Purple Evil Twi'lek Association (PETA)

[Rev7]

I think that you make a very good point there D_Y. I am glad that you joined this forum.

 

I must say that it would be awesome if we could switch to switchgrass instead of using corn. 2 for 1 deal. Better fuel, and more people cutting their lawns.

[Totenkopf]

I see no problem in principle with building up a possible alternative to carbon based fuels while we ease our way off of petrol/oil. So long as everyone realizes that we have to build an infrastructure for mass circulation of the new alternatives in place before abandonning the current fuel (and it will take a bit of time). However, our problem isn't there is a lack of fuel to actually justify current prices, but that there are too many legal obstacles in the way of providing it in an efficient fashion (drilling restrictions, boutique gasoline blends, no new refineries in >30 years, etc....).

 

I agree wholeheartedly that corn based ethanol is a pointlessly inefficient way to go. More like a sop to the agribiz sector. I'm not familiar with switchgrass (though I've heard there are a plethora of options besides maize, the most prominent in my mind being Brazillian sugar). Guess I'll have to look that one up.

 

As regards nukes, I think the main concern isn't that there'll be a meltdown in places like Iran or Korea, but that spent fuel will be used as the basis of a weapons program.

 

Of course, another way to cut down on consumption would be to build better mass transit systems and cut down on all the urban/suburban sprawl (or so my next door neighbor feels, very strongly ).

[Rev7]

Switchgrass

I guess that I might have been wrong in what I thought switchgrass was. Opps, either way, it is still better than using corn, IMO.

[Totenkopf]

Actually kinda hard to find picks of purple twileks, though only used yahoo image search. Figured Aayla was close enough due to a flirtation w/the DS.

[Darth_Yuthura]

The biggest problem that would come from the use of mass transit in US cities is the extremely low population density in suburban locations. In order to build an effective light rail system, there would have to be as few terminals supporting as many passengers as possible.

 

Totenkopf said we need to do away with suburbs... that's absolutely correct. Before anyone would build a light rail system, these areas would have to demolish single family detached homes (SFDH) and start building to the sky. The problem with this solution is that Americans desire SFDH too greatly. Too bad we can't 'change' people's minds.

[Totenkopf]

Yeah, I pointed that out in my discussion with him. We do love our open spaces here, though. Of course, China illustrates the problem of too many people being concentrated in a small area. India, w/o the earthquakes, does too.

[Totenkopf]

Figured I'd add the link to the unfolding of DY's tale of Yuthura so that people didn't have to go looking for it themselves.

 

http://www.lucasforums.com/showthread.php?p=2469390#post2469390

[HIGH ON PIE 14]

Thanks for the link.

 

Unfortunately many people will not give it up. I live in a suburb but honestly I would have no problem living in a city, the rest of America...well their stubborn so I wouldnt expect them to move out of suburbs b/c of the "American dream" you know white pickett fences, apple pie, and all that.

 

But anyway alternative energy sources are a must but its hard when we are dependent on the middle east for oil which is the main source now. But unfortunately as Totenkopf said there are people who wont let us drill for our own, until we find another practical source, due to "environmental problems." BTW these are good points you guys are bringing up. Very interesting...got me thinking.

[Darth_Yuthura]

I also live in a single family detached home. I like it where I am, but I know that we, my family, cannot afford to have such a massive ecological footprint. That is one thing I currently am guilty of, but I intend to change that. I will not have a house of my own. If I complain about SFDH, then I must be willing to live up to that example.

 

As for alternative energy... I think it would be best to switch from oil to coal for the short run. Once nuclear becomes a more favorable alternative to that, then we can transit from coal to renewable and nuclear energy. The most critical priority is energy independence. Once that is achieved, then we could start concerning ourselves with cleaner and more economic energy later. As of now, coal is our best solution and should slowly take the place of oil before we worry about the environment.

 

As for drilling our own oil... for now, we are better off buying our oil elsewhere. If we start drilling in the US, we would spoil a significant amount of land and invest heavily in wells that won't supply a significant volume of oil. Once foreign oil becomes too expensive, then we would have a good reason to drill. But for now... let them spoil their own land first.

