Your argument is contingent on having a working definition of what constitutes a “necessity”, which seems entirely arbitrary and subjective (unless you’re talking about things like food, water, and air).
No, that is just ridiculous.
One of the infelicities of buying oil and its products from the Saudis is that a portion of the revenue finds its way into the pockets of groups like al Quedah.
Yes, but that is not the question being asked: it is whether it is immoral to buy gas, given that some of the money goes to the royal coffers of a rights-violating dictatorship. Are you proposing that it is immoral to buy gas?
Yes, but that is not the question being asked: it is whether it is immoral to buy gas, given that some of the money goes to the royal coffers of a rights-violating dictatorship. Are you proposing that it is immoral to buy gas?
No. I am proposing that it is unwise to buy petroleum products from our enemies or to be in any way dependent on our enemies. If I had to make a moral judgment on this matter, I would say it was a bad thing for us to get into this bind in the first place. The people who dug the hole we are in live here, not abroad. Their shortsightedness borders on culpable negligence.
Right now we are stuck. The only reasonably and moral thing for us to do is get unstuck as quickly as possible. When one is drowning it is both moral and wise to make for the nearest shore. Now if the government would only get out of the way we could work our way clear in under a decade, surely under two decades.
Bob Kolker
I am proposing that it is unwise to buy petroleum products from our enemies or to be in any way dependent on our enemies.
Okay. I usually buy my gas from Sunoco or UDF, and they aren’t my enemies, so I’m okay. Is the problem that you’re a Citgo customer, or is it that you can’t distinguish the fact that some other people are evil from the fact that you personally should live?
I’m not in a bind; are you? How did you get yourself in this collectivist mess?
I’m not in a bind; are you? How did you get yourself in this collectivist mess?
Every citizen of the U.S. is in a collectivist mess whether he wishes to be or not. Our lives are not completely the result of our own choices. The U.S. Government has pursued a policy of cooperation with countries whose leaders are working against our interests. So to answer your question: I got into this collectivist mess by choosing to stay to live in the U.S.. Had I moved to a faraway island in the Pacific and lead the simple (non-technological) life I would not be in this mess.
If you ask me is buying petroleum products, per se immoral, I say. of course not. But the situation under which we make these purchases has been brought upon us by culpable negligence. Mostly our government, partly the special interests who have bribed the government to favor them, and partly malfeasance done abroad.
Something is wrong somewhere. Where? Who?
What needs to be done? We have to free the businessmen and inventors to the extent that they can help us to climb out of the Hole we are in.
I don’t think I can make myself any clearer than this, so I will let this be my last word on the matter.
Bob Kolker
After reading the posts on this thread, I’ve come to the conclusion that it is not immoral to buy gas.
But i also agree with Bob Kolker in that the US government should not have favorable foreign policy with a country that violates human rights and breeds enemies against us. The only reason for the government to behave favorably is because of the philosophy of interfering with the (international) free market. i.e. "We have to be nice to these folks since they provide a useful (essential) commodity to our citizens).
I mean, how exactly did you arrive at the conclusion that buying a $14.00 legit CD is of greater value than a $7 pirated one? Is there a logical basis for it, or is that just your opinion?
It doesn’t matter how much the CD costs because (among other reasons) there are thousands of options to choose from and you can easily find legit music in your price range or abstain for a while; there is no need for adolescent short-range thinking in which you declare that you “need” some particular CD.
However, it is difficult indeed for the layman to discover who, exactly, is supplying his gas and by what myriad braided threads of transportation, let alone to discover who is profitting from his purchase of gasoline. It may take far more time and energy than it could possibly be worth for him in the short and long term.
This kind of reminds me (slightly) of how Ayn Rand answered the question about scholarships: yes, scholarships are funds extorted from other people, but you can use them as fuel for fighting the good fight . . . just by speaking a few words in public against sacrifice and dicatatorships (and U.S. foreign policy), you’re doing more good than the amount of harm your collective gas purchases could ever cause.
The energy we derive by burning gasoline (and other petroleum distilates) can be gotten from burning coal, or from electricity generated by nuclear fission. Energy is energy. However we can get it we can use it move stuff around. Which is not to say it is easy for us to kick the gasoline habit. That will take some time, probably a decade or more.
Our dependence on gasoline should (if we do things wisely) be short term, starting from now. At least the gasoline and diesel oil we burn should be from domestic or friendly sources.
So what you say is true, but it need not be in the long run.
