Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

The claims made by biodiesel purveyors that it's carbon neutral

loki old fart wrote:

Grignard wrote:

rocklord2004 wrote:You act like theres any proven science behind all of these hippy claims.........

Feel free to show evidence from a viable source to prove me wrong. I do find it funny that it was only within the last couple of years they refined paper recycling to where it was actually mildly good for the environment.

I'm an environmental chemist. I'm a lab rat, but still...You do realize there are entire peer edited journals dedicated to this right? I test or receive and ship samples every day that have all manner of garbage in them you wouldn't want to be in contact with. I can assure you that the science behind this is quite well established.

And theres a lot of false information out there. Most of it just marketing ploys

I hear ya, bro. Thems scientists is slippery than greased snake's backside. I still ain' sold on any of that old heliocentrism bull either!

Exactly. Hence why my statement was directed at the "hippie" types. Not the people who actually perform the science that helps our environment in a manner that also attempts to keep the average persons comfort level where it is. True science helps the environment. Protesting things without research leads to people doing social experiments and getting over 200 people at a rally to try and ban the use of dihydrogen monoxide. Yes. Hippies signed a petition to try and stop people from using water.

loki old fart wrote:

Grignard wrote:

rocklord2004 wrote:You act like theres any proven science behind all of these hippy claims.........

Feel free to show evidence from a viable source to prove me wrong. I do find it funny that it was only within the last couple of years they refined paper recycling to where it was actually mildly good for the environment.

I'm an environmental chemist. I'm a lab rat, but still...You do realize there are entire peer edited journals dedicated to this right? I test or receive and ship samples every day that have all manner of garbage in them you wouldn't want to be in contact with. I can assure you that the science behind this is quite well established.

And theres a lot of false information out there. Most of it just marketing ploys

Oh sure, there are lots of people who will try to sell anything by sticking a "green" label on it.

But there are a lot of folks working in the field trying to make life better. To give a good example, blood lead levels have been shown to have decreased by somewhere around 50% on average since tetraethyl lead was phased out in the US ( thats an average over the studies that have been done).

rocklord2004 wrote:True science helps the environment.

No, not really, because 'helping' the environment implies that the environment is something which can be helped. It isn't, it can be affected in order to achieve a specific end, but that's not 'helping'.

dogma wrote:

rocklord2004 wrote:True science helps the environment.

No, not really, because 'helping' the environment implies that the environment is something which can be helped. It isn't, it can be affected in order to achieve a specific end, but that's not 'helping'.

Like I say to anybody who makes claims that something helps anything I will say the same to you. Wheres the proof? To disprove something evidence is required. What grounds do you have that the environment cannot be helped?

rocklord2004 wrote:
Like I say to anybody who makes claims that something helps anything I will say the same to you. Wheres the proof? To disprove something evidence is required. What grounds do you have that the environment cannot be helped?

How do you help something that cannot itself be said to be good or bad outside of the human perception of its habitability? The environment is not concious, it cannot tell us what it wants, or what is good for it. We don't help the environment, we alter it to fit our needs and wants.

Henners91 wrote:So a lot of people in the world love their huge tank-vehicles.

SUVs, 4x4s, Hummers, y'know.

Now, granted some people think Global Warming is a ton of rubbish (for some reason) how can ANYONE argue against this logic:

Oil = Finite resource.

For the sake of mankind, consumption is rising every year... Do your bit to stop wasting the irreplenishable, once we replace it with something else, go ahead.. But Jeez, I hate seeing people who use agricultural vehicles and the like simply as status symbols... At the end of my road is a private school and you see the blonde housewife-mothers in their sunglasses with their huge vehicles with blacked out windows emitting the carbon equivalent of a Chinese Coal Plant and what's the cargo? One little kid on the backseat... Really not worth the price!

I'm expecting to be bombarded with some Libertarian "I make my money I can spend it how I please": I offer the preemptive counter, show some duty to your fellow man... Unless you drive that car specifically to show others that you just don't care about mankind.

