ForgotPassword?
Sign Up
Search this Topic:
Forum Jump
Posts: 115
Aug 29 07 9:53 AM
And while it is perfectly legitimate to address this topic from a scientific point of view (as I have), I doubt you've got the background to do so, from what I've read elsewhere, but I am willing to be shown otherwise
it is equally legitimate to also address it from an ethical, & or moral point of view (as I have). And after I did, you replied derisively, because you disagree.
And in such disagreements, it's perfectly acceptable to attempt to cite the hypocrisy of one's debate opponent, by citing a contradiction between analogous positions (as it seems I have).
Well MG, that's not very bright. It's plain for all to see that your position is to ignore the direct question. And in light of your style, and such redirected pettiness as:
Indicates you're not comfortable with your answer. It doesn't require an Einstein to figure out why.
I know for a fact you did not answer explicitly, which means, in the context of the rest of your post, your implicit answer is fairly obvious. But there's no point in speculating or squabbling about it. You can put an end to all that simply by declaring your position on it.
Or do you prefer bickering; or trying to "win" against an opponent, instead of cooperatively seeking truth & solution through constructive clarity?
Posts: 1755
Aug 29 07 10:48 AM
Sear---You've got it precisely backward Druid. Science must be questioned.
Innovation and critical (sometimes antagonistic) peer review are major cogs in the scientific engine. But questioning scientific assumptions, and acknowledging scientific consensus are two different things.
If you can quote a recognized body of accredited scientists that assert that oil consumption can NOT be reduced, I'll retract my statement. Until then, I stand by it.
The barrier is not scientific possibility, it's economic disincentive, and societal status quo.
You can't possibly disagree with me about that; IF you hold the position you claim. I think we should do more than "attempt" it. I think we should DO it.
To paraphrase Yoda: - There is no try. There's only doing, or not doing. -
Posts: 316
Aug 29 07 11:33 AM
Bartender
Aug 29 07 12:50 PM
I haven't looked into plastics production in some time, however I was under the impression that plastics were now being created without the overly large use of petrochemicals as they had been in the past. Am I in error in this thought? Fiery Red
The term "plastics" encompasses organic materials, such as the elements carbon (C), hydrogen (H), nitrogen (N), chlorine (Cl) and sulfur (S), which have properties similar to those naturally grown in organic materials such as wood, corn and rosin. Organic materials are based on polymers, which are produced by the conversion of natural products or by syththesis from primary chemicals coming from oil, natural gas or coal. The plastic manufacturing process begins by heating the hydrocarbons in a "cracking process." Here, in the presence of a catalyst, larger molecules are broken down into smaller ones such as ethylene (ethene) C2H4, propylene (propene) C3H6, and butene C4H8 and other hydrocarbons. The yield of ethylene is controlled by the cracking temperature and is more than 30% at 850°C and such products as styrene and vinyl chloride can be produced in subsequent reactions. These are then the starting materials for several other types of plastics. Therefore, this process results in the conversion of the natural gas or crude oil components into monomers such as ethylene, propylene, butene and styrene. These monomers are then chemically bonded into chains called polymers. Different combinations of monomers yield plastic resins with different properties and characteristics. Each monomer yields a plastic resin with different properties and characteristics. Combinations of monomers produce copolymers with further property variations.
Posts: 6089
Aug 29 07 1:11 PM
Fairly Regular For His Age
"I doubt you've got the background to do so, from what I've read elsewhere, but I am willing to be shown otherwise"* author unknown, perhaps MG
"blithely accepting 50,000 dead per year from fossil fuel use ..." MG
"Some say coal is the U.S.' most abundant fossil fuel. But if we apply the -it might kill somebody someday- standard to that, the stats I've read indicate ~50,000 Americans per year die to the health affects of coal fired power plants. That includes, mercury pollution, acid rain, air particulates, etc." sear
"I just thought that this (original = "The science is beyond dispute") was funny in a new light of sciences infallibility. Still do " Druid
"I don't agree with your statement that there is a "societal status quo"(at least in any one particular country) and I did agree (with your assumption) that because Global marketing politics are driving oil consumption to outer limits oil production can not maintain the pace for world consumer demands and consumers seem disinterested in forcing a change." Druid
"I assumed (erroneously I suppose) that is what I was TRYING to do. (show how to reduce oil consumption)" Druid
"plastics were now being created without the overly large use of petrochemicals as they had been in the past." Red
Aug 29 07 1:30 PM
Aug 29 07 1:49 PM
"My apologizes on butting in on a conversation that I've not contributed to before ..." Red
"As for celluloid being a useful substitute, you are surely not serious. A more dangerous substance is not to be found that was in common usage. Fiery Red"
Aug 29 07 2:03 PM
Aug 29 07 4:17 PM
"pesticides and gasoline are specialized usages" Red
"A more dangerous substance is not to be found that was in common usage. Fiery Red"
Aug 29 07 4:28 PM
Very well. If you wish to insert the word "specialized" at the syntactically appropriate place in the following sentence, I'll offer no objection
Aug 29 07 6:30 PM
"are you very sure that projectors utilize that form of lighting today?" Red
Posts: 180
Aug 30 07 6:26 PM
sear wrote: The barrier is not scientific possibility, it's economic disincentive, and societal status quo.
Sorry, may I cut in? ... Hmmm? ... I'll take that as a yes.
I believe that our problem is individual desire versus the common good. Until we find a way to curtail private consumption (by persuasion not mandate) and fuel an economic engine devoted tearing down the barrier we stand little chance of solving the problem. The challenge is two-fold; reduce consumption and develop renewable energy. Altering lifestyles and reinvesting profits rather than taking dividends will both involve sacrifice but then, so did WWII and the Apollo program.
We must change our habits and attitudes, that or hand a worse situation to our grandchildren than the circumstances which were handed to us. We must admit, after all, that our culture of consumption has radically altered that which was passed down to us.
Aug 30 07 8:03 PM
"source" said: http://articles.news.aol.com/business/_a/bio-plastics-revival-makes-gains-at/20070419064409990001?cid=1712 Although most petroleum-based chemicals remain substantially cheaper, high oil prices have bolstered the economic rationale for making plastics, foam and lubricants from plants grown in the Midwest. Soybeans and corn are showing up in carpets, disposable cups, salad bags, AstroTurf, candles, lipstick, socks, surfboards, cooling fluid in utility transformers, and even the body panels of Deere & Co. harvesting combines. There has also been growing demand from retail giants like Wal-Mart Stores Inc., newly sensitive to environmental pressure, for packaging made from renewable plastic.-------- ------------------------------ While the fledgling biochemicals market is meager, some adherents figure it could be a $150 billion industry if optimistic projections -- that they will replace 10% of the petroleum used to make chemicals globally by 2020 -- pan out. Today, less than 2% of U.S. chemicals come from crops. "Clearly, momentum is building," says Bhima R. Vijayendran, a chemist working on making polymers from crops at Battelle.
Aug 30 07 8:14 PM
"I believe that our problem is individual desire versus the common good." p8
"The barrier is not scientific possibility, it's economic disincentive, and societal status quo." sear
Aug 30 07 8:56 PM
Aug 31 07 5:20 AM
Sep 1 07 2:19 AM
"At what point do we cease looking to government to "solve" our problems?" p8
"Sear is your home insulated with blown in cellulose insulation?" Druid
Share This
The Out Campaign