Bob Kolker
Bob I certainly advocate our nation diversify its energy sources. Nuclear power being one solution but doesn’t solve the need for automobile fuel. There is nothing cheaper or equivalent in price or fuel efficiency to gasoline. Electric or hybrid cars are cost prohibitive because the technology is too expensive, and from what I understand hydrogen fuel is not a viable or efficient source as it requires carbon to bond with hydrogen, i.e. using oil, and ethanol too is less efficient than gasoline and would require vast swaths of agricultural land to be devoted to ethanol consumption. I read on techcentralstation.com ethanol would require 1/3 of our current agricultural land and is still more expensive and gets less mileage per gallon than gasoline does, and I’m not content with cutting 1/3 of our food supply, nor needlessly destroying millions more acres of land just to grow corn as opposed to just drilling for more oil reserves in the United States (such as Alaska and Gulf of Mexico)
So unfortunately Bob there is no realistic alternative to gasoline at the moment. Doing anything to artificially increase the cost of fuel again is an anti-life measure, and gasoline still is a pro-life product that truly saves lives. Unless we have a viable alternative there is no point in talking about abandoning oil.
ethanol too is less efficient than gasoline and would require vast swaths of agricultural land to be devoted to ethanol consumption. I read on techcentralstation.com ethanol would require 1/3 of our current agricultural land and is still more expensive and gets less mileage per gallon than gasoline does, and I’m not content with cutting 1/3 of our food supply, nor needlessly destroying millions more acres of land just to grow corn as opposed to just drilling for more oil reserves in the United States (such as Alaska and Gulf of Mexico)
This is not a great argument to dismiss ethanol technology. Just because it is not cost-effective for the entire country to fuel their cars with E85 does not mean that it will not be cost effective for localized regions, such as in the Midwest, where there is a large amount of ethanol available as byproducts from the agricultural industry. If gas prices continue to rise, perhaps it will become economical for automotive companies to embrace this technology for such local markets.
I also read a while ago that Brazil presently has a government induced market for ethanol fuel because of subsidies, a high sales tax on gasoline and because of an abundance of sugar cane production. Perhaps Brazil may even become an exporter of this fuel. Do any of the Brazilian members have comments on this? I am suspicious of this success story given the socialist origin.
This is not a great argument to dismiss ethanol technology. Just because it is not cost-effective for the entire country to fuel their cars with E85 does not mean that it will not be cost effective for localized regions, such as in the Midwest, where there is a large amount of ethanol available as byproducts from the agricultural industry. If gas prices continue to rise, perhaps it will become economical for automotive companies to embrace this technology for such local markets.
This is not quite correct. Ethanol is not a “by-product” of the agricultural industry. Ethanol plants are dedicated facilities for the production of ethanol by fermentation. That is, it is a conscious diversion of food materials into the fuel value chain.
These ethanol plants are govt. subsidized, and would not be economical if they were not. The situation is similar to Brazil in that regard. If you look at the pure cost to produce the fuel additive it is not economically viable, just about anywhere.
This is not a great argument to dismiss ethanol technology. Just because it is not cost-effective for the entire country to fuel their cars with E85 does not mean that it will not be cost effective for localized regions, such as in the Midwest, where there is a large amount of ethanol available as byproducts from the agricultural industry. If gas prices continue to rise, perhaps it will become economical for automotive companies to embrace this technology for such local markets.
I also read a while ago that Brazil presently has a government induced market for ethanol fuel because of subsidies, a high sales tax on gasoline and because of an abundance of sugar cane production. Perhaps Brazil may even become an exporter of this fuel. Do any of the Brazilian members have comments on this? I am suspicious of this success story given the socialist origin.
Darkwaters I wasn’t aware ethanol is a byproduct from the agricultural industry. But do they produce enough to any sustainable quantity? Is there any kind of refinement process? I’m still pretty certain ethanol gallon for gallon is more expensive than gasoline, no matter which market we talk about, and gallon for gallon ethanol gets less mileage. I’m not dismissing ethanol outright as a technology, I am dismissing it as a cost effective technology for the moment and the foreseeable future. Now it is true if gas prices go up high enough, substitutions will be made as other more expensive technologies become more attractive, (ethanol, hybrids, electric etc) but, supply and demand will likely keep gasoline as the preferred fuel source for many years. Drops in gasoline consumption (due to substitutions) will have the supply and demand effect of then lowering gas prices down to more affordable levels. If anything I can see a very slow and gradual process of diversified fuel consumption in this country, but right now the reality is there’s just nothing better than gasoline. The prices still aren’t high enough for these kinds of substitutions to take place.
Keep in mind too Congress has mandated a percentage mixture of ethanol with gasoline now, (partially due to irrational fears of global warming) this has had the effect of artificially raising gas prices. Bans on future oil exploration by our government also exacerbates the problem. Ethanol also will have the effect of raising food prices and cutting into food supplies.
