the end of us as a species if we don't stop, and we'll be taking a lot of other species with us.
The overuse and misuse of oil has been our greatest downfall.
Tara

Jenny - posted on 07/12/2010

4,426

16

126

I'll add, force companies to pay livable wages so they are not draining Medicaid or better yet, scrap all the other programs and set up UHC (plus the livable wages of course). Minimum wage is for teenagers.

Charlie - posted on 07/12/2010

11,203

111

401

"Yeah, Tara.. I'm sure a straw house is easy to heat.. Just one spark and *WHOOSH* a nice, BIG fire to keep you warm. SMH."

I have a friend who makes straw bale houses , they are actually rendered on the outside and the bales are compressed extremely tightly and are no more fire prone than a brick home and they are the best insulation you can possibly get , cooler in summer , warmer in winter , cheaper , great at keeping noise out and extremely environmentally friendly using far less energy to construct and maintain and they are as strong as any other building material :D

This conversation has been closed to further comments

100 Comments

View replies by

Christa - posted on 07/13/2010

3,876

14

209

I'd like to point out that "iReports" on CNN are from random people. So I take the "facts" in that article with a grain of salt until something more reliable can back up those claims.

Jenny - posted on 07/13/2010

4,426

16

126

I know Amie and think of all the migrating birds who will not be returning from their next Spring. Getting off oil NOW is more important than ANYTHING else we have going on. Jobs, CO2 emissions, health care, anything.

LaCi - posted on 07/13/2010

3,361

3

171

So here are some things that go through my head when it comes to using up oil. I should throw in a disclaimer that I've never in my life had a geology class, so I have no idea what I'm talking about.

It seems to me this stuff HAS to serve a purpose. So what is it, is it a lubricant? by draining the lubricant are we fucking up our tectonic plates? and whats the consequences of that? earthquakes? :| what about the hollow spaces left behind after we've pumped out a billion barrels of oil per day? Maybe thats why, after the gulf spewed for a while, guatemala caved in ;D kidding, but really, what are the geological consequences of raping the planet of its lubricant? Lack of lubrication and hollow spaces deep within the crust? Has to be bad.

Jenny - posted on 07/12/2010

4,426

16

126

From CNN: Scientists Warn Gulf Of Mexico Sea Floor Fractured Beyond Repair Video confirms it

Viewed 54,857 times
Shared 1,174 times

iReport — A dire report circulating in the Kremlin today that was prepared for Prime Minister Putin by Anatoly Sagalevich of Russia's Shirshov Institute of Oceanology warns that the Gulf of Mexico sea floor has been fractured “beyond all repair” and our World should begin preparing for an ecological disaster “beyond comprehension” unless “extraordinary measures” are undertaken to stop the massive flow of oil into our Planet’s eleventh largest body of water.
Most important to note about Sagalevich’s warning is that he and his fellow scientists from theRussian Academy of Sciences are the only human beings to have actually been to the Gulf of Mexico oil leak site after their being called to the disaster scene by British oil giant BP shortly after the April 22nd sinking of the Deepwater Horizon oil platform.
BP’s calling on Sagalevich after this catastrophe began is due to his being the holder of the World’s record for the deepest freshwater dive and his expertise with Russia’s two Deep Submergence Vehicles MIR 1 and MIR 2 [photo below] which are able to take their crews to the depth of 6,000 meters (19,685 ft).

