It will change, but it won't be because Brad Pitt says we have to do it.
~gasps~ But... But... He is a star and everything that stars say is the right thing to do!
~shrugs~ On this I sort of agree with you. The problem is turning the alternative fuel sources into a viable alternative to oil. My bet is electric vehicles. The one problem is development. Also, that just moves the oil "food chain" up a level or two. IMHO, we need to funnel several BILLIONS into Fusion research. We also need to put solar pannels in many more areas than we do already.
Stuff happens. The world currently NEEDS petroleum. I'm not saying that we shouldn't hold BP accountable, but at the same time a full on crucification isn't necessary.
The world has alternative fuel sources that the oil industry has a choke hold on. No, we don't NEED petroleum. We are dependant on them for it because it is the only source of fuel they are allowing us to have.
"NEED" is only applicable when there are no viable alternatives. There are.
Until I can jump in an electric car on a Friday afternoon and drive to visit my brother's family a good 8 hours away now (>500 miles), in roughly the same time, electric cars are going to have limited usefulness. I know the argument is that you can have two cars, one electric for puttering around town and one gas for long trips, but frankly that seems like a poor choice. Twice the upkeep cost, twice the storage space, twice cleaning, etc. To many, cars are freedom, hell ask any teenager that just got their license. Electric cars are balls and chains, until the chain is broke, they are just a gimmick.
Until I can jump in an electric car on a Friday afternoon and drive to visit my brother's family a good 8 hours away now (>500 miles), in roughly the same time, electric cars are going to have limited usefulness. I know the argument is that you can have two cars, one electric for puttering around town and one gas for long trips, but frankly that seems like a poor choice. Twice the upkeep cost, twice the storage space, twice cleaning, etc. To many, cars are freedom, hell ask any teenager that just got their license. Electric cars are balls and chains, until the chain is broke, they are just a gimmick.~shrugs~ On this I sort of agree with you. The problem is turning the alternative fuel sources into a viable alternative to oil. My bet is electric vehicles. The one problem is development. Also, that just moves the oil "food chain" up a level or two. IMHO, we need to funnel several BILLIONS into Fusion research. We also need to put solar pannels in many more areas than we do already.
Stuff happens. The world currently NEEDS petroleum. I'm not saying that we shouldn't hold BP accountable, but at the same time a full on crucification isn't necessary.
The world has alternative fuel sources that the oil industry has a choke hold on. No, we don't NEED petroleum. We are dependant on them for it because it is the only source of fuel they are allowing us to have.
"NEED" is only applicable when there are no viable alternatives. There are.
~grins` I agree with you on that. OTOH, I also agree with the need to get off of oil. It will take time and YES, electric vehicles have a LONG way to go.
The other problem with alternative fuel sources is the infrastructure. Gas has the mass of infrastructure that other fuel sources do not. Until the other fuel sources build up their infrastructure, they will not be able to compete with gas.
|
The other problem with alternative fuel sources is the infrastructure. Gas has the mass of infrastructure that other fuel sources do not. Until the other fuel sources build up their infrastructure, they will not be able to compete with gas.
The problem is they won't be able to...at least until we run out of oil. Big oil can't change, because they have only one thing-oil. So any other viable energy source is a threat to their business, and they squash them.
Could these companies research other fuel sources? Yes. Will they? Hell no.
The other problem with alternative fuel sources is the infrastructure. Gas has the mass of infrastructure that other fuel sources do not. Until the other fuel sources build up their infrastructure, they will not be able to compete with gas.The problem is they won't be able to...at least until we run out of oil. Big oil can't change, because they have only one thing-oil. So any other viable energy source is a threat to their business, and they squash them.
Could these companies research other fuel sources? Yes. Will they? Hell no.
~shrugs~ Maybe. OTOH, a smart CEO would be prepping for the future and planning for the loss of their resource. Will that happen? Probably not. But there are a lot of smart people out there. All I can say is that I hope that your prediction is wrong.
|
~shrugs~ Maybe. OTOH, a smart CEO would be prepping for the future and planning for the loss of their resource. Will that happen? Probably not. But there are a lot of smart people out there. All I can say is that I hope that your prediction is wrong.
