From: Matthew Russotto on
In article <kvydnafd4YLarnvWnZ2dnUVZ_vannZ2d(a)posted.carinet>,
5440 Dead, 573 since 1/20/09 <dead(a)dead.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 08 May 2010 21:26:58 -0500, Matthew Russotto wrote:
>
>> In article <8J5En.344637$K81.303465(a)newsfe18.iad>, lil abner
>> <@daisey.mae> wrote:
>>
>>>If they bring our economy to a screeching halt and ban all automobiles,
>>>air conditioners, and power plants pollution will not be reduced by 20%
>>>or whatever magic number they pull out of the air.
>>
>> No, it would be reduced by more like 80-90%. As would the population.
>> Wouldn't last long, though; the Chinese would love to have the real
>> estate.
>
>Well, you're correct: all the worlds' economies would completely crash,
>as would the human population.
>
>I would love to know why you think China would be spared. Don't they use
>gasoline, too?

I assumed they wouldn't be stupid enough to stop.
--
The problem with socialism is there's always
someone with less ability and more need.
From: 5440 Dead, 573 since 1/20/09 on
On Sun, 09 May 2010 13:17:13 -0500, russotto(a)grace.speakeasy.net
(Matthew Russotto) wrote:

>In article <kvydnafd4YLarnvWnZ2dnUVZ_vannZ2d(a)posted.carinet>,
>5440 Dead, 573 since 1/20/09 <dead(a)dead.com> wrote:
>>On Sat, 08 May 2010 21:26:58 -0500, Matthew Russotto wrote:
>>
>>> In article <8J5En.344637$K81.303465(a)newsfe18.iad>, lil abner
>>> <@daisey.mae> wrote:
>>>
>>>>If they bring our economy to a screeching halt and ban all automobiles,
>>>>air conditioners, and power plants pollution will not be reduced by 20%
>>>>or whatever magic number they pull out of the air.
>>>
>>> No, it would be reduced by more like 80-90%. As would the population.
>>> Wouldn't last long, though; the Chinese would love to have the real
>>> estate.
>>
>>Well, you're correct: all the worlds' economies would completely crash,
>>as would the human population.
>>
>>I would love to know why you think China would be spared. Don't they use
>>gasoline, too?
>
>I assumed they wouldn't be stupid enough to stop.

You realize that the Chinese economy is just one big bubble, right?
From: 5440 Dead, 573 since 1/20/09 on
On Sun, 09 May 2010 13:13:51 -0500, russotto(a)grace.speakeasy.net
(Matthew Russotto) wrote:

>In article <kvydnaTd4YIGr3vWnZ2dnUVZ_vY6AAAA(a)posted.carinet>,
>5440 Dead, 573 since 1/20/09 <dead(a)dead.com> wrote:
>>On Sat, 08 May 2010 21:37:52 -0500, Matthew Russotto wrote:
>>
>>> In article <i1j3u5p24l28lbq70sns2dk1an2dbbs14f(a)4ax.com>, 5440 Dead, 573
>>> since 1/20/09 <zeppp(a)finestplanet.com> wrote:
>>>>On Wed, 5 May 2010 12:00:41 -0700, "Jeff Strickland"
>>>><crwlrjeff(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Conscience" <nobama@göv.com> wrote in message
>>>>>news:hrqjpn$835$1(a)news.eternal-september.org...
>>>>>> On 2010-05-04 18:17:51 -0700, Phlip <phlip2005(a)gmail.com> said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On May 4, 4:45 pm, "Jeff Strickland" <crwlrj...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Do I feel guilty?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No, I do not.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Without regard to any other energy source, America needs oil.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Witness how emasculated the addict feels if he thinks his source is
>>>>>>> threatened.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Seriously.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Imagine, for example, a real estate business completely reliant on
>>>>>> gasoline to shuttle clients and personnel around to sites for sale.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Talk about addicts.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Or a person that performs services in your home and relies on gasoline
>>>>>to make a living.
>>>>>
>>>>>Addicts. Sheesh!
>>>>
>>>>Addicts in denial. Oil is a finite resource.
>>>
>>> So is oxygen. Want to stop using it?
>>
>>I love it when right wingers get up on their hind legs and try and make
>>scientifical noises at me.
>>
>>Oxygen is a renewable resource. As reactive as it is, it has to be or it
>>would vanish into rust in a few thousand years.
>
>Renewable is not the opposite of finite. Unlimited is the opposite of
>finite. Very little is unlimited; the second law of thermodynamics
>assures that. So blathering about how oil is a finite resource and
>implying that therefore we shouldn't rely on it is nonsense; we have
>no choice but to depend on finite resources, because that is all there
>is.