According to Sagalevich’s report, the oil leaking into the Gulf of Mexico is not just coming from the 22 inch well bore site being shown on American television, but from at least 18 other sites on the “fractured seafloor” with the largest being nearly 11 kilometers (7 miles) from where the Deepwater Horizon sank and is spewing into these precious waters an estimated 2 million gallons of oil a day.
Interesting to note in this report is Sagalevich stating that he and the other Russian scientists were required by the United States to sign documents forbidding them to report their findings to either the American public or media, and which they had to do in order to legally operate in US territorial waters.
However, Sagalevich says that he and the other scientists gave nearly hourly updates to both US government and BP officials about what they were seeing on the sea floor, including the US Senator from their State of Florida Bill Nelson who after one such briefing stated to the MSNBC news service“Andrea we’re looking into something new right now, that there’s reports of oil that’s seeping up from the seabed… which would indicate, if that’s true, that the well casing itself is actually pierced… underneath the seabed. So, you know, the problems could be just enormous with what we’re facing.”
Though not directly stated in Sagalevich’s report, Russian scientists findings on the true state of the Gulf of Mexico oil disaster are beyond doubt being leaked to his longtime friend, and former US President George W. Bush’s top energy advisor Matthew Simmons, who US media reports state has openly said: “Matthew Simmons is sticking by his story that there's another giant leak in the Gulf of Mexico blowing massive amounts of oil into the Gulf of Mexico. On CNBC's Fast Money, he says he'd be surprised if BP lasted this summer, saying this is disaster is entirely BP's fault.”
As a prominent oil-industry insider, and one of the World's leading experts on peak oil, Simmons further warns that the US has only two options, “let the well run dry (taking 30 years, and probably ruining the Atlantic ocean) or nuking the well.”
Obama’s government, on the other hand, has stated that a nuclear option for ending this catastrophe is not being discussed, but which brings him into conflict with both Russian and American experts advocating such an extreme measure before all is lost, and as we can read as reported by Britain’s Telegraph News Service:
“The former Soviet Union (U.S.S.R.) used nuclear weapons on five separate occasions between 1966 and 1981 to successfully cap blown-out gas and oil surface wells (there was also one attempt that failed), which have been documented in a U.S. Department of Energy report on the U.S.S.R.'s peaceful uses of nuclear explosions.
Russia is now urging the United States to consider doing the same. Komsomoloskaya Pravda, the best-selling Russian daily newspaper, asserts that although based on Soviet experience there's a one-in-five chance a nuke might not seal the well, it's "a gamble the Americans could certainly risk."
Reportedly, the U.S.S.R. developed special nuclear devices explicitly for closing blown-out gas wells, theorizing that the blast from a nuclear detonation would plug any hole within 25 to 50 meters, depending on the device's power. Much as I had idly imagined, massive explosions can be employed to collapse a runaway well on itself, thus plugging, or at least substantially stanching, the flow of oil.
“Seafloor nuclear detonation is starting to sound surprisingly feasible and appropriate," University of Texas at Austin mechanical engineer Michael E. Webber is quoted observing, while Columbia University visiting scholar on nuclear policy and former naval officer Christopher Brownfield wrote in the Daily Beast: "We should have demolished this well with explosives over a month ago. And yet we watch in excruciating suspense while BP fumbles through plan after plan to recover its oil and cover its asset.”
As to the reason for Obama’s government refusing to consider nuking this oil well, Sagalevich states in this report that the American’s “main concern” is not the environmental catastrophe this disaster is causing, but rather what the impact of using a nuclear weapon to stop this leak would have on the continued production of oil from the Gulf of Mexico, and which in an energy starved World’s remains the Planet’s only oil producing region able to increase its production.
On top of the environmental catastrophe currently unfolding in the Gulf of Mexico the situation may about to get even worse as new reports from the US are confirming the grim predictions of Russian scientists regarding the oil dispersement poisons being used by BP which are being swept up into the clouds and falling as toxic rain destroying every living plant it touches, and as we had detailed in our May 23rd report titled “Toxic Oil Spill Rains Warned Could Destroy North America”
To what the final outcome of this catastrophe will be it is not in our knowing other than to state the obvious that the choice facing the American’s today is to either stop this disaster now, by any means, or pay dearly for it later. After all, is cheap petrol really worth the cost of destroying our own Earth? BP surely thinks so, let’s keep hoping Obama doesn’t.

LaCi - posted on 07/12/2010

3,361

3

171

I can think of several places the money could come from.



1. release non violent drug offenders from prisons. "states spent approximately $17,110,415 per day to imprison drug offenders, or $6,245,301,475 per year."- 2007, more now



2. Legalize and tax marijuana, "California's medical marijuana dispensaries generate as much as $1.3 billion in sales and $105 million dollars in state sales taxes" and thats just with medical marijuana in california, completely legal and they'll generate more.