This is not quite correct. Ethanol is not a “by-product” of the agricultural industry. Ethanol plants are dedicated facilities for the production of ethanol by fermentation. That is, it is a conscious diversion of food materials into the fuel value chain.
These ethanol plants are govt. subsidized, and would not be economical if they were not. The situation is similar to Brazil in that regard. If you look at the pure cost to produce the fuel additive it is not economically viable, just about anywhere.
Thank you Kendall for clarifying that. I thought ethanol produced as a by-product sounded too good to be true.
This is not quite correct. Ethanol is not a “by-product” of the agricultural industry. Ethanol plants are dedicated facilities for the production of ethanol by fermentation. That is, it is a conscious diversion of food materials into the fuel value chain.
I apologize for my fairly significant error. Thank you for bringing this to my attention.
This is not quite correct. Ethanol is not a “by-product” of the agricultural industry.
Actually…
Actually…
Actually what?
I read the website and it talks about using processes to convert agricultural byproducts into ethanol. So ethanol is not a by-product of the agricultural industry.
DarkWaters, no apologies necessary. It can get confusing as to what is really what, and frankly the “greenies” would like you to think that using a “by-product” is the case.
Actually…
Except that this is not the primary technology used for ethanol production. (Nor is it even the primary technoloogy used for biodiesel production). Both of the current technologies are conscious diversions of food products into the fuel value chain which would not be cost effective were it not for the subsidized nature of the industry.
Ethanol by direct fermentation of corn.
Biodiesel by esterification of seed oils.
DarkWaters, no apologies necessary. It can get confusing as to what is really what, and frankly the “greenies” would like you to think that using a “by-product” is the case.
Except that this is not the primary technology used for ethanol production. (Nor is it even the primary technoloogy used for biodiesel production). Both of the current technologies are conscious diversions of food products into the fuel value chain which would not be cost effective were it not for the subsidized nature of the industry.
Ethanol by direct fermentation of corn.
Biodiesel by esterification of seed oils.
I understand that. I only meant that to be an indicative of the eventual use of agricultural byproducts as a major source of energy. The fact that it is not usually a byproduct now does not mean it won’t be soon. Also, since it is being done, it was not inaccurate for darkwaters to believe that ethanol was a byproduct. It is only not in common usage yet.
I understand that. I only meant that to be an indicative of the eventual use of agricultural byproducts as a major source of energy. The fact that it is not usually a byproduct now does not mean it won’t be soon. Also, since it is being done, it was not inaccurate for darkwaters to believe that ethanol was a byproduct. It is only not in common usage yet.
Yes but why bother converting agricultural byproducts into fuel if it is a cost-prohibitive venture? Why not just stick with the current cheaper energy source, drilling for oil and refining it.
Yes but why bother converting agricultural byproducts into fuel if it is a cost-prohibitive venture? Why not just stick with the current cheaper energy source, drilling for oil and refining it.
Because a good portion of the petroleum (and its products) that we use and need are in Enemy Hands.
We either
-
Have to find more useable hydrocarbons in friendlier places.
-
Get away from depending on hydrocarbons as much as we do
-
Take the oil away from the Enemy. Our army is currently not fit to do that task.
Bob Kolker
I understand that. I only meant that to be an indicative of the eventual use of agricultural byproducts as a major source of energy. The fact that it is not usually a byproduct now does not mean it won’t be soon. Also, since it is being done, it was not inaccurate for darkwaters to believe that ethanol was a byproduct. It is only not in common usage yet.
I think we’re in violent agreement. It might be so in the future. The one statement that I took issue with and was fundamental to DW’s optimism.
such as in the Midwest, where there is a large amount of ethanol available as byproducts from the agricultural industry.
This is untrue. There is a large amount of ethanol in the midwest. It is NOT a “byproduct” of the agricultural industry. It is a subsidized diversion of food into the fuel value chain. I think that in this discussion, it is very important to distinguish what is naturally available through market forces vs. what is made available due to the intervention of government.
It’s important to define literally what a “byproduct” is. It’s something you get out of another process you’re using to produce a different product. So, hot water is a byproduct of a nuclear power plant (the main product of which is power) and CO2 is a byproduct of the internal combustion engine (the main product of which is go). However ethanol is not a byproduct of agriculture because you’re not taking the corn and processing it into something else for consumption and getting ethanol as a side effect. You’re taking corn and processing it into ethanol. It’s a product. Now, if there’s some useful waste left over (corn mush?) after the ethanol is made, that would be a byproduct.