The majority or the minority, who should prevail?

[KillerMuffin]

Here's a different take on it. Florida's needs versus the needs of the United States as a whole.

The price of gas is atrocious and new sources of oil would definately bring that down. So we should drill, right? Florida doesn't think so unanimously. Their coastal waters are gold mines for oil and natural gas drilling. Their coastal waters are also gold mines for the tourist industry. Drilling would be, unquestionably, good for the whole of the country, but bad for Florida. Floridans don't want it. So, should we drill and nevermind Florida? They're a speck compared to the whole country's needs. A very politically important speck with 25 electoral votes. Big oil says that the rigs won't leak oil and harm their beaches. Florida doesn't want to take the chance.

What about Alaska? The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, ANWR (pronounce Anwar) is another gold mine of oil production. The Clinton administration along with prior administrations has kept everyone out. You can walk on it, but you can't drive on it. It is the largest, pristine biome of it's nature in the world. It looks today just like it did thousands of years ago. Big oil says that north shore and off shore drilling won't harm the environment and the pipeline, once it's built, won't bother the ecosystem there. Animals will be just as fine after as before. Of course Alaskans get no cash from tourism on the place, it pretty much sits there. So some want it drilled because that means more money. Some don't because it's such an inherent part of Alaska. Of course Alaska only has 3 electoral votes so who, in Washington, cares?

Whose got the choice here? States or Federal?

 

[Problem Child]

I'm all for states rights, but I'm not sure Floridians should be allowed to decide anything beyond their own breakfast cereal anymore.



and no Captain Crunch...too much sugar.

 

[Todd]

it doesn't matter if federal or state wins the people have already lost and will remain on the lost side.

 

[lavender]

 

[Morden]

people need to stop using 6 or 8 cylinder vehicles to drive to the grocery store. Thats my opinion.

 

[Starfish]

I think my idea about turning the farts of farm animals, that people insist on rearing for food even though it is a totally insane waste of grain and land resources, into natural gas is the most practical, ethical and decent suggestion made to solve this ecological question.

Originally posted by StarfishWe can't keep those poor animals all 'rigged' up to fart gathering machinary. That is totally unethical, but maybe we could built a national 'indoor ranch' that housed all of the animals in a happy playland but that it extrapolated the methane from the Hydrogen, Nitrogen, Oxygen and CO2.


Then, when the animals have lived a happy producitve life, you can put them on the 'euthanization boat ride' where the cows, and pigs are taken down memory lane, like in Willy Wonka but not scary, but in a nice happy way but then suddenly, unbeknownst to the animals, the boat is made to 'sink' and all of the animals are drowned (I hear that is a peaceful way to die. ) and then they are drown in a boat accident, ready to be made into food. This technique has duality in practicality! You kill and wash them at the same time.

This would save us the trouble of drilling, because we could run our cars off of flatulence while (you) gnaw on that dead flesh from your fast food resturant of choice. (it isn't like they arn't causing deforestation of the rainforest, just for you or anything. )

 

[Problem Child]

How would this work?

Would all the animals have hoses coming out of their asses going to collection devices?

Actually, biomass is a good clean way to generate electricity.

The Dairy farmers in the central valley of California are trying to get together a plan to build power generation plants fueled by the millions of tons of manure their cows produce every year.

The plan is to build co-generation plants near the large dairy areas and truck the manure to them, and make electricity to run the dairies for free. The excess electricity would be sold to the utilities.

It cleans up the environment, eliminates or reduces their electrical bills, or even makes them money, and gets rid of a lot of cowshit.

Good plan.

 

[HornyAuthor]

Why?

Why should any one group prevail? Why can't people finally be equal?

 

[lavender]

 

[Problem Child]

Especially if the key to survival was a spelling bee.

 

[lavender]

 

[Texan]

states rights

I have no doubt lavender is right that congress has the authority to act in this matter. I'm not sure it would matter, congress temds to do what it wants, whether it has constitutional authority or not. (Thus the importance of the supreme court.)

Purely as a fairness issue, (not a legal issue) I think Florida, California and Alaska should be able to do whatever they want to do. If Florida decides their tourism industry is more important than their energy needs, then they should be allowed to protect their beaches. If Alaska determines the revenue from oil is more important than the potential losses to their wilderness, then that should also be their decision.