3. End the war in iraq, thats $150-200 billion per year.



There is a nice start. Other options are to offer incentives to corporations to adopt the renewable resources. Enough incentive will make it worth their while to begin altering their plans, they know it's the future as much as we do, but they have to combat the costs. We can help them. It's a start. I'll post more later

Kelly - posted on 07/12/2010

700

16

37

So again, I will ask: If not from drilling and mining, where should the money come from to pay for alternative energy exploration? You really can only raise taxes so high, and contrary to popular belief, Obama doesn't have a "stash", there isn't a money tree at the white house, and we can't just keep borrowing from China. That kind of leads into my second question, why should we keep paying foreign countries for their oil and nat. gas, and letting OPEC rule our lives? Anyone????????

LaCi - posted on 07/12/2010

3,361

3

171

Yeah, my house is a heating and cooling nightmare which is the main reason I decided when I do graduate and manage to get my shit together I require my underground house. And solar panels, but that takes a backseat to being in the ground ;D Still have a couple years on all that though. bleh.

[deleted account]

LaCi, I saw a home built into the side of a hill somewhere up north (South Dakota maybe?). It was a pioneer home and part of a museum. It really did feel like it was air conditioned when you walked in. Very cool concept. Just wouldn't work here...gqtm.

The husband and I have actually been talking about solar panels. But we are years away from affording that. We need to update the house first...energy efficient windows and appliances and better insulation. Most of our appliances are original to our 1959 house. Terrible. But we're saving to change that!

LaCi - posted on 07/12/2010

3,361

3

171

Well the only issue I'll have is if a great flood makes the ohio river into another great lake. ;) Personal preference. Plenty of ways to be greener, that ones my chosen path.



I'm pretty sure my town also uses yardwastes for composting and mulches. I really like this town, actually.

[deleted account]

Except if you live under sea level you'd drown. That's why basements are non-existent here, and there are tons of above ground burial cemetaries.

C. - posted on 07/11/2010

4,125

35

238

"Straw bale building is one of the most earth friendly ways to build, it's inexpensive, designed to last over 200 years, easy to heat, made from a sustainable resource, and is nice to look at."

Yeah, Tara.. I'm sure a straw house is easy to heat.. Just one spark and *WHOOSH* a nice, BIG fire to keep you warm. SMH.

And the Earth isn't 'dying', geeze. Are there things we can do to take better care of our planet, yes.. But it isn't about to die. Aye, I tell ya..

C. - posted on 07/11/2010

4,125

35

238

Gertie, I'd just tell them No thanks, I'll just take my trash straight to the dump instead. That's ridiculous that it's mandatory to recycle when you have to pay for it. I can see if it was free and mandatory, but you shouldn't make someone pay for something they don't want in the first place.

Tara - posted on 07/11/2010

2,567

14

107

There are so many alternative ways to build homes that are efficient, sustainable, affordable, and durable. Straw bale building is one of the most earth friendly ways to build, it's inexpensive, designed to last over 200 years, easy to heat, made from a sustainable resource, and is nice to look at. If there were more people interested in building green, we would see more green builders. People need to demand changes to how things are manufactured/built/constructed/imported etc. if everyone just continues to accept the way things are presented to us and we don't ask for something different how will things ever be different?
As a human being, I still choose the earth over humans. We are the biggest threat to the future of our planet. We are amusing ourselves to death. All the disposable products that are introduced every year, all the plastics that make it into landfills to be there for over 10,000 years, all the toxins we dump into our rivers and lakes. etc. etc.
The earth is dying, it's waters are polluted, the air is contaminated and yet we still say more more more... I"m with Jenny, our priorities are fucked.
Tara

Christa - posted on 07/11/2010

3,876

14

209

Jenny, I'm not putting the economy in front of the earth, I'm putting PEOPLE in front of the earth. There are already people who can't afford a home, you want to increase that number?

LaCi - posted on 07/11/2010

3,361

3

171

yeah, and our founding fathers said something about all citizens should be growing hemp...

but god forbid we have plants.

Jenny - posted on 07/11/2010

4,426

16

126

Why are we not seriously looking into hemp?
http://www.ehow.com/about_5382986_uses-h...

