Ugly babies 8

Comments View as Flat

1. 

   Ron Steenblik Posted 12:37 pm
   17 Jul 2008

   Xenofuelophobia?(Anybody know the Latin word for "fuel"?)
   In any case, stupid. Does that mean that Mr. Pickens regards all foreign sources of fuel equally? Does he put Brazil and Canada in the same category as Iran and Venezuela?
   Here's another T. Boone quote: "I'd rather have ethanol, and recirculate the money in the country, than to have it go out the back door on us."
   A writer to the Food and Fuel America blog, which features that quote, responded thusly:
   Nice if true but when it costs more to produce something in your country then to buy it from abroad, it means you are using up more of resources whether labor, natural or financial than you have to. Those resources don't get recirculated, they get flushed down the toilet.
   
   These are only my personal opinions.

   Permalink

2. 

   justlou Posted 8:29 pm
   17 Jul 2008

   Imports vs. "Domestic" -- A Tangled WebSo just how domestic is home grown corn?  A good chunk of nitrogen fertilizer used to produce corn is now imported.  And the diesel fuel used as a transport and farm production fuel.  And the petroleum used in the manufacture of herbicides and other ag chemicals.  The best we can say about corn ethanol is that it is "assembled" in America on a river of imported oil and a stream of domestic coal trains.  Now that is some green independence there.  
   And how about some of the blow back as the high price of corn affects our domestic food production?  Well, I don't know about you, but, I'll be eating less catfish now that I realize more of it will be imported from Viet Nam and China:
   
   "As Price of Corn Rises, Catfish Farms Dry Up"
   
   http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/18/business/18catfish.html ...

   Permalink

3. 

   stopgreenpath Posted 6:07 am
   18 Jul 2008

   as long as he profitsthis guy is a mercenary.  i am so sick of him being referred to as "energy independence" friendly, since  he's just looking to make us all dependent on HIM for energy, instead of anyone else.
   all that patriotism and independence talk is just total crap.  he is loyal to one guy, only.  himself.
   what's good for america is REAL energy independence from Big Energy Monopolies.  we ain't gonna get it by wasting all our taxpayer money and land on building infrastructure for creeps like Pickens, who will INEVITABLY turn around and hijack us.  you think because the fuel is free we will share the weath?  no chance - nobody's even asking for price caps or any other guarantees that our money will benefit us other than increasing (NOT REPLACING COAL) wind and solar energy output.  seems like a pretty small return on investment when there are much better solutions.
   why can't we spend our own tax dollars on building out ubiquitous point of use renewables instead?  feed in tariffs like 40 of those "damn foreign countries" already have?  and save our open spaces for the plants, animals and humans to enjoy?
   the problem is not "foreign monopolies."  it is "all monopolies."  please do not be fooled.
   
   the greenest energy is that which you needn't ever produce.

   Permalink

4. 

   caniscandida Posted 4:12 pm
   18 Jul 2008

   "our baby"Sorry, I am a hopeless liberal, according to Peter Beinart, author of an interesting essay on "patriotism" as part of a recent cover story for Time magazine.  Which is just as well, because I have no intention of running for president of the US.
   The point is, it is unethical for Americans, most of them the richest people on the planet as well as the richest people in all history, to put American interests above those of people of other countries.
   And I suspect that, more commercially, the globalized petroleum industry's leaders understand that: in their economic terms, that the flow of petroleum from the Persian Gulf, Nigeria, Russia, Alaska, etc., needs to be preserved, not for the good of any one isolated insulated country, but because the good of all of us, everywhere, depends on the flourishing of all of us, everywhere.
   As I have written before, "Energy Independence!" is a frightening battle-cry.  In principle it is perhaps OK; it would indeed be sweet if all the energy needs of the residents of the US could be satisfied by resources of one kind or another available to us within our borders.  And the point that Tom Friedman made years ago, that it does not do us good to keep putting big bucks in the hands of Middle Eastern potentates, makes sense.  BUT,
   
   
   we are not entitled to carry out environmental destruction, in the search for fossil fuels;
   it is in our interest, economically, to make sure that the energy needs of everyone are satisfied;
   it is in our interest, ethically, to make sure that the energy needs of everyone are satisfied.
   
   
   American exclusivity is a horror.  If all American patriotism amounts to is shouting "USA!  USA!  USA!," and insisting that the US is the greatest country in the world, and voting for politicians following the example of Ronald Reagan, who cultivated such sentiments, then those "patriots" are heirs to a heritage that they have disgracefully drained, made shallow, made stagnant, made fetid.
   To my friend Ron:
   
   You do not want a Latin word for "fuel" at all, seeing that "xeno-" and "-phobia" are Greek elements.  The modern Greek word, with a clear ancient etymology, for "fuel" or "combustibles" is the neuter plural noun "kausima."  So perhaps the noun that you wish to construct might be "xenocausimophobia."
   
   Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

   Permalink

5. 

   amazingdrx Posted 4:38 pm
   18 Jul 2008

   He should stick to natural gasThat's our baby, and wind, another baby.  And solar.  And wave power and ocean current.  And biogas from waste, that baby can offset natural gas CO2 emissions to make us carbon neutral.
   Ethanol?  That's an agribizz pork barrel abortion.  Flush it.
   
   http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

   Permalink

6. 

   amazingdrx Posted 4:42 pm
   18 Jul 2008

   Pots and kettlesBoth black.
   "In any case, stupid. Does that mean that Mr. Pickens regards all foreign sources of fuel equally? Does he put Brazil and Canada in the same category as Iran and Venezuela?"
   Why import something that we don't need, we have more than enough renewable energy right here?  
   
   http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

   Permalink

7. 

   Ron Steenblik Posted 6:06 pm
   18 Jul 2008

   How embarassingHad I thought for a few more sentences, Canis, I would have realized that xeno- and -phobia were Greek, not Latin. Honest!
   But I knew, that you, my classically trained friend, Canis, would come through for me in the end. I like "xenocausimophobia." The fact that it uses exactly half of the letters of the alphabet commends it, as does its eight sylables. It's a good word; let's use it.
   
   These are only my personal opinions.

   Permalink

8. 

   caniscandida Posted 6:45 pm
   18 Jul 2008

   Another derivative in Englishfrom the same Greek verb, "kauo," meaning "burn," is "holocaust," meaning something entirely burnt, with reference to certain sacrifices commanded in Torah, especially Leviticus.
   Needless to say, the term "Holocaust" has assumed a special significance, referring to the collection and confinement of European Jews by the German Nazis and their allies, and especially the unspeakably brutal murder of around 6 million of those Jewish captives.  I am sorry to have to admit, though, that I do not know why the biblical religous term "holocaust" ended up being used in that way.
   Meanwhile, we might also spare a moment to remember all the animals, the countless animals, who have been sacrificed in proper religious rituals, in various traditions, Mesopotamian, biblical, Greek, Roman, Vedic, and so forth.
   
   Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

   Permalink