To be honest, I don't believe in global warming. And we arn't going to run out of oil in my life time, the faster we use it, the faster we can get to something that you people who do believe in global warming will be happy with(economy efficient cars or whatnot). So you really should be happy we are driving these gas hogs, we are trying to run the oil supply out, so we get more efficient cars.

Henners91 wrote:And yet the European Union with a Population 1/3rd less than the United States' produces 13.8% of the world's emissions compared to the US' 20.2%

Not that this is about emissions as a topic, I just assume that means more coal and oil is being burnt...

China's the worst ofc.

Okay, how many Europeans own cars? What does the average Euro use to commute everyday? How old are the oldest cities in Europe?

Just having a raw number like 13.8% doesn't delve into the reasons. It only shows that the EU has less cars and more people using Public transit. It's practically a necessity, unlike the US (in major cities) where the avearge person lives outside of the city they work in. The Bus can only go so far and trains are either for freight or are government subsidised AMTRAK.

It's also unfair to compare US cities to European ones since the average road in Euopean cities is pretty narrow. It's no knock, but the result of having a city that is over 600 years old (or older).

The average Euro car is much smaller than US ones too. Once again, it's not a knock since the roads are smaller, the cars need to be too. Everything seems to be smaller in the EU.

Comparing the US and Europe isn't useful info, we have mid sized states that are larger than the largest Western European country. Comparing Apples and Oranges there.

China doesn't like the environment, and curiously enough, they don't have protestors either.


I drive a 2007 Mustang GT, I will NEVER quit driving that car.


Here's a modest solution to feul economy: http://www.watertogas.com/

dogma wrote:

rocklord2004 wrote:
Like I say to anybody who makes claims that something helps anything I will say the same to you. Wheres the proof? To disprove something evidence is required. What grounds do you have that the environment cannot be helped?

How do you help something that cannot itself be said to be good or bad outside of the human perception of its habitability? The environment is not concious, it cannot tell us what it wants, or what is good for it. We don't help the environment, we alter it to fit our needs and wants.

Well the definition of "help" actually lets us know how this can be done. I choose to use "help   /hɛlp/ Show Spelled[help] Show IPA
–verb (used with object)
1. to give or provide what is necessary to accomplish a task or satisfy a need; contribute strength or means to; render assistance to; cooperate effectively with; aid; assist:"

In one of your previous posts you said it can be affected in order to achieve a specific end. Looks like it fits the definition of help so yes, the environment can be helped.

rocklord2004 wrote:
Well the definition of "help" actually lets us know how this can be done. I choose to use

"help   /hɛlp/ Show Spelled[help] Show IPA
–verb (used with object)
1. to give or provide what is necessary to accomplish a task or satisfy a need; contribute strength or means to; render assistance to; cooperate effectively with; aid; assist:"

In one of your previous posts you said it can be affected in order to achieve a specific end. Looks like it fits the definition of help so yes, the environment can be helped.

The end in question is not the end of the environment, but the end of the people working to affect the environment, so no, the environment cannot be helped. In order to help something it must be capable accomplishing tasks, and the environment is not.

The only way the words fits is in the event that we are said to cooperate effectively with the environment as a necessary part of it, which renders the idea of helping the environment meaningless as we would always be helping it simply through our presence.

The claims made by biodiesel purveyors that it's carbon neutral

I'm sure it is. On a certain level, fossil fuels are carbon neutral too... The difference is the carbon in them was fixed millions of years ago. And by "fixed" I mean formed into a molecule other than CO2.

While I am not a global warming denier, I do think two things:

1) Global warming is not nearly as rapid, severe or dire as the advocates claim, and while there is some evidence it's caused by man, this is far from proven fact. While I'm sure they do care about the earth, I think "climate change" has become a political ploy, rife with deception and manipulation, and is more useful as a club for the left than something that will better the world.

2) All this conservation garbage is a red herring. We're not going to drive Priuses and unplug phone chargers and make everything all better. It's going to take a game changing invention, something like plasma fusion, something that generates power on a new strata from what we can do now. With unlimited power, you can build massive carbon scrubbers, and synthesize fuels, and all is well.

There are some "conservation" issues that are actually valid. Destruction of habitats, overfishing, etc. This stuff is real, and responsible use can make a big difference.

