English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Those countries that have fossil fuel in the ground will continue to sell it to anyone that wants it. Reducing your carbon footprint will only delay the inevitable and is a RED HERRING.
What politicians SHOULD be doing is finding ways of managing that inevitabilty and NOT sending us on wild goose chases.
NOTHING repeat NOTHING can take the place of Fluid Transportable Fuel (FTF) Diesel, Petrol & Gas etc. which is needed to plough fields, sow seeds, reap the harvest and distribute food for 6 billion people.
Solar Panels - NO
Batteries - NO
Wind turbines - NO
Nuclear - NO
Waves - NO
Bi-Mass - Would be insufficient

2007-06-07 04:54:28 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous in Environment Global Warming

10 answers

funny, i know a farmer that ran his car, and his tractors on ethanol during the last gas spike of the 80's.

but no, i doubt things will change until the last drop of fossil fuels are depleted.

2007-06-07 05:05:09 · answer #1 · answered by jj 5 · 1 0

I hate to burst your bubble, rain on your parade, or whatever...BUT recent research shows that oil is not a sole fossil fuel as was once thought. Scientists say they discovered that oil is constantly being created.

I was born and raised in an area where there are oil fields. About 40 years ago the oil wells were shut down and the fields were declared dry. Now, this year, oil has been discovered in such significantly large amounts in those same wells that companies are opening up those oil fields again. Estimates are the production could be as large as 1.5M barrels per year. The oil industry never produces the maximum capacity for various reasons.

By the way, if you know so much about fossil fuels you should have known that petrol is gasoline.

2007-06-07 05:21:26 · answer #2 · answered by Laredo 7 · 0 1

To answer your question, I think we will eventually use up all fossil fuels that can be obtained easily. We can, of course, delay when that happens. I don't understand why you have a problem with delaying the inevitable, because the longer our oil reserves last, the better off we'll be.

Your logic simply doesn't make sense, saying that reducing our carbon footprint is a red herring and we need to find a way of managing the inevitable depletion of oil reserves. How do you expect to deal with running out of fossil fuels if we don't have any alternatives?

The whole of reducing our carbon footprints is becoming less reliant on fossil fuels, so then we'll be ready when that resource runs out. Your premise of "don't become less reliant on fossil fuels because they're going to run out" makes no sense whatsoever.

2007-06-07 05:16:42 · answer #3 · answered by Dana1981 7 · 1 1

Renewable energy sources are not popular because of the economics. Right now its costlier to produce the same amount of energy that a gallon of gasoline can deliver. But with the right technology and govt policies (economics becomes a big part of the answer because of this factor) renewable can also become cheaper.

In the case of solar power you dont have to transport it. Its available everywhere. Its upto us on how we are going to harvest it and use it efficiently. I dont think it will be as costly as it is to process a barrel of crude from the oil fields to ur nearest gas station than to manufacture a solar panel large enough that delivers the same amount of energy as a barrel of crude does. It really boils down to our choices. When the oil cartels have so much buying power on whose side do you think the govt policies will lean to - solar power or oil?

2007-06-07 05:09:26 · answer #4 · answered by ping_anand 3 · 3 0

Well U are in luck as we will never run out of fossil fuels as the earth that automatic recycle system built in to our environment. The plants recycle our air but that is only the first step in its cycle. The plants take in the CO2and the plants give us back the O2 and holds onto the C as that is used to make the plants food so the more CO2 the better the plants grow. Then winter kills the leaves and they wash down the rivers to the delta where it deteriates into gas ,oil,and coal after a long time.

2007-06-07 05:11:55 · answer #5 · answered by JOHNNIE B 7 · 0 3

Yes we will keep burning fossil fuel, and yes poor countries which have it will continue to give it to richer countries that want it, and yes reducing our carbon footprint is only delaying the enevitable.

But, your question is kind of inconclusive, and the earlier answers are so far up through the clouds they are mostly in outer space (Clearly political correctness is far more important than factual correctness in todays schools)

This is what will happen during the lifetime of your children, your grandchildren, and perhaps your great grandchildren, not steadily, not in step, not all at once, not predictably, but in a series of cycles dictated by financial markets, political intervention, and natural disaster.

1. Population growth and increasing consumption in the developing nations will lead to increasing demand for fossil fuel. This is encouraged by the rich nations who profit from inreased production and higher fossil fuel prices.

2. Improvements in food production and health technology reduce famine, starvation, and disease but the population increase fuels the demand for more energy. There is a trend away from animal husbandry to make food production more efficient. A healthy balanced diet is restricted the rich. Evolving viral infections and new strains of disease impact far more on the poor nations than they do on the rich.

3. The increasing carbon footprint and deteriorating air quality resulting from increased energy consumption and deforestation means all humanity is living in conditions similar to those of urban England during the industrial revolution, but the population adapts itself to this. The rich are exempt because they have 'air conditioning'. The world cereal crops are exempt because they are genetically modified.

4. The price of fossil fuel rises with its scarcity, and the rich nations invest vast sums developing alternative energy sources. This is encouraged because it maintains production growth and reduces dependancy on fossil fuel but the benefits are only affordable to the worlds rich.

5. America and her "allies" win the war on terror - Osama bin Laden is captured dead, and peace is imposed in Iraq.

6. The ever increasing scarcity of fossil fuel gives rise to economic instability, manufacturing decline, and political unrest in the developing nations. Strikes, rioting, and dissent become commonplace in the developing nations. Terrorist groups and extremist factions gain power and influence. These begin to threaten world economic growth.

7. America discovers vast terrorist plots against the 'alliance of the willing' and makes a premptive defensive strike against China, or India, or Russia, or South East Asia, or wherever.

8. As soon as terrorism is defeated in one region of the globe it speads to another, and the war goes on until all developing nations are rendered defenceless and helpless.

9. The rich nations batten down the hatches, whilst the poor nations starve. 80% of humanity dies as a result of world disorder, but eventually the rich nations emerge to a cleaner, brighter, peace loving world with sufficient fossil fuel to last a hundred years.

That's what's going to happen. If it isn't why is America spending more on armaments than the rest of the world put together?

2007-06-07 19:44:43 · answer #6 · answered by Ynot 6 · 0 0

It is all about Units of Energy per Dollar.

As the cost of pulling the next barrel of oil out of the ground rises (and it is), society is motivated to find alternative sources of energy.

As the cost of batteries and renewable energy sources decreases (and they are), society is motivated to switch from coal/oil/gas to a renewable system.

We used to power everything by horse/ox.
Coal replaced it.
Oil partially replaced coal.
Renewables are starting to partially replace oil/coal.

The evolution of energy use continues.

2007-06-07 06:56:31 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

Fossil fuel is a misnomer. Oil is a geochemically produced substance, the result of ongoing processes deep within the crust. Oil is constantly being generated. May oil fields have been naturally replenished after having been drained.

They key to getting oil is to develop deep drilling techniques.

2007-06-07 05:04:57 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0 4

look at it from this point. Orson Wells once said, today's fiction, is tomorrows reality. so then look at the story (movie) Madd Max. that is what is going to happen when we run out of crude oil.

2007-06-07 05:05:48 · answer #9 · answered by waljac6108 5 · 2 0

there is only one way to go. update all nuclear power stations and convert all fossil fuel power stations to nuclear
safe clean power

2007-06-07 05:12:24 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

fedest.com, questions and answers