Hemp oil can be used in every application that is currently using petroleum. Hemp oil is a green alternative to dirty fossil fuels in almost every consumer commodity. As a food, hemp oil is nutritious and contains all the the essential fatty acids required for cell function. As a base oil for plastics, body care, fuel and paints, hemp oil has the required properties and can easily replace petroleum in each of these product categories.

Body Care
When used alone, hemp oil is a natural, moisturizing oil and can be applied after every shower or bath. Use only a small amount and rub over skin after it is dried. Use as a hair moisturizer by applying a small amount to hair while wet. Solid and liquid soap, shampoo, conditioner, make-up, lotions and creams can all be made with a hemp oil base to replace petroleum products.

Cooking
Hemp oil can be used in almost all cooking applications, though it is not suitable for high-heat cooking. It gives a slightly nutty flavor to foods. It is perfect for a salad oil and in lower temperature cooking, and can be included in baking in place of olive or vegetable oil. Use as you would use any other liquid vegetable oil.

Fuel
Hemp oil can be processed to be used as biodiesel in the same manner as all other vegetable oils. Henry Ford used hemp oil to fuel the first cars. Hemp oil can replace all petroleum fuels and oils with a safe, non-toxic oil that does not harm the environment. Biodiesel has a lower freezing point and is already in use in Canada during the winter months as a diesel fuel additive to prevent the fuel from gelling at low temperatures.

Plastics
All forms of plastic can be made with hemp oil instead of petroleum. During decomposition, the plastics would not release harmful chemicals into the environment. Plastics made with hemp oil would not require any petroleum products and would reduce our use of a non-renewable resource for disposable products.

Paints
Until 1937 hemp was the base oil in all paints. Paints made with hemp oil would not cause environmental harm when poured down the drain and would have lower emissions than current petroleum-based paints. In addition, reducing the use of petroleum-based products reduces the use of non-renewable petroleum resources.

Jenny - posted on 07/11/2010

4,426

16

126

I'm glad you have to pay for it. Recycling should be mandatory everywhere. Maybe lobby your municipality to add it as a government service so the cost is spread out. We have curbside recycling service and it is paid on property taxes (about $120 per year). We get three wheeled carts. One for garbage,, recycling and yard waste. The recycling and yard waste is the size of 4 full bags and the garbage is two. They alternate weeks on recycling and yard waste. I haven't had to go the dump since the program came in and I don't have to buy bags anymore so I save even more money that way too.



Christa, we have to stop putting the economy before the planet. Who gives a crap how much an energy efficient home is going to cost if we've killed life in our oceans and it trickles across the food chain? We can't eat money, we can't drink money. In the grand scheme of things it is completely irrelevant so I can't buy that arguement at all. Our priorities are fucked.

LaCi - posted on 07/11/2010

3,361

3

171

I agree, that is a scam. You shouldn't have to pay for recycling. My town runs everything pretty much independently, we don't use the county services and all of our crap is paid for in our taxes, except wastewater fees. I do think our county's services charge for it though. I dig the way my guys do things.

Gertie - posted on 07/11/2010

80

0

3

We have to pay for recycling, too. What a scam that is. I call my trash company. They ask me if I want recycle service. I tell them no...I don't want to but before I can get all the words out, she says, "Oh, you're in ****** county" I say yes...she says, well, it's mandatory in that county that you have to recycle. So, I HAVE to pay for it. They automatically put it on my bill.

Well, we only get one relatively small container for our recycleables and they only pick them up every other week. Sorry, but I'm not hanging onto garbage for that long. So I don't recycle. So, I'm being mandated by our local gov't to pay for a service I do not even use. Who ever cooked up that scam is a friggin' genious. What a sham.

LaCi - posted on 07/11/2010

3,361

3

171

that reminds me of a lewis black joke.

*we don't have solar energy because the sun goes away at night and IT DOESN'T TELL US WHERE IT'S GOING.*

Seriously, when the entire country is free of wind and sun and water flow for an entire hour I'll buy into the *we can't control it* mentality.

C. - posted on 07/11/2010

4,125

35

238

LOL Kati! As far as I know, no. I know they used to in NY b/c my mom used to go there, but I haven't heard of any since we moved down here. If they do, then it's probably not anywhere near us (unless it's in a secret hiding place that we've never heard of).