And I wouldn't be surprised if many of them are doing just that. After all, ExxonMobil is one of the most profitable companies, if not the most, on the planet. I'd bet a company that big has several projects in the background, even if it's just giving grant money to independent research groups or small businesses.
Sad that the heroes of society are people paid to be someone they are not.+1
If you go to the movies or rent from Netflix, you are part of the problem. Just sayin'.
Sad that the heroes of society are people paid to be someone they are not.
I'd say it's sadder that the role/positon of hero is so arbitrarily assigned upon a group of people who may or may not hold an individual in esteem.
|
~shrugs~ Maybe. OTOH, a smart CEO would be prepping for the future and planning for the loss of their resource. Will that happen? Probably not. But there are a lot of smart people out there. All I can say is that I hope that your prediction is wrong.And I wouldn't be surprised if many of them are doing just that. After all, ExxonMobil is one of the most profitable companies, if not the most, on the planet. I'd bet a company that big has several projects in the background, even if it's just giving grant money to independent research groups or small businesses.
Sadly, I'm inclined to disagree. This is one of the shortcomings of publicly traded companies. The leadership has absolutely no reason to think long-term. They make the most money by turning a large short-term profit and then taking their retirement. What happens 20 years from now will not impact the people making the decisions right now in the slightest.
Take, for example, the banks who thought issuing mortgages to people who can't afford them was a good idea.
|
Take, for example, the banks who thought issuing mortgages to people who can't afford them was a good idea.
Or the government forcing banks to make those loans. The banks didn't necessarily do it because they wanted to, not at first.
As to your first, unquoted, thought, again, they're just taking a cue from a government who considers short term political gain over long term economic health.
|
|
Take, for example, the banks who thought issuing mortgages to people who can't afford them was a good idea.Or the government forcing banks to make those loans. The banks didn't necessarily do it because they wanted to, not at first.
There were plenty of banks that didn't do them. Clearly nobody forced them, only encouraged.
|
|
There were plenty of banks that didn't do them. Clearly nobody forced them, only encouraged.Take, for example, the banks who thought issuing mortgages to people who can't afford them was a good idea.Or the government forcing banks to make those loans. The banks didn't necessarily do it because they wanted to, not at first.
Any banks that made mortgage loans were forced to make a certain percentage of bad loans (CRA) or get out of the mortgage business. 20%/30% was ignored across the board. The smarter banks would just sell them off to hedge funds as soon as they could.
Any banks that made mortgage loans were forced to make a certain percentage of bad loans (CRA) or get out of the mortgage business. 20%/30% was ignored across the board. The smarter banks would just sell them off to hedge funds as soon as they could.There were plenty of banks that didn't do them. Clearly nobody forced them, only encouraged.Take, for example, the banks who thought issuing mortgages to people who can't afford them was a good idea.Or the government forcing banks to make those loans. The banks didn't necessarily do it because they wanted to, not at first.
It didn't help that the housing industry worked with mortgage companies to treat their housing developments as a renewable resources.
Many of the mortgage companies made more money off of fees and penalties of repossessed houses than the selling price because they could sell the same house multiple times at no other cost than the original building cost.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
I mean, the guy can look good while reciting words that other people have written while somebody points a camera at him and pays him millions of dollars. If that doesn't prove to you that he's clearly always right in all things, I...
c.f.: Fred Dalton Thompson, whose stump speeches and press answers leading up to the Iowa Republican caucus weren't nearly so articulate as the scripted dialogues in Law & Order.
--+--+--
But we are imaginative people. What would the world be like, if businessmen and executives were held personally and criminally liable for acts their companies committed? What would be the ramifications if BP executives could be executed for reckless disregards like this?
And what would be the results of people being given ownership of the effects of their actions, even those they did not / could not foresee? Would people be much more prudent, or simply fatalistic?