[HIGH ON PIE 14]

I too am guilty of leaving a larger environmental foot print (and my environmental science class has made me feel guilty trust me) but I will try to change that.

But you are absolutly right about energy independence. That IMO is more important than cleaner energy (ooh my enviro class hated that one). I dont know much about coal as far as how long it can sustain us so I cant comment on that. (If somone would clarify I'd be most greatful.) And by no means should we stop buying oil from the Middle East. What I meant Alaska has a good supply of oil and if we bought less the M.E. we could use a combination of the two. In order to preserve the environment, we shouldn't drill everywhere that we find oil but I think in this energy issue some sacrifices will have to be made. A couple ares will unfortunatly be ruined, but it will take pressure off so that we can more effectively find an alternative.

[Darth_Yuthura]

On a different note: I am at a point in the YB story where I have to develop the main story arc. I need to know if this idea is a crown jewel or a bomb shell.

 

Eventually, Revan and Yuthura will roll around in bed. What if she became pregnant with a Twi'lek/human hybrid? (Something that shouldn't be possible in the SW universe)

The offspring would only have trace amounts of human DNA, but would have a greater force potential than Revan. Yuthura would then realize the danger of falling for Revan and have to stop following his example. This would have her grow as a jedi and eventually have to make Revan follow her back to the jedi. As for the unborn child... I've got other plans.

 

If anyone thinks this would kill the story, please speak now or forever hold your peace!

 

P.S. US coal supplies would last hundreds of years.

[HIGH ON PIE 14]

I would not go with that, at least not soon in the story. (I've finished "Pulling a Bindo" today). Definately not this early in the relationship. Its not my cup of tea but others might go for that kind of thing. My answer is no but I'm just one person so lets see what thte other Yuthura fans think...

 

Ah and thank you for the coal clarification.

[Darth_Yuthura]

Disregard the last post. It's just too... out of line. I'll come up with something else.

[HIGH ON PIE 14]

Well just go with what you think - you thought up the idea for this fic which is creative in itself, and you have had lot of good stuff in it...so you've proven that you can make good choices, although I do agree the last one crossed the line a bit.

 

If anybody has another current events topic that they would like to discuss...

[Totenkopf]

Ok, how about Iran. Do you support them having weaponized nuclear technology? What should be done to keep it's current crop of leaders from going that route? What do you think will happen? It's clear that "talking" is useless. The Euros have tried it to no avail. Matter of fact, talking has really solved nothing in that region, merely deferred the problem.

[Rev7]

I personally don't. I know that that sounds really hypocritical of me, but what else would every other American say?

 

With all that is going on in the middle east, I don't think that it should be allowed. I think that there are just too many innocent lives at stake. With all of those that HATE America in that region, I just don't think that it is safe. That is one reason why I don't think that we should use nuclear energy as an alternative energy source.

[HIGH ON PIE 14]

Definatly not. As Rev said it does sound hypocritical but I think Iran having nuclear weapons, and the US having them are two totally different situations. Terrorists have managed to get control of our planes and use them against us - now how easy would it be for them to get nuclear bombs if they were conveniently being manufactured in Iran?

 

Unfortunatly this situation cannot be solved without stepping on some toes. We wont be able to use diplomacy to get out of this one so we are just going to have to be blunt. Tell them that if nuclear technology is developed, that the U.S. will have no choice but to intervine, for the greater safety of the world. If a nuclear program is started it should be decisively destroyed.

 

If they ask for a reason: Tell the leaders of Iran that we don't have confidence that they can keep these weapons out of the hand of terrorists, therefore the weapons would pose as a threat. If one of the weapons is used against the U.S. then we will have no choice but to retaliate.

[Rev7]

Like they would listen anyways.

 

FYI, They hate us.

[Darth_Yuthura]

Keeping nuclear materials out of the hands of terrorists is not extremely difficult. Extracting weapons grade plutonium from a reactor is a major task and cannot be done secretly. If every nation that uses nuclear reactors were to require foreign inspectors be present at all times, there would be no means that terrorist could get access to nuclear materials.