Rosie - posted on 07/11/2010

8,657

30

315

do they have a recycling center you can take them too? i know my bin get's crazy full sometimes so i take them to the center if it gets too cluttered.
i'm more pissed that i have to pay money to get garbage tags if i have more than 2 garbage bins, which i used to until lucas got potty trained, lol!! i think i've saved the destruciton of my earth about 10 fold since he got potty trained, lol!!!

C. - posted on 07/11/2010

4,125

35

238

"The problem with wind/solar/water power is it relies on things we can not control"

Good point, Christa.

C. - posted on 07/11/2010

4,125

35

238

You're right, Kati.. You don't know how they do things in other states. In SC and (I believe) HI, you have to pay (and I think in NC, too, but not 100% sure) and it doesn't get picked up with the trash. A separate truck comes by for the recycling and they only pick it up every 2 weeks (my neighbor recycles and we've talked about that, that's how I know). Not worth the extra money, especially if it's only getting picked up every 2 weeks. Do you know how many milk jugs I could accumulate in a 2 week span??? I do, and I'd have milk jugs coming out the wazoo. No thanks.



And I already mentioned about HI doing the bottles and stuff.

Rosie - posted on 07/11/2010

8,657

30

315

christina, i'm not sure how they do things in other states, but in iowa we pay a fee for our trash and sewer usage with our water bill. and when garbage gets picked up so does the recycling. we also have a plant that you can take your recycling to for free. i think the charge that i have for curbside is to pay the guys to actually come and get it along with the garbage.

we also get 5cents a can deposit and refund in you turn them into the grocery store, on pop cans here. and i'm positive hawaii has the same thing. i'm really surprised more states don't do that, i know it's major incentive to return them to get your money back! when i was younger my mother would stop and get cans whenever she saw one abandoned and that was how camp and theme parks were paid for, pop cans!! lol! :)

ME - posted on 07/11/2010

2,978

18

190

Just clarifying...I said all SINGLE FAMILY homes, not every single dwelling place in the country...and I should probably have found the article or not mentioned it at all, there were other things involved...I don't know much about the huffington post...I have read it MAYBE twice...you don't have to get nasty...

Amie - posted on 07/11/2010

6,596

20

408

Gertie,
Cathy did say in her post each individual country. So that means Americans can come up with their own solutions to the problem no? What has been stressed time and time again, what works in other countries won't work in America. I don't see why not though. Oh except for the higher taxes aspect, apparently this is a very bad idea for most Americans. Which I can understand to a point. But coming from a country where I already pay relatively high taxes, and enjoy many benefits from those taxes, excuse me for feeling no pity.

Christina,
I'd say "40-50 years" and "not going cold turkey" are not over night switches. As you claimed others have been stating. I have not seen one person say cut of all resources that we use now and switch completely to green energy tomorrow. (well one did but that was a joke.) Slow implementation is what everyone is talking about. Over a period of time, so that in the long term the short term goals set will have been reached and we will then be free of the heavy reliance we now have on the oil industry.

C. - posted on 07/11/2010

4,125

35

238

"Ban building poor energy effient homes will not cost the government but will stop builders from cutting corners and producing poor quality homes."

I can tell you now that with the buildings going up like I've seen lately (for instances, whole brand-new apartment complexes going up in 4-6 MONTHS??) just to make money, they aren't going to do that. What are they going to do with the millions of houses/apartments/businesses that were JUST built (albeit VERY poorly- just way too quick to be a good job)? They aren't going to do that for a while.

While I agree with you that we should invest in our future, that is going to take time and small steps as well. It will eventually happen that we are able to make better, Earth-friendly products, but it's just going to take time.

(And someone's Congress passed bills on tons of unnecessary spending last January?? (I think it was Jan.. in the beginning of the year at least) which put us further in the hole.. So as you can see, until our country gets more out of debt, it's going to take a while.)

And yes, the whole recycling thing is ridiculous. My sister and I were talking about it a while ago. When we were in HI, they would have people come to the Commissary and collect plastic bottles and they'd pay like 5¢ a bottle or something (whatever the value was on the back of the bottle) and she got into the whole curbside thing (which we didn't do in HI, even on base I think you had to pay). Crazy stuff.

C. - posted on 07/11/2010

4,125

35

238

Cathy.. We have recycling w/ curbside collection.. BUT WE have to PAY for them to take our recyclables!!! Too many people don't have the extra money to pay to get their recyclables taken. The government should be paying US, IMO. I think more people would be apt to recycle if they were being payed instead of having to pay. They are doing the Earth a favor, why should they have to pay??

C. - posted on 07/11/2010

4,125

35

238

While I don't like to see things like the oil spill in the Gulf (who does).. At the same time, I think we need to lessen our dependence on foreign oil. I have no problem with drilling for oil on land for now.. But you all act like we can have alternatives for everything made with petroleum overnight! It just doesn't happen like that.

We need to have long term goals, yes.. But we need SHORT TERM goals in the meantime.

Gertie - posted on 07/11/2010

80

0

3

Um...who exactly is going to pay for all that?

Who is going to provide grants for the elderly?

Who is going to loan money with a zero interest rate???

Where is the gov't supposed to get the money from to do all that...we can't afford what we are currently spending much less spend more.

I'm not saying they are all bad ideas...but you've got to be practical about this for it to be a worthwhile arguement.

Gertie - posted on 07/10/2010

80

0

3

Laci, perhaps you should read Mary's post...she's the one who mentioned outfitting everyone's home with the solar panels. I happen to be from the f-ing planet that reads the post above my own. Maybe you'd like to join me? :-P I was responding to her, not you. Either way, it wasn't a very good financial comparison, which is why I posted what I did. Nobody said you had to read it...

"And no, it isn't the governments job to put panels on homes, its the governments job to tell out power companies that we don't want their toxic fucking waste anymore and they need to move on to cleaner technology."

Um...no, its not the gov't job to tell power companies they need to move on to cleaner technology. It's our job as consumers to tell them that. It's our job to use science and technology to come up with FEASIBLE alternatives. We have already come a long way in terms of cleaning up our messes, you have to give it time. It doesn't make sense to stop using what works and is affordable before we are sure what will work.

What's with all the f-bombs? Can't you debate like an adult?



@Mary: I apologize if I misrepresented your point about the cost of the war. You used that as an example of cost comparisons while I took it another way. Sorry.

Kelly - posted on 07/10/2010

700

16

37

How the hell are solar panels going to make us foreign oil free? Have you been reading the Huffington Post again? (I swear you have to be a dumb shit to write for that rag......) Solar panels do nothing for the trucking industry that supplies and moves the majority of goods, solar panels don't put gas in vehicles, busses, public trans. systems (trains, etc). Sure, they would help with electricity, but that is ONE FACET of the energy that is consumed daily.

And I am sorry, but the Iraq thing is COMPLETELY played out. It is reality. We are there. The Dems and Repubs BOTH supported going in. We obviously can't just leave as that is one of the many campaign promises Obama has broken. GET OVER IT.

You just as easily could have used the example of how much money is wasted on social programs, public schools and the post office.

Bottom line Mary Elizabeth, I think where we are disagreeing is on where to obtain the resources to spend on new technology research. I say, drill drill drill and then drill some more. Since the money on Iraq is already spent, and we can't do anything to change that, where do you suggest the money come from?

ME - posted on 07/10/2010

2,978

18

190

yes...thanks Laci...I never mentioned President Bush, it was a financial comparison and an example of how our choices in where we put our financial resources effect what we are capable of accomplishing in this country...if we continue to put those financial resources where they should not be, we will not accomplish what everyone seems to agree with...namely, that we need new sources of energy.

LaCi - posted on 07/10/2010

3,361

3

171

Gertie, pull the stick out of your ass. This isn't, as far as I know, A lib vs rep debate.



I absolutely will buy solar panels as soon as I'm able, but not everyone can afford them and it doesn't stop the rest of the world from being completely fucking toxic if I have solar panels powering my home.



The only reason iraq was brought up was for financial comparison, this isn't about the fucking war.



And no, it isn't the governments job to put panels on homes, its the governments job to tell out power companies that we don't want their toxic fucking waste anymore and they need to move on to cleaner technology.



and I'll repeat. We don't HAVE TO PUT SOLAR PANELS ON EVERYONE'S HOME. What fucking planet are you from?