(Incidentally, I've run characters in D&D campaigns where such world laws were in play. "The Council understands that you beieved you were helping an old man return to his home in the city. But that does not change the fact that the 'old man' in question was a demon, and that once it had permission to enter through our wards, it laid waste to the capital center, killig hundreds of citizens. Nor does your heroism in fighting such a demon abrogate your responsibility for those deaths.")
Any banks that made mortgage loans were forced to make a certain percentage of bad loans (CRA) or get out of the mortgage business. 20%/30% was ignored across the board. The smarter banks would just sell them off to hedge funds as soon as they could.There were plenty of banks that didn't do them. Clearly nobody forced them, only encouraged.Take, for example, the banks who thought issuing mortgages to people who can't afford them was a good idea.Or the government forcing banks to make those loans. The banks didn't necessarily do it because they wanted to, not at first.
From my swiss cheese memories of working at the bank(as a teller, not in the loan department, although the guy that worked there was hella cool), this was already part of the loan process. I don't know the specifics, but they know that there are going to be a certain amount of loans that just aren't going to pan out, and they plan for them accordingly. How WELL they plan for them varies by bank and by loan officer, iirc.
|
|
Any banks that made mortgage loans were forced to make a certain percentage of bad loans (CRA) or get out of the mortgage business. 20%/30% was ignored across the board.There were plenty of banks that didn't do them. Clearly nobody forced them, only encouraged.Take, for example, the banks who thought issuing mortgages to people who can't afford them was a good idea.Or the government forcing banks to make those loans. The banks didn't necessarily do it because they wanted to, not at first.
There's a difference between subprime mortgages and the CRA. There were plenty of banks who followed the letter of CRA and didn't issue subprime mortgages. I am not so ready to absolve those other bad banks of their stupidity. I'm spoilering this, though, because I feel bad about the threadjack.
CRA required banks to serve neighborhoods of concentrated poverty, most of them urban. The sub-prime mortgage crisis primarily impacted exurban and suburban neightborhoods not governed by the CRA. It was passed in 1977, even though subprime loans didn't become the rage until much later. 50% of the subprime loans were issued by banks not governed by the CRA.
There is nothing in the CRA that encourages subprime lending. At all.
I mean, the guy can look good while reciting words that other people have written while somebody points a camera at him and pays him millions of dollars. If that doesn't prove to you that he's clearly always right in all things, I...c.f.: Fred Dalton Thompson, whose stump speeches and press answers leading up to the Iowa Republican caucus weren't nearly so articulate as the scripted dialogues in Law & Order.
--+--+--
But we are imaginative people. What would the world be like, if businessmen and executives were held personally and criminally liable for acts their companies committed? What would be the ramifications if BP executives could be executed for reckless disregards like this?
And what would be the results of people being given ownership of the effects of their actions, even those they did not / could not foresee? Would people be much more prudent, or simply fatalistic?
(Incidentally, I've run characters in D&D campaigns where such world laws were in play. "The Council understands that you beieved you were helping an old man return to his home in the city. But that does not change the fact that the 'old man' in question was a demon, and that once it had permission to enter through our wards, it laid waste to the capital center, killig hundreds of citizens. Nor does your heroism in fighting such a demon abrogate your responsibility for those deaths.")
I think it would be every conservative's dream/worst nightmare- a highly armed, well educated and extremely polite society that is one misunderstanding away from a revolution.
|
|
Any banks that made mortgage loans were forced to make a certain percentage of bad loans (CRA) or get out of the mortgage business. 20%/30% was ignored across the board.There were plenty of banks that didn't do them. Clearly nobody forced them, only encouraged.Take, for example, the banks who thought issuing mortgages to people who can't afford them was a good idea.Or the government forcing banks to make those loans. The banks didn't necessarily do it because they wanted to, not at first.There's a difference between subprime mortgages and the CRA. There were plenty of banks who followed the letter of CRA and didn't issue subprime mortgages. I am not so ready to absolve those other bad banks of their stupidity. I'm spoilering this, though, because I feel bad about the threadjack.