Ultimately "climate change" is one of the rhetorical devices in the religion of the left. It is the functional equivalent of the monotheists' hell, or the Buddhists "reincarnation as a doorknob." It's this vague threat to hang over people, and then to assure them you can solve if they'll just put their faith, money and votes in you.

Why do people drive polluting cars? Because they're feths. Pure and simple. Human garbage.

They rape the system and then enjoy their pitiful fething lives while they make everyone else's lives worse.

I so want to buy a dually pickup to drive around town with a bumper sticker that says:

"I feth Mother Nature because I'm human garbage" while revving the engine every chance I get and laughing because I need to fill my tank every 50 miles.

Henners91 wrote:So a lot of people in the world love their huge tank-vehicles.

SUVs, 4x4s, Hummers, y'know.

Now, granted some people think Global Warming is a ton of rubbish (for some reason) how can ANYONE argue against this logic:

Oil = Finite resource.

For the sake of mankind, consumption is rising every year... Do your bit to stop wasting the irreplenishable, once we replace it with something else, go ahead.. But Jeez, I hate seeing people who use agricultural vehicles and the like simply as status symbols... At the end of my road is a private school and you see the blonde housewife-mothers in their sunglasses with their huge vehicles with blacked out windows emitting the carbon equivalent of a Chinese Coal Plant and what's the cargo? One little kid on the backseat... Really not worth the price!

I'm expecting to be bombarded with some Libertarian "I make my money I can spend it how I please": I offer the preemptive counter, show some duty to your fellow man... Unless you drive that car specifically to show others that you just don't care about mankind.

Dude i have already lsot all hope for mankind.... weve royaly fethed ourselves and the planet, now on topic i love my 4 cylender ford ranger to bits, and i realy only use it to get to work


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Fateweaver wrote:Perhaps if we drilled in more locations oil wouldn't be an issue. Oh wait, we tried that, an accident happened and now we won't ever try that again because the administration will listen to the "i told you so's" coming from the tree huggers.

Im goin to say that your statement there is very wrong, first off: who the hells goin to lsiten to tree huggers , secoundly the companies only say they care about the environment but all there thinking about is the $$$$$$$$$$$$

dogma wrote:

rocklord2004 wrote:
Well the definition of "help" actually lets us know how this can be done. I choose to use

"help   /hɛlp/ Show Spelled[help] Show IPA
–verb (used with object)
1. to give or provide what is necessary to accomplish a task or satisfy a need; contribute strength or means to; render assistance to; cooperate effectively with; aid; assist:"

In one of your previous posts you said it can be affected in order to achieve a specific end. Looks like it fits the definition of help so yes, the environment can be helped.

The end in question is not the end of the environment, but the end of the people working to affect the environment, so no, the environment cannot be helped. In order to help something it must be capable accomplishing tasks, and the environment is not.

The only way the words fits is in the event that we are said to cooperate effectively with the environment as a necessary part of it, which renders the idea of helping the environment meaningless as we would always be helping it simply through our presence.

Let me put it in simpler terms since you seem to lack a basic understanding of what the actual discussion is about despite your attempt to throw large words in the way. lets call your face the environment, and lets call a baseball bat humanity in general. If said bat was to be used to beat your face in it clearly would be doing harm. If whoever was assaulting you with the bat were to stop it would help the situation. Yes this is a crude and somewhat flawed analogy but so is your pointless argument. Yes humans have done damage to the environment and some of humanity (myself included) aren't going to do anything to help. The people who are properly dedicating time with true reasearch, science, and take steps to reduce and reverse the damage people like me do is helping. I can rework my violence analogy for you if needed or if youd like I can try and dumb my statements down to your level. Personally I would prefer it if you would get back under your bridge and let the discussion wander back to something with a point.

Stormrider wrote:]

Okay, how many Europeans own cars?

Over here the cars own us.

rocklord2004 wrote:

dogma wrote:

rocklord2004 wrote:
Well the definition of "help" actually lets us know how this can be done. I choose to use

"help   /hɛlp/ Show Spelled[help] Show IPA
–verb (used with object)
1. to give or provide what is necessary to accomplish a task or satisfy a need; contribute strength or means to; render assistance to; cooperate effectively with; aid; assist:"

In one of your previous posts you said it can be affected in order to achieve a specific end. Looks like it fits the definition of help so yes, the environment can be helped.

The end in question is not the end of the environment, but the end of the people working to affect the environment, so no, the environment cannot be helped. In order to help something it must be capable accomplishing tasks, and the environment is not.

The only way the words fits is in the event that we are said to cooperate effectively with the environment as a necessary part of it, which renders the idea of helping the environment meaningless as we would always be helping it simply through our presence.

Let me put it in simpler terms since you seem to lack a basic understanding of what the actual discussion is about despite your attempt to throw large words in the way. lets call your face the environment, and lets call a baseball bat humanity in general. If said bat was to be used to beat your face in it clearly would be doing harm. If whoever was assaulting you with the bat were to stop it would help the situation. Yes this is a crude and somewhat flawed analogy but so is your pointless argument. Yes humans have done damage to the environment and some of humanity (myself included) aren't going to do anything to help. The people who are properly dedicating time with true reasearch, science, and take steps to reduce and reverse the damage people like me do is helping. I can rework my violence analogy for you if needed or if youd like I can try and dumb my statements down to your level. Personally I would prefer it if you would get back under your bridge and let the discussion wander back to something with a point.

Three wings are better.

I know dogma can throw really solid punches, but I agree that his use of words was confusing. Dogma dropped a shell in your wing... your going down... (refer to reference picture, for information regarding how it would look... but use your imagination).

Rework your analogy.

Stormrider wrote:

Henners91 wrote:And yet the European Union with a Population 1/3rd less than the United States' produces 13.8% of the world's emissions compared to the US' 20.2%

Not that this is about emissions as a topic, I just assume that means more coal and oil is being burnt...

China's the worst ofc.

Okay, how many Europeans own cars? What does the average Euro use to commute everyday? How old are the oldest cities in Europe?

Just having a raw number like 13.8% doesn't delve into the reasons. It only shows that the EU has less cars and more people using Public transit. It's practically a necessity, unlike the US (in major cities) where the avearge person lives outside of the city they work in. The Bus can only go so far and trains are either for freight or are government subsidised AMTRAK.

It's also unfair to compare US cities to European ones since the average road in Euopean cities is pretty narrow. It's no knock, but the result of having a city that is over 600 years old (or older).

The average Euro car is much smaller than US ones too. Once again, it's not a knock since the roads are smaller, the cars need to be too. Everything seems to be smaller in the EU.

Comparing the US and Europe isn't useful info, we have mid sized states that are larger than the largest Western European country. Comparing Apples and Oranges there.

China doesn't like the environment, and curiously enough, they don't have protestors either.


I drive a 2007 Mustang GT, I will NEVER quit driving that car.


Here's a modest solution to feul economy: http://www.watertogas.com/

Can you show me statistics to back this up? Most families I know here in the UK tend to own one car per person and I gather it's similar in Western Europe: What makes you so sure we have less cars?

Does the size of the states matter? Surely emissions should be measured by population?

Interesting link.


What I'm wondering is why it seems that Europeans are ready to accept environmental claims and yet most opposition you'll encounter on the interwebs stems from inhabitants of one particular country...

I think the best answer to the OP is: For poops and giggles.

Henners91 wrote:

Stormrider wrote:

Henners91 wrote:And yet the European Union with a Population 1/3rd less than the United States' produces 13.8% of the world's emissions compared to the US' 20.2%

Not that this is about emissions as a topic, I just assume that means more coal and oil is being burnt...

China's the worst ofc.

Okay, how many Europeans own cars? What does the average Euro use to commute everyday? How old are the oldest cities in Europe?

Just having a raw number like 13.8% doesn't delve into the reasons. It only shows that the EU has less cars and more people using Public transit. It's practically a necessity, unlike the US (in major cities) where the avearge person lives outside of the city they work in. The Bus can only go so far and trains are either for freight or are government subsidised AMTRAK.

It's also unfair to compare US cities to European ones since the average road in Euopean cities is pretty narrow. It's no knock, but the result of having a city that is over 600 years old (or older).