Maybe it's late, but fucking hell, who the fuck said anything about every home needs off grid solar power? Too many freakin' misconceptions about how to fix the planet wandering around on the internet.

Gertie - posted on 07/10/2010

80

0

3

Why do libs bring up Iraq EVERY time, no matter what the heck the issue is??? If it's healthcare, we hear "we could afford uhc if not for Iraq...or we could afford solar panels if only not for Iraq...." Holy moly...that arguement is so played out...we're over it. We all know that if the evil GWB had not brought us into war the earth would be a peaceful, harmonic, blissful terrorist free utopian place to live in which the birds chirped while we did our housework while nary a cloud was in the sky.

You want solar panels??? Go out and buy them...who's stopping you? I'm sure its somehow solely GWB's fault that solar panels are so friggin' expensive too....and I'm sure its all his fault that I was stuck in traffic for an hour today...and I'm sure it's somehow his fault that my neighbor has the stomach flu.

I was not happy with his administration either, but I think we are all tired of the same old, same old. It's not like the democrats tried to stop him or anything...they were out there beating the war drums just as hard. Let's remember the past honestly. Can we puh-lease move on?


It's not the gov't job to outfit your home or anyone else's with solar panels. Nobody's filling up my propane tank every other month...nor do I expect them to.

According to Reuters, BOTH middle east wars have cost us taxpayers just over 1 trillion dollars since 2003. Solar panels on a home is about 45,000 for the average American family. There are roughly 119,117,000 homes in the US which means it would take about 5,360,265,000,000 to outfit our homes with solar panels. Five times more than the wars. It's still up for debate and history will tell us whether or not they were worth it as it is still way too early to tell. But that's a whole lotta money...but this admin (and to be fair-the last one, too) likes to throw money around like its going out of style...so *shrugs shoulders* why the hell not? Let's go for broke, right?

*Said in her best 'hood voice* As long as I get mine's too! I'm goin' get some of that Obama money....some money from his stash!

(for those of you who are not sure of what I am mocking...refer to YouTube. As an American and fellow citizen of theirs, I'm quite embarrassed and please don't confuse most Americans with them. You tend to find people with that mind set in blue voting districts...I'm just sayin')

Rosie - posted on 07/10/2010

8,657

30

315

nothing better than iowa sweet corn!!! gah, when i was pregnant joanna i ate like 9 ears in one sitting, and stopped only cause they ran out, lol!! i love it!

ME - posted on 07/10/2010

2,978

18

190

So...yeah...Not arguing, because I've been saying since my first response that we can't "go cold turkey" off of fossil fuels...the point I keep trying to make is that our resources HAVE to go into green technologies. For example, I'm pretty sure that I read somewhere that we could have outfitted every single family home in the Country with Solar panels for what we've spent on the Iraq War...and that by now, we'd be nearly foreign oil free...AND MAKING MONEY back on our investment. Anyone want to guess which of those things would have/has made us ACTUALLY safer? Perhaps unprovoked military action isn't the only way that our government can protect it's populace. (Even if that's not exactly correct, I would guess that a couple trillion dollars would pay for a huge number of solar panels, plus, imagine all the jobs that would have created!)
It makes me really happy to see that so many families out there are making "green" changes in their lives...I think that's wonderful. I don't think that every family has to do the same exact things to cut back on their environmental impact, but we all need to make the changes that we can make, and keep trying to work toward making the least impact possible...

Gertie - posted on 07/10/2010

80

0

3

The only reason ethanol is cheaper than regular right now is because it is HEAVILY subsidized by the feds. It cannot compete other wise.

If there is a lot of money to be made off of ethanol by the farmers...don't you think they'll plant more of that crop than say, food crops? That sounds like a bad idea....

I'm all for alternative energy that works and is practical and does not cost me more than what I currently pay. There are all kinds of pie-in-the-sky ideas floating around, but if they are all that great, then why aren't they being implemented? You don't need gov't money to subsidize a product that people want or need.


...we just had corn...YUM...and New York Strip steaks on the grill....and homemade potato salad....that was a good dinner if I do say so myself :) German chocolate cake for dessert, too. Oh yeah.