** spoiler omitted **
You can look at RAW all day and ignore the pressure applied by both the government and interest groups all you want. I don't have that much trust in our institutions, and the reality of CRA (particularly the second round in the late '90s) is very different than some wiki article makes it out to be. There are plenty of sources that detail threats of lawsuits and pressure from Fannie and Freddie that forced banks to make bad loans. All someone (read: Al Sharpton) has to do these days is cry "racism" and banks will do about anything to avoid the PR nightmare.
I'm spoilering this, though, because I feel bad about the threadjack.
** spoiler omitted **
Hello citizens, did someone call for me?
Any banks that made mortgage loans were forced to make a certain percentage of bad loans (CRA) or get out of the mortgage business. 20%/30% was ignored across the board.There were plenty of banks that didn't do them. Clearly nobody forced them, only encouraged.Take, for example, the banks who thought issuing mortgages to people who can't afford them was a good idea.Or the government forcing banks to make those loans. The banks didn't necessarily do it because they wanted to, not at first.There's a difference between subprime mortgages and the CRA. There were plenty of banks who followed the letter of CRA and didn't issue subprime mortgages. I am not so ready to absolve those other bad banks of their stupidity. I'm spoilering this, though, because I feel bad about the threadjack.
** spoiler omitted **You can look at RAW all day and ignore the pressure applied by both the government and interest groups all you want. I don't have that much trust in our institutions, and the reality of CRA (particularly the second round in the late '90s) is very different than some wiki article makes it out to be. There are plenty of sources that detail threats of lawsuits and pressure from Fannie and Freddie that forced banks to make bad loans. All someone (read: Al Sharpton) has to do these days is cry "racism" and banks will do about anything to avoid the PR nightmare.
** spoiler omitted **
I see where you are coming from, but that doesn't explain what happened before purple jumpsuit came along. I understand your dislike for him and his tactics, but this was hardly a scheme he hatched up with a few buddies- it was in existance even before I was born(how did people get along without ME?!). Interest groups and government apply pressure, sure, but this is something I think that is bigger than even pr. Just as you don't buy into wikis, I don't buy into the "poor us" act the banks put on when they were put under the lamp.
|
|
I see where you are coming from, but that doesn't explain what happened before purple jumpsuit came along. I understand your dislike for him and his tactics, but this was hardly a scheme he hatched up with a few buddies- it was in existance even before I was born(how did people get along without ME?!). Interest groups and government apply pressure, sure, but this is something I think that is bigger than even pr....Any banks that made mortgage loans were forced to make a certain percentage of bad loans (CRA) or get out of the mortgage business. 20%/30% was ignored across the board.There were plenty of banks that didn't do them. Clearly nobody forced them, only encouraged.Take, for example, the banks who thought issuing mortgages to people who can't afford them was a good idea.Or the government forcing banks to make those loans. The banks didn't necessarily do it because they wanted to, not at first.There's a difference between subprime mortgages and the CRA. There were plenty of banks who followed the letter of CRA and didn't issue subprime mortgages. I am not so ready to absolve those other bad banks of their stupidity. I'm spoilering this, though, because I feel bad about the threadjack.
** spoiler omitted **You can look at RAW all day and ignore the pressure applied by both the government and interest groups all you want. I don't have that much trust in our institutions, and the reality of CRA (particularly the second round in the late '90s) is very different than some wiki article makes it out to be. There are plenty of sources that detail threats of lawsuits and pressure from Fannie and Freddie that forced banks to make bad loans. All someone (read: Al Sharpton) has to do these days is cry "racism" and banks will do about anything to avoid the PR nightmare.
** spoiler omitted **
Purple jumpsuit has been around for a while, since before the original CRA came around.
