Can 'The Scream' painting motivate us to end fossil fuel use ASAP?

[txlibdem]

It's depiction of a man screaming in horror, the red sky in the background reminiscent of the haze constantly cloaking Beijing due to the use of coal power plants and gasoline in motor vehicles.

What a nightmare scenario we have in store for us and our grandchildren if we do not end the use of all fossil fuels as soon as possible. We need to remove all subsidies, tax breaks, reduced land leases, etc., to the oil, natural gas and coal industries and crack down on their pollution or we WILL face a horrible future like that depicted in the painting.

End fossil fuels subsidies and give that money to solar, wind and energy storage companies.

[madokie]

1. Heres a link from an earlier post this morning about this.

http://mdn.mainichi.jp/perspectives/news/20120308p2a00m0na001000c.html

[txlibdem]

6. Say it don't spray it

Or should I say, if you've got something to say then provide a quote, not just a blind link. I have very little time for those these days and even less patience.

[madokie]

9. Well ain't you special

[txlibdem]

14. One of the main reasons I love MadOkie

He's a cranky old b*st*rd like me.

[madokie]

17. With both feet firmly on the ground

Peace

come to think of it I may be heading for a with one foot firmly on the ground moment, the other one is going to shit on me.

[bananas]

25. Here's a link to that thread

Can 'The Scream' painting warn future generations of radioactive waste risks?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/11278833

[txlibdem]

26. It is much more likely that using fossil fuels will pollute the air

and therefore turn the sky different colors.

The painting 'The Scream' couldn't possibly have been intended to mean nuclear power since it makes no global warming emissions. I don't understand the logic there.

[dkf]

2. Energy is the lifeblood of the economy. Jerk the chain on energy and it all falls apart.

There needs to be a more orderly transition.

[txlibdem]

4. What part of ASAP disagrees with your post

As soon as possible, in an orderly transition.

Nobody wants an energy crash because that means that millions of poor families will be hurt the most. The rich will do ok no matter what but the poor always get hit with whatever happens.

[mopinko]

3. no

it is too much a part of pop culture. too common.
i do agree with a need for a real "nuclear skull and crossbones", with a meaning all its own.

[txlibdem]

5. yes

I00 years ago it was nothing to "pop culture" and nobody drove a gasoline powered vehicle. Most vehicles were electric at that time.

I think you need to learn a little about automotive history before posting. It might help.

Second, who said anything about a NOOK-YOO-LUR anything. My OP is about fossil fuels. Unless you're talking about the 48 tons of Mercury that streams out of each coal plant every year. And 5.2 tons of Uranium (15,000 pounds of which is weapons grade) plus 12 tons of radioactive Thorium each and every year out of these coal plants.

Your post sounds like it has been handed an opinion and swallowed it hook line and sinker without looking up the truth about the "good ole" energy sources you seem to favor and don't think twice about using today.

My recommendation: think twice.

[mopinko]

10. i was responding to the link in the first reply.

but you have no call to be so nasty.

[txlibdem]

16. Ok

But you were hijacking my OP by bringing up Nook-Yoo-Lur in an electric vehicles/renewable energy OP. That was pretty nasty.

[mopinko]

19. well your op didn't make all that much sense on it's own.

so i assumed you were referring to a broader discussion.
and the civil response is, i'm sorry. not, ok, but you were nasty.

[txlibdem]

21. No, it was you

Sorry to have to tell you but you started this flaming session. I'm hereby ending it.

[mopinko]

23. i started a flaming session by

doing what? you are cranking all over this thread. you are looking under rocks for offense.

i reiterate- the civil thing to do is to apologize for taking my remarks as some sort of insult. they weren't meant to be. your op wasn't all that clear. i made a small misinterpretation. you went off.
if you want to end a misunderstanding, you don't do it by pointing fingers and telling the other person that they are being a jerk.

[Johnny Rico]

11. You may have heard of the Model T; came out in 1908.

I00 years ago it was nothing to "pop culture" and nobody drove a gasoline powered vehicle. Most vehicles were electric at that time.

By 1913 Ford was producing a quarter million gasoline-powered Model Ts a year.

[txlibdem]

15. You may have heard of the insult, "Get a Horse!"

Brought about by so many unreliable gasoline-powered cars broken down or overheating at the side of the road.

Facts are facts: Electric cars once dominated the car market in the United States and they will again:

http://joltthebook.org/
Fasten your seatbelts, America. The electric vehicle is about to take us on one heck of a ride. So states James Billmaier in his groundbreaking book on the impending electric vehicle (EV) revolution. He argues that in addition to being a blast to drive, EVs will come to dominate the personal auto market in the coming years because they are cheaper to run and cheaper to maintain. Adopting EVs will also allow America to put the brakes on sending hundreds of billions of dollars a year to OPEC, helping us achieve energy independence within a decade.

But that’s only part of the story. Billmaier outlines how EVs will propel the coming “electriconomy,” a consumer-driven economic boom that will be ignited as society is transformed from an oil-based economy to one powered by electricity. The electriconomy will dwarf all previous technology revolutions—it will be bigger than the computer and Internet markets combined—and will catapult the economy of whichever nation masters it.

It’s a race we need to win for reasons of national and economic security, Billmaier says, but we need to move fast. China is determined to own the EV space itself, an outcome that would be as detrimental to U.S. national security as our current dependence on foreign oil is today. In these pages, he describes what we need to do to win the EV race—what America must do to take charge!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_cars#1890s_to_1900s:_Early_history
1890s to 1900s: Early history

Before the pre-eminence of internal combustion engines, electric automobiles held many speed and distance records. Among the most notable of these records was the breaking of the 100 km/h (62 mph) speed barrier, by Camille Jenatzy on April 29, 1899 in his 'rocket-shaped' vehicle Jamais Contente, which reached a top speed of 105.88 km/h (65.79 mph). Before the 1920s, electric automobiles were competing with petroleum-fueled cars for urban use of a quality service car.[20]

[Johnny Rico]

20. I was simply pointing out that the statement 100 years ago "nobody drove a gasoline powered vehicle"

is *not* a fact....is it?

1890s to 1900s

100 years ago is 1912, by which time gasoline-powered autos had already begun their ascendency over electric autos.

Facts are facts: Electric cars once dominated the car market in the United States

I agree. Electric cars did once dominate the car market in the US.

and they will again:

That is not a fact. That is speculation.

[txlibdem]

22. Sorry Johnny Rico

Now go take that walk down washout lane... unless war happens to break out. (One of my favorite books and movies).

"and they will again: That is not a fact. That is speculation."
No, I think it's a fact. The only question is the timeline. Oil is finite and isn't getting cheaper (ever) again. Nobody but the very wealthy will be driving fossil fuel based vehicles. When is that day to come? 10 years? 20? Who knows; but it will come, mark my words.

PS, ok ya got me about the exactly 100 years ago thing. I didn't mean it to be an exact figure but if you'll look in my links posted you'll see electric cars were far superior until long after the 1910s (in all things except range).

Now we have batteries that will give us the range that will meet the needs of 80% or more of Americans... and that's just the first generation of electric cars and trucks. Wait till 2015 and see what pops out of the lab at that time, probably hit the streets by 2020.

I'm making a new OP about it. Please check it out.

[Yo_Mama]

7. I would think the science would do better

Really, it's an economic problem.

When people don't have jobs and incomes, their first worry is not the environment.

[txlibdem]

8. It has: solar, wind, energy storage and electric vehicles

Add in solar thermal for process heat and you've got the entire solution to ridding ourselves of fossil fuels.

[Johnny Rico]

12. Not the slightest chance, no.

[Nihil]

13. A worthy ideal but it's not going to happen ...

... as long as there are jerks who insist on their "right" to drive whatever inefficient
pieces of shit they want, to waste energy as a perverted status symbol and to
consume/destroy/corrupt anything they choose "because they can".


> End fossil fuels subsidies and give that money to solar, wind and energy storage companies.

Agree with you 100% that this *should* happen but with the current crop of fully-owned
politicians making the decisions? Don't hold your breath ...

[txlibdem]

18. OWS

I'm putting my money on the Occupy groups to bring that to a screeching halt, and damn quick if the politicians know what's good for them and their cushy jobs and fat paychecks and retirement -- that the rest of us will never get.

[LongTomH]

24. I'm investing a lot of hope in OWS for that and a lot of other reasons!

We're a few decades late; we had a chance to make major gains in alternate energy during the Carter administration. If we weren't controlled by a GOP in the pocket of big oil, we would be getting anywhere from 30-50% of our energy from renewables now!

We have so many wonderful possibilities now, if only the 1% and their political hacks allow it, and if they allow the gains to reach us. See my post on: Eric Drexler and the Future of Nanotechnology in the science group.