I don't think it's "fair" for New Yorkers (or any state with plenty of legislative power but nothing to lose) to be able to decide issues that MOST directly affect Floridians or Alaskans.

My attitude here is consistent with my opinion that the federal government should not be allowed to "dictate" to Arizona or Utah that they MUST have nuclear waste dumps in their states, UNLESS, they are talking about dumps for waste that was produced in those states.

 

[WriterDom]

The majority of Alaskans, around 70% favor drilling. But no, lets leave the 20 billion barrels or more in the ground, then when less energy exploration has economic or social consequences we'll blame the republicans if they are in power and demand quick fixes, or big business if democrats are and demand price controls.
After all, who wants to mess up a flat, boggy, treeless place where temperatures can drop as low as 40 degrees below zero.

 

[Texan]

agrees

completely with WriterDom, however when I use even a little touch of sarcasm, I get blasted for it......

WD.... how do you get away with using sarcasm and avoid the tar and feathers?

 

[Starfish]

The majority of Alaskans, around 70% favor drilling. But no, lets leave the 20 billion barrels or more in the ground, then when less energy exploration has economic or social consequences we'll blame the republicans if they are in power and demand quick fixes, or big business if democrats are and demand price controls.
After all, who wants to mess up a flat, boggy, treeless place where temperatures can drop as low as 40 degrees below zero.

Out of genuine, ignorant curiosity...

How did you come to know that 70% are in favor. Did they poll everyone? When?

Just curious.


PC, Poop and gas are two different things.

Nope, the animals won't be hooked up. They'd be living in a contained 'environment'. I don't know for sure the details of 'how' I would separate the gases. This would require a air circulation system.


Here, let me give you an example of something I can relate to technical term.( I don't have the background yet to know how that it would be designed, just that I know it is possible.)

I use an overflow filtration chamber, housed under the tank, to filter the water of my 75 gallon fish tank. It removes things I don't want in the water.

I know that gas has density, and that with centrifugal extrapolation, anything can be separated.

So, now, all we have to do is get every rancher and what not, to give up their cows and pigs, and turn their grazing land into grain producing land.

Hey, don't get me wrong. I am a vegetarian. I don't even eat animals.
Hell, I think that Americans who eat anything other than free, range Chicken and Beef are directly contributing to an unethical act,(spend some time investingating the practices of the Tyson Corporation. It'll make you yak, if you aren't a cold hearted asshole that thinks animals don't feel sadness, pain and suffering. Then I guess that you wouldn't either then, huh?.)
If you eat fast food beef, you are directly responsible for funding the deforestating of the rainforest which is becoming a globally disasterous situation.


[rant]Yeah, you! The one eating that big mac. Thanks alot! I kind of wanted my unborn childern to be able to have a Brazillian rainforest to learn from, but thanks to you, that won't be possible. Assholes.[/rant]

Anyway, I think that the states should be allowed to decide. We don't have to live in the mess it could create, unless you are a resident. They should be impowered with this kind of desision, and if it doesn't go in favor of what everyone else wants, then they should have to come up with solutions to trade.......

It's like the issue of piping the Great Lakes water to dry regions.
Do it, and you will permenantly destroy the lake ecology by causing flooding of seawater from the Saint Lawrence Seaway.
Now what good is that going to do anyone if the Feds decided that for us. They aren't ecologists, they aren't Biologists, They are politicians!

Oh and if the Alaskans say go, then go..... If the Floridians say no, then no. Period. Cope with it.

 

[Problem Child]

PC, Poop and gas are two different things.\

I know this my little fishy friend. I know this because I visit the potty several times a day.

Nope, the animals won't be hooked up. They'd be living in a contained 'environment'. I don't know for sure the details of 'how' I would separate the gases. This would require a air circulation system.

Well, if you are concerned about the animals, keeping them warehoused in smelly, fart-gaseous buildings doesn't sound very nice. Not exactly what I'd call free-range.

You can only allow the methane they produce to reach a certain percentage before it becomes toxic to the animals themselves. Plus cattle ranchers would never do it simply because of the cost. Chickens and hogs are kept in confinement because that is the most efficient way to raise them. Cattle are a different story.


Here, let me give you an example of something I can relate to technical term.( I don't have the background yet to know how that it would be designed, just that I know it is possible.)

I use an overflow filtration chamber, housed under the tank, to filter the water of my 75 gallon fish tank. It removes things I don't want in the water.

I know that gas has density, and that with centrifugal extrapolation, anything can be separated.

So, now, all we have to do is get every rancher and what not, to give up their cows and pigs, and turn their grazing land into grain producing land.

This is good in theory, but in practice, a huge percentage of cattle in the U.S. at least are raised on rangeland that is not suitable for the production of crops, either because it is to steep to farm, or doesn't get enough rainfall, or is simply too infertile to yeild a decent crop of grain. By grazing cattle on it we are turning non-productive land into food-producing land.

Now before you start yelling at me, let me say I realize that cattle ranching is a very inefficient use of natural resources when you look at the number of acres of land and gallons of water it takes to produce a pound of food.

I am concerned that the rainforests are being destroyed by so-called "slash and burn" agriculture, where farmers go into an area of the forest and burn it down so they can have open areas for grazing. I would be very happy if the U.S. banned the importation of beef raised in this way. It might slow down deforestation and let our ranchers make a little more money along the way.

Hey, don't get me wrong. I am a vegetarian. I don't even eat animals.
Hell, I think that Americans who eat anything other than free, range Chicken and Beef are directly contributing to an unethical act,(spend some time investingating the practices of the Tyson Corporation. It'll make you yak, if you aren't a cold hearted asshole that thinks animals don't feel sadness, pain and suffering. Then I guess that you wouldn't either then, huh?.)
If you eat fast food beef, you are directly responsible for funding the deforestating of the rainforest which is becoming a globally disasterous situation.


[rant]Yeah, you! The one eating that big mac. Thanks alot! I kind of wanted my unborn childern to be able to have a Brazillian rainforest to learn from, but thanks to you, that won't be possible. Assholes.[/rant]

well...*sniff*I guess I'm an asshole because I had a hamburger today. I have no idea where it came from.

 

[WriterDom]

Out of genuine, ignorant curiosity...

How did you come to know that 70% are in favor. Did they poll everyone? When?

Of course they don't poll everyone. They use sampling. From what I read, every poll taken has been over 70% except for a brief period when the exxon ship spilled.

 

[p_p_man]

Whose got the choice here? States or Federal?

It would come down to the Federal Government in the end.

So long as America relies on oil production for its industrial and private needs oil will be drilled. Even if it means drilling up the whole of Alaska and the whole of Florida. The people won't have a say in it (unless you all decide to scrap your automobiles! - but you will have to start doing that now not tomorrow).

I'm comparing the USA with the UK a lot tonight but again we have a parallel. We have North Sea oil. But the actual field runs from the North Sea under the UK down to the Scilly Isles off the South West coast of the country.

If North Sea oil runs out and alternative arrangements can't be made then I have no doubts the Government will start drilling on the land. And that would be goodbye to the country as a whole...we'd probably sink!

 

[Texan]

on topic or off?

[rant]Yeah, you! The one eating that big mac. Thanks alot! I kind of wanted my unborn childern to be able to have a Brazillian rainforest to learn from, but thanks to you, that won't be possible. Assholes.[/rant]

Anyway, I think that the states should be allowed to decide. We don't have to live in the mess it could create, unless you are a resident. They should be impowered with this kind of desision, and if it doesn't go in favor of what everyone else wants, then they should have to come up with solutions to trade.......

Starfish darlin.... I agree with a lot of what you said... but it just wouldn't be any fun to point out all the ways we agree.... I am not going to get into the "vegetarian" issues... or the "animal rights" issues... but boy would that be fun...

I just wanted to address this issue of the Brazilian rain forest, because it's one about which the environmentalist movement has fed the world more "crap" than McDonalds could ever manage. I have spent more than 100 days each year in Brazil for the past 17 years. I have an apartment in Sao Paulo. I only say this so you'll understand that I love Brazil and have some knowledge of this topic.