Plus, after the Tawanda Brawley thing, I wish he'd crawl under a rock like the snake he is.
|
|
You can look at RAW all day and ignore the pressure applied by both the government and interest groups all you want. I don't have that much trust in our institutions, and the reality of CRA (particularly the second round in the late '90s) is very different than some wiki article makes it out to be. There are plenty of sources that detail threats of lawsuits and pressure from Fannie and Freddie that forced banks to make bad loans. All someone (read: Al Sharpton) has to do these days is cry "racism" and banks will do about anything to avoid the PR nightmare.** spoiler omitted **
I've been trying to parse out what you are trying to say here, and I just can't.
Ultimately, if you want to say that the government encouraged banks to lend with lower and lower standards, you have a point. They did. And they share the blame.
But the information you are bringing up to support it is unrelated.
|
|
You can look at RAW all day and ignore the pressure applied by both the government and interest groups all you want. I don't have that much trust in our institutions, and the reality of CRA (particularly the second round in the late '90s) is very different than some wiki article makes it out to be. There are plenty of sources that detail threats of lawsuits and pressure from Fannie and Freddie that forced banks to make bad loans. All someone (read: Al Sharpton) has to do these days is cry "racism" and banks will do about anything to avoid the PR nightmare.** spoiler omitted **
I've been trying to parse out what you are trying to say here, and I just can't.
** spoiler omitted **
There are literally hundreds of stories from when I was growing up about Sharpton throwing accusations of "racism" at banks for not lending money to people in Harlem. People who didn't meet the 20%/30% minimum banks look for in mortgage approvals. He colluded with Fannie and Freddie, using CRA as ammo, to wield public opinion to force the banks into making bad loans to save face and get Sharpton to call off the dogs. It happened. And the CRA did institute compliance quotas, in spite of claiming to not force banks into bad loans. And, considering how few low income applicants could meet 20%/30% minimums most banks required for mortgages, the law was used as a sledgehammer to force bad loans.
|
|
You can look at RAW all day and ignore the pressure applied by both the government and interest groups all you want. I don't have that much trust in our institutions, and the reality of CRA (particularly the second round in the late '90s) is very different than some wiki article makes it out to be. There are plenty of sources that detail threats of lawsuits and pressure from Fannie and Freddie that forced banks to make bad loans. All someone (read: Al Sharpton) has to do these days is cry "racism" and banks will do about anything to avoid the PR nightmare.** spoiler omitted **
I've been trying to parse out what you are trying to say here, and I just can't.
** spoiler omitted **
There are literally hundreds of stories from when I was growing up about Sharpton throwing accusations of "racism" at banks for not lending money to people in Harlem. People who didn't meet the 20%/30% minimum banks look for in mortgage approvals. He colluded with Fannie and Freddie, using CRA as ammo, to wield public opinion to force the banks into making bad loans to save face and get Sharpton to call off the dogs. It happened. And the CRA did institute compliance quotas, in spite of claiming to not force banks into bad loans. And, considering how few low income applicants could meet 20%/30% minimums most banks required for mortgages, the law was used as a sledgehammer to force bad loans.
That may or may not be true, but is not my point. I think we're talking past each other here, though, and it must be boring to read.
My initial assertion was that banks, which knew better, made poor decisions on lending practices to favor short term profits over long term viability. I ought to have been clearer on what I was talking about:
Suburban housing prices were inflated and the banks knew it (most people paying attention did). They issued loans above 90% loan-to-value with little or no consideration of the ability of the borrower to pay. That's a really bad combination.
The government did push for "everybody should own a home" and that is bad. They're still doing it, and it's still bad.
Inner city mortgages were not the problem. Even if they were bad loans, the housing prices in those areas were not inflated, and have not "burst" as they have in suburban markets.
The disastrous loans that brought about the economic crisis were not the inner city loans covered by the CRA. That's what I mean when I say we are talking about two different things.
|
|
You can look at RAW all day and ignore the pressure applied by both the government and interest groups all you want. I don't have that much trust in our institutions, and the reality of CRA (particularly the second round in the late '90s) is very different than some wiki article makes it out to be. There are plenty of sources that detail threats of lawsuits and pressure from Fannie and Freddie that forced banks to make bad loans. All someone (read: Al Sharpton) has to do these days is cry "racism" and banks will do about anything to avoid the PR nightmare.** spoiler omitted **
I've been trying to parse out what you are trying to say here, and I just can't.