 

Iran is actively refusing to allow foreign inspectors to be present at their facilities. This does not mean that they are producing weapons grade plutonium, but there would seem no other reason for them to be so secretive. Satellites might be enough to monitor foreign reactors, but the placement of foreign inspectors would be more reliable.

 

It would not be unreasonable for nations like the US to destroy Iran's reactors because they have refused to allow inspectors to be present at their facilities. If Iran wants to avoid that, they need to assure the rest of the world that they are using their reactors for peaceful purposes. There is no reason that they should be refusing to allow foreign inspectors unless they have something to hide.

[HIGH ON PIE 14]

Exactly if they have nothing to hide, inspectors should not be a problem.

[HIGH ON PIE 14]

So what are people's thoughts on the Environment? Should be conserved or used for resources? How high should it rank in the U.S's list of things to work on? Have the "Go Green" people and organizations like PETA (I mean the real one now not us ) blown the problem out of porportion? (I certainly think so) Thoughts?

[Totenkopf]

Well, PETA is certifiable. So are groups like ALF, ELF and many of the other fringe loonie tree hugger types. There is nothing wrong with attempting to clean your messes up, but money doesn't grow on trees, and a "zero tolerance" type mentality about any level of polutant in the atmosphere (vs levels well w/in human tolerance) only calls for an impossible and irresponsible econmic approach to handling the situation. The resources of the planet are at our disposal. Doesn't mean we should squander them. Still, not inclined to listen to activist types b/c of their own poor record with telling the truth. Is so called global warming anthropogenic (sp?) or something we don't control? The debate is FAR from settled.

[Darth_Yuthura]

There are two primary resources the US will be craving in the future: energy and water. I think our first priority is energy because we will need that to solve the water problem.

 

We are dependent on energy from around the world and we don't even try to become dependent on American coal. We import it from Canada(when we could just mine all we need within America). Oil is going to run out in decades where coal will last centuries. I think that it is most important to have a stable economy before concerning ourselves with the environment. If we could take steps to avoid needless pollution, that would be even better.

 

As for water, aluminum, plastics, and minerals... these resources are so cheap, that we just throw them away too much instead of trying to reduce use or recycle them. Water is so cheap, few care how much it costs. In Florida, where fresh water is scarce, they can't water their lawns because desalinization makes water too expensive. There will come a time when we will have little choice but to desalinize all water within the US. Ground water is abundant now, but it is a non-renewable resource. Americans should know that once all the wells run dry, agriculture will take a plunge in the US economy. One water becomes expensive, it means food, manufactured goods in the US, household tap water... all be be affected significantly.

 

In the future, we're going to demand even more energy because of the need to desalinize most of our water. Americans should be aware this will happen and plan accordingly(of course the only ones with power don't have anything to benefit by this, so it won't happen). *sigh*

[Totenkopf]

Well, re. coal, some of the problem with that is that Clinton sand bagged the coal industry when he made the Grand Staircase Escalante (sp?) off limits to developers (one of the globes 2 biggest sources of "clean burning" coal, the other being in Indonesia). The US energy sector is hobbled by the the actions of the so called environmentalists. Too much regulation that serves no real purpose but to be roadblocks to progress, usually in the name of "protecting the people".

[HIGH ON PIE 14]

*sigh* yeah I swear those tree hugging loons care more about animals than people half the time. Like all that fuel from corn oil nonsense.(ethanol) ( we can thank Al Gore for adding the bill requiring ethanol to be added to gas in such large percents. ) This has of course raised prices for corn and more than 30 countries are being majorly affected. But who cares if the poor starve because they cant get cheap corn because we decreased air pollution by a small percent! What utter garbage.

 

They blow the issue way out of porportion and hinder progress, avoiding the facts and instead showing sad little pictures of ducks covered in oil or polar bears on small icebbergs due to "global warming" Which I believe is the Earths natural heating and cooling cycle that is little affected by human impact. (I'm sure many here disagree.)

 

That was a good point about Clinton, I had forgot that one.