Re: OT of an OT: Ethanol
 

I don't know how accurate that particular model is. The fact is the south pole ice cheet is smaller now then it was a hundred years ago when we started measuring that sort of thing. This correlates nicely with the rise in temperature we've already seen over that period of time. Of course maybe that's just a short term cycle and not the beginning of a long term warming trend. It would be nice to think that the planet had all these nifty backup systems that would cancel out the effects over time, but that's just wishful thinking really.

The geological record clearly shows that the oceans were lower in the past. Perhaps as many as 300 meters lower during the most recent ice age that ended about 40,000 years ago. There is no reason to think that the current sea level that we've enjoyed for the last 3,000 years or so is special. The earth doesn't care that we've built our cities along the current coastlines.

Re: OT of an OT: Ethanol
 

In lieu of actually adding anything productive to the conversation, I'll just be lazy and throw in a relevant wiki-link with a nifty chart of global tempartures from 1860 onward...and a bunch of other stuff:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

Re: OT of an OT: Ethanol
 

Yep, the oceans used to be a lot lower than they are today. Shores used to be miles further out to sea than they are now. Then again, back then everything was covered in a hellacious amount of ice, so I don't think whatever was around back then cared too much about the extra few miles of "dry" land. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif Then about 18,000-6,000 years ago was a period of very fast rising of ocean levels, something like 30-40 mm per year. This of course corresponded to the massive ice shelves melting off of North America. Oddly enough, there was a time in the not-too-distant past when ocean levels were 6 meters higher than today, then retreated again. This is shown by the remains of coral reefs that are now high and dry above the ocean, and also by evidence of wave action on cliffs and stuff like that. So the ocean rose, stabilized, rose very quickly, fell again and is now rising slowly again. Most of this happened before man began the industrial revolution and started spewing many so-called greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. This suggests to me that "global warming" is nothing more than a natural cycle that has been blown out of proportion by the media and by environmental scientists who want big research grants...

I'm not saying mankind hasn't accelerated the process, but I bet it was coming anyways. The real questions are: To what effect are mankinds emmissions into the atmosphere truely effecting the natural cycle of things, Is is possible/practical/feasible to slow the amount of greenhouse gases that are let into the atmosphere, What would be the positive and negative results of the Earth's mean temperature rising by a couple degrees and would the positive outweigh the negative. Questions like this need to be answered before I'll even have a chance of truly believing the alarmists and start losing sleep over this issue.

Re: OT of an OT: Ethanol
 

Renegade 13: "And since the American economy is in the crapper unlike ours, guess who's going to be hurt the most from all the tariff's flying around?"

From the CIA Factbook, 2005 figures:

GDP per Capita: US $41,800, Canada $32,900
GDP growth: US 3.5%, Canada 2.9%
Unemployment: US 5.1%, Canada 6.8%

As of February 2006 US unemployment was listed as 4.8%. These are limited statistics, of course, but it's pretty clear that neither economy is "in the crapper". Both the US and Canada have modern, robust, and growing economies that are closely tied to each other by our common border. Indeed, each country is the other's biggest trading partner.

I share Renegade's distaste for tariffs in support of dubious energy initiatives, not because I dislike American "arrogance" but because free trade is good business for everybody. I trust the market a lot more than I trust politicians. If biofuels are worthwhile, they'll make it in the marketplace on their own; if not, they won't.

Re: OT of an OT: Ethanol
 

The most fascinating aspect of biofuels for me is the possiblilty of decentralizing the production of vehicle fuel. Even if he could get his hands on a barrel of crude, the average joe can't turn it into gasoline in his shed. But small scale ethanol and alcohol fuel production might actually be feasible. Maybe someday the gas station won't need to have trucks delivering gas, cause they'll be destilling there own ethanol from local waste biomass that people are more then happy to drop off rather then pay to take it to the landfill.

Re: OT of an OT: Ethanol
 

True, but the state of an economy can not be measured by unemployment alone. For example:

There's another couple huge economic differences. The US runs a trade deficit to Canada, Asia and Europe. Canada has a trade deficit to Asia and Europe as well, but a huge surplus to the US ($100 Billion per year), resulting in an overall trade surplus of $17 Billion/yr.

Also if you take a look at the governmental deficits...The US runs a huge annual deficit. If you look at this site -> www.brillig.com/debt_clock , you'll see that the US debt is currently getting close to $8.4 Trillion USD, with the annual deficit sitting at (in 2004) $477 Billion. ( http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/01/26/budget.deficits.ap/ )

This works out to each citizen's share of the debt being almost $28,000. In contrast, Canada's debt is roughly $800 Billion CDN or about $688 Billion USD. Works out to ~$21,500 USD per Canadian. A lot less than in the States, and we're actually paying down the debt not increasing it by almost half a trillion per year!