** spoiler omitted **
There are literally hundreds of stories from when I was growing up about Sharpton throwing accusations of "racism" at banks for not lending money to people in Harlem. People who didn't meet the 20%/30% minimum banks look for in mortgage approvals. He colluded with Fannie and Freddie, using CRA as ammo, to wield public opinion to force the banks into making bad loans to save face and get Sharpton to call off the dogs. It happened. And the CRA did institute compliance quotas, in spite of claiming to not force banks into bad loans. And, considering how few low income applicants could meet 20%/30% minimums most banks required for mortgages, the law was used as a sledgehammer to force bad loans.
That may or may not be true, but is not my point. I think we're talking past each other here, though, and it must be boring to read.
My initial assertion was that banks, which knew better, made poor decisions on lending practices to favor short term profits over long term viability. I ought to have been clearer on what I was talking about:
Suburban housing prices were inflated and the banks knew it (most people paying attention did). They issued loans above 90% loan-to-value with little or no consideration of the ability of the...
Stuff that matters is almost always boring to read. That's how we get idiots like Bush and Obama running stuff.
I'm just saying that the climate was set for banks to start making risky loans because they saw profit in some ways because of the CRA and the stuff that was forced on banks. Before the late '70s (and especially before the "easy money" Fed policies of Greenspan and now Bernanke), banks tended to be tight with their loans. And the commoditization of loans was unheard of.
Bottom line, when the government gets involved, bad things tend to happen.
Sharpton was in for a penny, as he usually is. However, what was going on in the suburbs was the pound, and I think that is the far-more reaching problem. While HD is correct regarding bank policies in the 70's, the problem is that they were tinged with bad practices from the time period regarding not only race, but age and sex as well. I'm not saying that Sharpton wasn't being stupid, as I'm sure he was being his usual opportunistic self(although I'm sure he had his own bad experiences in terms of being denied a bank loan himself that are probably quite ugly). In terms of bad loans, well, most institutions that make loans are ready should a loan go bad, and as shady and underhanded as minimum standards are for CRA stuff is, that by itself couldn't cause the situation we're seeing now.
|
|
Sharpton was in for a penny, as he usually is. However, what was going on in the suburbs was the pound, and I think that is the far-more reaching problem. While HD is correct regarding bank policies in the 70's, the problem is that they were tinged with bad practices from the time period regarding not only race, but age and sex as well. I'm not saying that Sharpton wasn't being stupid, as I'm sure he was being his usual opportunistic self(although I'm sure he had his own bad experiences in terms of being denied a bank loan himself that are probably quite ugly). In terms of bad loans, well, most institutions that make loans are ready should a loan go bad, and as shady and underhanded as minimum standards are for CRA stuff is, that by itself couldn't cause the situation we're seeing now.
I see it more as the small pebble the snowball formed around. Once you start "encouraging" someone to do something not fiscally sound, it makes it easier for them to do it if they see something in it for themselves.
CRA obviously didn't cause the housing bubble and burst, but it did encourage lending practices that made justifying bad loans easier in non CRA related areas. And it opened the door for people like Sharpton (who still has loan issues this day; apparently dude doesn't like paying money back if it'll keep him from buying bad suits and getting bad haircuts...) to hammer people with the race card with impunity.
Sharpton was in for a penny, as he usually is. However, what was going on in the suburbs was the pound, and I think that is the far-more reaching problem. While HD is correct regarding bank policies in the 70's, the problem is that they were tinged with bad practices from the time period regarding not only race, but age and sex as well. I'm not saying that Sharpton wasn't being stupid, as I'm sure he was being his usual opportunistic self(although I'm sure he had his own bad experiences in terms of being denied a bank loan himself that are probably quite ugly). In terms of bad loans, well, most institutions that make loans are ready should a loan go bad, and as shady and underhanded as minimum standards are for CRA stuff is, that by itself couldn't cause the situation we're seeing now.I see it more as the small pebble the snowball formed around. Once you start "encouraging" someone to do something not fiscally sound, it makes it easier for them to do it if they see something in it for themselves.