The rain forest is being very slowly harvested. VERY SLOWLY. The people who are clearing land are not ranchers, looking for grazing land. Brazil has more grazing land available in the Pantanal than we have here in the U.S.. Land rights issues are a hot political topic in Brazil, where there is so much poverty. The people who are clearing small patches of 10 or 20 acres of land are doing it to have a small farm and make a subsistence living. The Brazilian government has made a small part of the land in the state of Amazonia available to private individuals who are willing to live on the land and farm it. There is absolutely ZERO beef being produced in Amazonia for export to the U.S. or any other country. In fact, Brazil is a huge consumer of beef, but the beef produced in Amazonia is not even approved for shipment to southern Brazil, where the cities and 80% of the population are located.

Environmental activist groups here in the U.S. and in Europe are making a lot of money by telling contributors that they want to use the money to stop deforestation in Brazil. The truth is, Brazil will not be influenced by outside activist groups. This "lands rights" issue is too important to Brazilian politicians to give it up to some outside group of "wackos". (Yes... that's how Brazilians view outside environmental activists.)

Brazil is not some small third world country. (even though it has some third world characteristics). Brazil is the seventh largest economy in the world (U.N. statistics 2000). Brazil is home of what is arguably the world's largest city (Sao Paulo). Brazil is slightly larger than the contintental U.S., with natural resources that any other country can only dream of. Brazil is 100 % energy independent (although the gov't rips off consumers). Brazil has the third largest automotive industry in the world, behind the U.S. and Japan. (that's right Germany) Brazil is also home of the 4th largest aircraft manufacturer (EMBRAER).

I could go on, but this is already way too long... noone will read it... however, Starfish.... don't believe everything the environmental activists tell you.... come on down and see for yourself...

 

[Barb Dwyer]

Starfish, as a vegetarian, I would think that you would be more concerned about the potential deadly effects of genetically modified foods.

Experts at the Food and Agricultural Organization and World Health Organization have been calling for allergenicity testing because of the mass implications. The 'accidental' introduction of Starlink into the food supply was just the latest cause for concern.

Recent studies have shown irregular IgE levels in the blood of individuals who have eaten GM foods. This will have minimal impact on most people, however, it can be fatal for those who are most at risk. And even if you currently do not suffer from any allergies, who's to say that new ones won't develop in response to this bioengineering?

I think I will stick with my meat because I believe that old commercial "It's not nice to fool with Mother Nature!"

And KM, as far as your question is concerned, I believe that whatever is in the best national interests will prevail. Of course, that encompasses a wide variety of issues including economic, environmental, political and social concerns. But that begs the question...does anyone remember oil shale?

 

[WriterDom]

Re: on topic or off?

I just wanted to address this issue of the Brazilian rain forest, because it's one about which the environmentalist movement has fed the world more "crap" than McDonalds could ever manage. I have spent more than 100 days each year in Brazil for the past 17 years. I have an apartment in Sao Paulo. I only say this so you'll understand that I love Brazil and have some knowledge of this topic.

Hell man, screw the rain forest. Tell us about the Brazilian women.

 

[Texan]

Re: Re: on topic or off?

Hell man, screw the rain forest. Tell us about the Brazilian women.

hahahahahahahahahaha...... damn...... Dom.... I needed that....

 

[Todd]

Re: on topic or off?

I could go on, but this is already way too long... noone will read it... however, Starfish.... don't believe everything the environmental activists tell you.... come on down and see for yourself...

I would read it, really i would and do, these thigns interest me, especially because you are putting in the human factor which, some sides like to neglect.

 

[Texan]

Re: Re: on topic or off?

I would read it, really i would and do, these thigns interest me, especially because you are putting in the human factor which, some sides like to neglect.

I appreciate that Todd.... I actually agree with you more than most people here seem to. I started to jump in, to your defense on that Afganistan thread. I thought it was funny that you asked a simple "rhetorical" question and everyone jumped down your throat. Then.... a page later... everyone was basically saying the same thing they jumped you for.....

That's why I asked WriterDom earlier... how does he get away with using sarcasm to make his points without being attacked.....

oh well.....

 

[Problem Child]

Texan

Thanks for your input on the rainforest issue.

It rebuts a lot of what I've heard about what goes on in the Amazon, but I will certainly pay closer attention the next time I see or read anything on the subject.