Re: OT of an OT: Ethanol
 

Not unless people always drive a lot less. I can see regional production happening, but local? Not likely. Your average gas station would need to produce 5,000 gallons or so *per day*, which they just don't have the room (or, likely, the waste) for..

Re: OT of an OT: Ethanol
 

Renegade 13: "True, but the state of an economy can not be measured by unemployment alone."

Um, yes, that's why I included GDP per capita and economic growth rate, which Renegade conveniently forgets to mention. BTW, it turns out the US unemployment rate has been consistently below Canada's since the 1980s. If the US economy is "in the crapper" then Canada's is...

"...the United States has relatively higher rates [of poverty]."

I believe that. Fortunately in both the US and Canada only a fraction of the poor stay poor for six years or more, i.e. both economies create jobs for the poor, many of whom are immigrants. An economy "in the crapper" wouldn't do that, would it? BTW, as a thought experiment, it would be interesting to move Mexico adjacent to Canada instead of the US.

"Canada has a trade deficit to Asia and Europe as well, but a huge surplus to the US ($100 Billion per year)"

Ah yes, the trade deficit boogeyman. Canada delivers goods, commodities, and services, and gets little green pieces of paper in return. Sounds like the US gets the better part of the deal here. BTW, if the US economy is "in the crapper," it seems strange that Canadians would accept these IOUs instead of insisting on tangible goods. Also BTW, if the Canadian economy is so dependent on exports to America, it seems that Canada, not the US, would suffer more from a trade war, contrary to Renegade's earlier assertion.

"Also if you take a look at the governmental deficits..."

While I have my own reservations about US government priorities, note that only a strong economy can support such levels of politically-motivated spending, i.e. the people who finance the debt obviously have confidence in the economic future of the US. Now if Renegade is of the view that American government is "in the crapper," he's welcome to his opinion. Confidence in the US economy, however, isn't a matter of opinion, it's a demonstrated fact.

My intention in replying to Renegade's post was not to demonstrate any superiority of the American economy or the wisdom of American policy. I wanted merely to point out that the Canadian and American economies are quite comparable by size-independent measures, both strong, and neither can be characterized as "in the crapper" by any stretch of the imagination.

Re: OT of an OT: Ethanol
 

It should be noted that public confidence does not nessesarily relate very closely to reality. One way or the other.

Re: OT of an OT: Ethanol
 

Actually, when I was replying I simply forgot about the inclusion of CDP per capita and economic growth rate, it wasn't "convenient" at all. And, as we all know the saying "There are lies, damn lies, and statistics." Essentially, it matters who derived the statistics, what the sources of information were, and the methods used to analyse. But that's neither here nor there, since the statistics are about all we have as a basis for comparison.

Actually, you should think about it in another way. Canada is better off exporting more, since we really don't need those resources, or else we obviously wouldn't be exporting them. On the other hand, the US obviously does need those very same resources, or else they wouldn't be buying them. Therefore, in a trade war, Canada has the advantage since there's more 'stuff' that the US needs that Canada has, and less stuff Canada needs that the US has. In other words, the US needs Canada more than Canada needs the US, giving us the advantage in a trade war. Then again, we shouldn't deceive ourselves into thinking either country would "win" a trade war. Both sides would lose, it's just a matter of to what extent. We're better off as trading allies, trading with each other rather than certain other places from overseas who may not ultimately have the best interests of either country at heart.

I'm forced to disagree with you here. It's a very foolish economic policy to borrow endlessly; it'll end up biting you in the rear end. I also disagree that it takes a strong economy to support such huge deficits, since if the economy was truly strong, such borrowing wouldn't be necessary in the first place! It's not so much that the lenders have great confidence in the future economy of the country, it's that there such a huge collateral to secure it! For a personal loan banks want a vehicle or house for collateral, and as long as you don't want to borrow beyond the value of the collateral, they're happy to lend you money. After all, they're the ones who benefit via the interest. Now imagine if you had an entire country as collateral. You could easily borrow into the trillions, but it doesn't mean the economy is great. Also, perceived as being great does not necessarily translate well into reality, as SJ mentioned.

Here I agree with you. I was mistaken in my original post that the American economy was circling the drain, at least in certain aspects. This seems to be what you're trying to point out to me, and I agree. However, I do think I'd rather be in charge of the Canadian economy than the American. I think it has better prospects. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif