1
1
0
Can complex problems be solved by simplistic thinking and slogans? I hope you say no. I hope that you're open to contrarian ideas. I know that some (at least one) will discount this presentation because of its source. But, can you look past that and simply address the ideas? Can we stop clouding real issues with political jargon? Can anyone refute the ideas in this presentation with actual facts?
Fossil Fuels: The Greenest Energy
Posted from prageru.comPosted in these groups: 
Climate Change
Politics
Climate Change Politics
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 1
0
0
0
First he relies on the reader to not understand the difference between correlation and causation. We have money and we use lots of fossil fuels. Those nations who are underdeveloped, even though they don't use as much fossil fuels also have a hard time getting clean drinking water to all their people. They can't afford major sanitation projects to support the health of their populace because they can't or don't want to pay for them... not because they use less fossil fuels. The same goes for air quality, we spend billions on filters and scrubbers and other mechanisms to reduce our impact on the environment... poor nations do not. That's why their air quality sucks, even though they use less fossil fuels.
Then there was the amazing revelation that burning kerosene produces less carbon than burning wood... all these underdeveloped nations should run out and build an oil plant to produce electricity instead of burning wood? No, what they should be doing is trying to move to hydro, wind, solar and in some cases nuclear energy. The discussion of climate change is just as ridiculous.
You don't need facts to refute this crap, just a little common sense.
Then there was the amazing revelation that burning kerosene produces less carbon than burning wood... all these underdeveloped nations should run out and build an oil plant to produce electricity instead of burning wood? No, what they should be doing is trying to move to hydro, wind, solar and in some cases nuclear energy. The discussion of climate change is just as ridiculous.
You don't need facts to refute this crap, just a little common sense.
(0)
(0)
CPT Jack Durish
Then again, maybe you need some uncommon sense. Those of us who have served have seen these other nations. These other places where people live in abject poverty. What is their greatest need? What could elevate their lives? Energy. Cheap, abundant energy. And what is one of their major complaints? That developed nations like ours deprives them of what they need. When we attempt to warn them of the dangers of burning fossil fuels, to keep their clean air and unspoiled environment, they think that we just want to keep them poor and they rebel. In effect, that is what we are doing, isn't it? We are preaching the gospel of environmentalism and the net result is that they remain trapped in poverty, disease, and want.
(0)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
CPT Jack Durish - They are impoverished because they don't use enough fossil fuels which would further pollute their air and water. That is certainly some uncommon sense.
How do we deprive them of what they need? If anything by using less fossil fuels, reduced demand and lower prices allows these nations greater access to fossil fuels.
How do we deprive them of what they need? If anything by using less fossil fuels, reduced demand and lower prices allows these nations greater access to fossil fuels.
(0)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
In 2006, the courts ruled that major domestic cigarette manufacturers were guilty of conspiring to deny, distort, and minimize the hazards of cigarette smoking to the public and ordered corrective statements to correct these deceptions. At some point in the future the fossil fuel industry will face the same backlash for all the misinformation it funds... we can only hope and pray that happens sooner rather than later.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google