A strange thing for someone who advocates profligate waste to be
saying.

Yes, Earth is a closed system, except for the energy that comes in
from the sun and the relatively trivial amounts of matter in the form
of space dust.

But oil is not replenishable that we know of, and is a fairly
immediately finite. It would take a fair bit of doing to use up our
oxygen.

So: you remain an addict in denial.


>
>If you want to argue that oil will run out SOON, that's a different
>matter. But that can't be established by simply pointing out that oil
>is finite.
From: Matthew Russotto on
In article <9e4eu5pr95ke9e0rm8u1m7jinla76tt62n(a)4ax.com>,
5440 Dead, 573 since 1/20/09 <zeppp(a)finestplanet.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 09 May 2010 13:17:13 -0500, russotto(a)grace.speakeasy.net
>(Matthew Russotto) wrote:
>
>>In article <kvydnafd4YLarnvWnZ2dnUVZ_vannZ2d(a)posted.carinet>,
>>5440 Dead, 573 since 1/20/09 <dead(a)dead.com> wrote:
>>>On Sat, 08 May 2010 21:26:58 -0500, Matthew Russotto wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <8J5En.344637$K81.303465(a)newsfe18.iad>, lil abner
>>>> <@daisey.mae> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>If they bring our economy to a screeching halt and ban all automobiles,
>>>>>air conditioners, and power plants pollution will not be reduced by 20%
>>>>>or whatever magic number they pull out of the air.
>>>>
>>>> No, it would be reduced by more like 80-90%. As would the population.
>>>> Wouldn't last long, though; the Chinese would love to have the real
>>>> estate.
>>>
>>>Well, you're correct: all the worlds' economies would completely crash,
>>>as would the human population.
>>>
>>>I would love to know why you think China would be spared. Don't they use
>>>gasoline, too?
>>
>>I assumed they wouldn't be stupid enough to stop.
>
>You realize that the Chinese economy is just one big bubble, right?

The Chinese economy is dependent on the American and European
economies; through currency manipulation the Chinese leaders are
subsidizing the American and European consumer on the backs of their
own people (and naturally taking a big cut for themselves).

However, were the US to eliminate autos and power plants and crash,
while the Chinese economy would collapse, it would not fall as far,
and their military would be largely intact.
--
The problem with socialism is there's always
someone with less ability and more need.
From: Matthew Russotto on
In article <9h4eu5hldr77i56okufvcrplhrcmeoigd2(a)4ax.com>,
5440 Dead, 573 since 1/20/09 <zeppp(a)finestplanet.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 09 May 2010 13:13:51 -0500, russotto(a)grace.speakeasy.net
>(Matthew Russotto) wrote:
>>
>>Renewable is not the opposite of finite. Unlimited is the opposite of
>>finite. Very little is unlimited; the second law of thermodynamics
>>assures that. So blathering about how oil is a finite resource and
>>implying that therefore we shouldn't rely on it is nonsense; we have
>>no choice but to depend on finite resources, because that is all there
>>is.
>
>A strange thing for someone who advocates profligate waste to be
>saying.

I don't advocate profligate waste. I do advocate making use of
resources, including oil, rather than leaving them in the ground for
fear that they might run out. It's impossible to run civilization on
moonbeams and rainbows, and that applies whether or not the shift is
gradual or abrupt.
--
The problem with socialism is there's always
someone with less ability and more need.