The average Euro car is much smaller than US ones too. Once again, it's not a knock since the roads are smaller, the cars need to be too. Everything seems to be smaller in the EU.

Comparing the US and Europe isn't useful info, we have mid sized states that are larger than the largest Western European country. Comparing Apples and Oranges there.

China doesn't like the environment, and curiously enough, they don't have protestors either.


I drive a 2007 Mustang GT, I will NEVER quit driving that car.


Here's a modest solution to feul economy: http://www.watertogas.com/

Can you show me statistics to back this up? Most families I know here in the UK tend to own one car per person and I gather it's similar in Western Europe: What makes you so sure we have less cars?

Does the size of the states matter? Surely emissions should be measured by population?

Interesting link.


What I'm wondering is why it seems that Europeans are ready to accept environmental claims and yet most opposition you'll encounter on the interwebs stems from inhabitants of one particular country...

I am trying to point out that our commutes are longer. Where I live, there are no commuter trains, the buses have homeless people on them and we have cities all around us that have people commute into our city.

We do things differently, sorry.

Why? Have you ever tried to run over pedestrians with a Prius? It's rediculus! So I bought a Humvee and now everyone is happy! I get one-shot-kills which gives me bonus points of +50, they die fast and don't have to wriggle in pain and it's easier for the street dogs to eat em up since every bone in their body have gone snap crackle pop.



Any questions?

Stormrider wrote:

Henners91 wrote:

Stormrider wrote:

Henners91 wrote:And yet the European Union with a Population 1/3rd less than the United States' produces 13.8% of the world's emissions compared to the US' 20.2%

Not that this is about emissions as a topic, I just assume that means more coal and oil is being burnt...

China's the worst ofc.

Okay, how many Europeans own cars? What does the average Euro use to commute everyday? How old are the oldest cities in Europe?

Just having a raw number like 13.8% doesn't delve into the reasons. It only shows that the EU has less cars and more people using Public transit. It's practically a necessity, unlike the US (in major cities) where the avearge person lives outside of the city they work in. The Bus can only go so far and trains are either for freight or are government subsidised AMTRAK.

It's also unfair to compare US cities to European ones since the average road in Euopean cities is pretty narrow. It's no knock, but the result of having a city that is over 600 years old (or older).


The average Euro car is much smaller than US ones too. Once again, it's not a knock since the roads are smaller, the cars need to be too. Everything seems to be smaller in the EU.

Comparing the US and Europe isn't useful info, we have mid sized states that are larger than the largest Western European country. Comparing Apples and Oranges there.

China doesn't like the environment, and curiously enough, they don't have protestors either.


I drive a 2007 Mustang GT, I will NEVER quit driving that car.


Here's a modest solution to feul economy: http://www.watertogas.com/

Can you show me statistics to back this up? Most families I know here in the UK tend to own one car per person and I gather it's similar in Western Europe: What makes you so sure we have less cars?

Does the size of the states matter? Surely emissions should be measured by population?

Interesting link.


What I'm wondering is why it seems that Europeans are ready to accept environmental claims and yet most opposition you'll encounter on the interwebs stems from inhabitants of one particular country...

I am trying to point out that our commutes are longer. Where I live, there are no commuter trains, the buses have homeless people on them and we have cities all around us that have people commute into our city.

We do things differently, sorry.

Yet you have cities with higher populations then my country...

And also, I don't see how having wider and bigger cars helps you on freeways and stuff.

That said, I think global warming is bull crap, and I want a firebird.

Soladrin wrote:

Stormrider wrote:

Henners91 wrote:

Stormrider wrote:

Henners91 wrote:And yet the European Union with a Population 1/3rd less than the United States' produces 13.8% of the world's emissions compared to the US' 20.2%

Not that this is about emissions as a topic, I just assume that means more coal and oil is being burnt...

China's the worst ofc.

Okay, how many Europeans own cars? What does the average Euro use to commute everyday? How old are the oldest cities in Europe?