CRA obviously didn't cause the housing bubble and burst, but it did encourage lending practices that made justifying bad loans easier in non CRA related areas. And it opened the door for people like Sharpton (who still has loan issues this day; apparently dude doesn't like paying money back if it'll keep him from buying bad suits and getting bad haircuts...) to hammer people with the race card with impunity.
I could probably stand bad haircuts OR bad suits. Why the hell does he have to do BOTH...And yeah, I would insist on being paid in cash if I ever did business with the dude.
I know Brad Pitt didn't do the oil spill, but,....okay, what the hell....
anything to impress Jennifer Aniston.
|
|
No, we don't NEED petroleum.
I assume you typed that on your solid wood keyboard? Or do you use marble keys? And what do you use to house your computer's brain: Mahogony, glass, or solid steel? And your carpet: wool or cotton?
Anyone who thinks petroluem is only used for fuel is forgetting the huge amount of plastic (including nylon) that we use everyday.
No, we don't NEED petroleum.I assume you typed that on your solid wood keyboard? Or do you use marble keys? And what do you use to house your computer's brain: Mahogony, glass, or solid steel? And your carpet: wool or cotton?
Anyone who thinks petroluem is only used for fuel is forgetting the huge amount of plastic (including nylon) that we use everyday.
All the plastic and fuel the world needs can now be made from organic sources, we really don't need petroleum anymore.
|
|
All the plastic and fuel the world needs can now be made from organic sources, we really don't need petroleum anymore.No, we don't NEED petroleum.I assume you typed that on your solid wood keyboard? Or do you use marble keys? And what do you use to house your computer's brain: Mahogony, glass, or solid steel? And your carpet: wool or cotton?
Anyone who thinks petroluem is only used for fuel is forgetting the huge amount of plastic (including nylon) that we use everyday.
Personally, I find the idea of turning good corn into fuel to be a bad idea for a host of reasons. I would think turning it into plastic to be equally misguided. That being said, when the production of non-petroluem plastics becomes cheaper than not, I have every confidence in the market to believe it will take off like a shot. Until that time, petroluem continues to be economically viable and theres a whole lot of it. :)
Personally, I find the idea of turning good corn into fuel to be a bad idea for a host of reasons.
Agreed; food should go on the table, not in the gas tank.
Personally, I find the idea of turning good corn into fuel to be a bad idea for a host of reasons.Agreed; food should go on the table, not in the gas tank.
I said organic sources, I didn't mention corn.
You can produce more bio-fuel/bio-plastic from switch grass and alfalfa than corn.
Switch grass and alfalfa is used by responsible farmers to revitalize soil and prevent erosion and is completely in-eatable by humans.
Of course the best plant to make bio-fuel from is illegal,
The other problem with alternative fuel sources is the infrastructure. Gas has the mass of infrastructure that other fuel sources do not. Until the other fuel sources build up their infrastructure, they will not be able to compete with gas.The problem is they won't be able to...at least until we run out of oil. Big oil can't change, because they have only one thing-oil. So any other viable energy source is a threat to their business, and they squash them.
Could these companies research other fuel sources? Yes. Will they? Hell no.
Actually the biggest research into alternative fuel sources in the world is being done by...BP
|
|
Actually the biggest research into alternative fuel sources in the world is being done by...BPThe other problem with alternative fuel sources is the infrastructure. Gas has the mass of infrastructure that other fuel sources do not. Until the other fuel sources build up their infrastructure, they will not be able to compete with gas.The problem is they won't be able to...at least until we run out of oil. Big oil can't change, because they have only one thing-oil. So any other viable energy source is a threat to their business, and they squash them.
Could these companies research other fuel sources? Yes. Will they? Hell no.
Hmmmm, where did I put that tin foil hat?