Joanna - posted on 07/10/2010

2,096

19

134

Why do I find something in every damn thread that makes me hungry?

Thanks to your comment LaCi I want corn now. Corn on the cob. With paprika butter.

LaCi - posted on 07/10/2010

3,361

3

171

Stop stealing our corn. Dammit.



On the plus side, with so much money to be made off ethanol, maybe high fructose corn syrup will be too expensive to replace sugar.

Amie - posted on 07/10/2010

6,596

20

408

Ethanol! I bet that was what is tickling my memory. I`ll have to go research a bit later.

I know we buy our gas for our vehicles at Canadian Tire which is 10% ethanol. That`s simply to get the Canadian Tire money too. gqtm.

Rosie - posted on 07/10/2010

8,657

30

315

there is fuel in iowa that has ethanol made from corn in it, i can't remember the percentage of ethanol though, i think it's 10%, i think it's state mandated that gas stations offer it cheaper than regular. i see alot of gas stations offering E85 (85% ethanol) right now, at about 20 cents cheaper. however most cars can't use E85.
i saw something saying walmart will soon be selling E85 at about 385 of their gas stations, making them potentially the largest distributor of E85. gotta love their enthusiasm to take over everything. south park is right, lol!!!

Amie - posted on 07/10/2010

6,596

20

408

I agree with the other ladies who have already agreed with each other but still seem to be arguing? LOL

It's something that needs to be funded more. We already know a lot of the options, we already know how to go about them, they just need to be implemented. As for cars and such, like Kelly said, we are a long way off our fuel dependency for those specifically but it can be done. I don't remember details but wasn't there some hoopla awhile ago about corn fuel or something? I could be wrong or it could have been in a movie for all I know. My memories crap some days. gqtm.

For when we do buy land in the next 5-10 years and build a house we've been talking about geothermal and solar panels. We'll see how that pans out, it will be an added cost but one that will pay for itself over time. =)

As for the grocery aspect, *sigh*, our grocery bill is almost equal to our mortgage payment each month.

We spend $900 to feed 7 people, 1 dog and 2 cats. The people are 2 adult men, 1 pre teen, 1 boy, 2 toddlers and myself.

Our animals get high quality human grade food from a store I love here, I do a lot of my gardening shopping there too. (Early's Farm and Garden)
I get diapers at Wal mart, their juice boxes, some dried foods, cleaning supplies, T.P., etc.
"Real" food I get at Sobey's or Co-op.
Our meat we get once a year from a local organic farmer. Well beef and pork anyway. I generally get chicken from Co-op though.

We do our grocery shopping split up into two big shops each month and then some of that money is for weekly trips to pick up fresh fruit/veg, milk,and bread. Those ones are $40-60 each week. So that leaves roughly $700 for the big grocery shops, so that's $350 roughly each of the big shopping trips.

[deleted account]

Girl, right now I have to be organized in my meal planning and grocery shopping or our whole budget would fall apart! I'm staying as tight as I possible can right now, so we can pay off debt and save up money quicker, then live like we want! Suffer now, enjoy life later. =)

Oh, and I have to stay under a certain amount. I withdraw the cash I need for groceries (that includes toiletries and baby stuff), eating out, and fun money every other Friday. Once that cash is gone, it's gone. I couldn't be that disciplined with a card. Once you open your wallet and see you only have one $20 left to last 4 days, you suddenly become very frugal and inventive!

Rosie - posted on 07/10/2010

8,657

30

315

i feel like mary, and kelly and christa have all agreed but don't want to admit it, gqtm!! i agree with we need to switch over, we need to do it fast, but while that is happening we need to rely on our own resources instead of other countries. i definitely agree that these renewable sources of energy need to be affordable though. i can't spend more than like 13,000 on a car, i'd hyperventilate, and loose my house.:(

i should really tally up how much we spend on toiletries AND groceries. i know groceries cost me for a family of 5, $160 every 2 weeks. we do go out to eat at least twice a week, i'm trying to lessen that though :) sara you've taught me to plan my meals, i started that last week, and i didn't go out to eat until yesterday!!

Join Circle of Moms

Sign up for Circle of Moms and be a part of this community! Membership is just one click away.

Join Circle of Moms