Just having a raw number like 13.8% doesn't delve into the reasons. It only shows that the EU has less cars and more people using Public transit. It's practically a necessity, unlike the US (in major cities) where the avearge person lives outside of the city they work in. The Bus can only go so far and trains are either for freight or are government subsidised AMTRAK.

It's also unfair to compare US cities to European ones since the average road in Euopean cities is pretty narrow. It's no knock, but the result of having a city that is over 600 years old (or older).


The average Euro car is much smaller than US ones too. Once again, it's not a knock since the roads are smaller, the cars need to be too. Everything seems to be smaller in the EU.

Comparing the US and Europe isn't useful info, we have mid sized states that are larger than the largest Western European country. Comparing Apples and Oranges there.

China doesn't like the environment, and curiously enough, they don't have protestors either.


I drive a 2007 Mustang GT, I will NEVER quit driving that car.


Here's a modest solution to feul economy: http://www.watertogas.com/

Can you show me statistics to back this up? Most families I know here in the UK tend to own one car per person and I gather it's similar in Western Europe: What makes you so sure we have less cars?

Does the size of the states matter? Surely emissions should be measured by population?

Interesting link.


What I'm wondering is why it seems that Europeans are ready to accept environmental claims and yet most opposition you'll encounter on the interwebs stems from inhabitants of one particular country...

I am trying to point out that our commutes are longer. Where I live, there are no commuter trains, the buses have homeless people on them and we have cities all around us that have people commute into our city.

We do things differently, sorry.

Yet you have cities with higher populations then my country...

And also, I don't see how having wider and bigger cars helps you on freeways and stuff.

That said, I think global warming is bull crap, and I want a firebird.

That's the spirit!

Have you ever tried to run over pedestrians with a Prius?

I haven't, but I imagine it'd be a lot easier... The damn things are silent. I nearly got hit by one a while back because I walked in front of it assuming that no engine sound meant it was off.

Sure you might have to back up and run over the person a few times to get the job done, but once you've got the first hit in, they're not going anywhere.

Finally: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_vehicles_per_capita

The US owns a bit under ten times as many cars as the UK, and a bit under twice as many per capita.

Honestly, you can't really mess with Americans when it comes to owning lots of cars. It's just how we roll. Literally.

Phryxis wrote:

Have you ever tried to run over pedestrians with a Prius?

I haven't, but I imagine it'd be a lot easier... The damn things are silent. I nearly got hit by one a while back because I walked in front of it assuming that no engine sound meant it was off.

Sure you might have to back up and run over the person a few times to get the job done, but once you've got the first hit in, they're not going anywhere.

Finally: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_vehicles_per_capita

The US owns a bit under ten times as many cars as the UK, and a bit under twice as many per capita.

Honestly, you can't really mess with Americans when it comes to owning lots of cars. It's just how we roll. Literally.

Yeah, when I was 15, there was 3 people living in my house. Before I moved out, we had six cars, two motorcycles, and a bunch of ATV/off road vehicles. It was ubsurdly insane.

Living in Northern Mn having an ATV is a requirement. You just aren't cool in the northern half of the state if you don't have at LEAST 1 ATV.

Oh and guns.

Fateweaver wrote:Living in Northern Mn having an ATV is a requirement. You just aren't cool in the northern half of the state if you don't have at LEAST 1 ATV.

Oh and guns.

Because being cool is what matters in life.

On a side note, your on a wargaming site. Just sayin...

Soladrin wrote:

Fateweaver wrote:Living in Northern Mn having an ATV is a requirement. You just aren't cool in the northern half of the state if you don't have at LEAST 1 ATV.

Oh and guns.

Because being cool is what matters in life.

On a side note, your on a wargaming site. Just sayin...

AHHH, that's funny. I laughed like a slow for about 30 seconds, then relized no one else understands why i was laughing...

Soladrin wrote:

Fateweaver wrote:Living in Northern Mn having an ATV is a requirement. You just aren't cool in the northern half of the state if you don't have at LEAST 1 ATV.

Oh and guns.

Because being cool is what matters in life.

On a side note, your on a wargaming site. Just sayin...

If more people rode atv's and motorcycles to work we'd be a lot healthier nation.

I can go 150 miles on 2 gallons of fuel on the atv.