Rockefellers To Switch Investments Away From Fossil Fuels

[Webster]

BBC News: Rockefellers to switch investments to 'clean energy'
Excerpt...

Heirs to the Rockefeller family, which made its vast fortune from oil, are to sell investments in fossil fuels and reinvest in clean energy, reports say.

The Rockefeller Brothers Fund is joining a coalition of philanthropists pledging to rid themselves of more than $50bn (£31bn) in fossil fuel assets.

The announcement was made on Monday, a day before the UN climate change summit opens on Tuesday.

Some 650 individuals and 180 institutions have joined the coalition.

It is part of a growing global initiative called Global Divest-Invest, which began on university campuses several years ago, the New York Times reports.

Pledges from pension funds, religious groups and big universities have reportedly doubled since the start of 2014.

Rockefeller Brothers Fund director Stephen Heintz said the move to divest from fossil fuels would be in line with oil tycoon John D Rockefeller's wishes,

"We are quite convinced that if he were alive today, as an astute businessman looking out to the future, he would be moving out of fossil fuels and investing in clean, renewable energy," Mr Heintz said in a statement.

The philanthropic organisation was founded in 1940 by the sons of John D Rockefeller. As of 31 July 2014, the fund's investment assets were worth $860m.

"There is a moral imperative to preserve a healthy planet," Valerie Rockefeller Wayne, a great-great-granddaughter of Mr Rockefeller and a trustee of the fund, is quoted by the Washington Post as saying.

Thoughts?

 

[DrLeftover]

And their motives are as pure as the driven snow, no doubt.


Let's see, JD owned Standard Oil, which through a series of breakups, mergers and buyouts became....

Taxation Hero: ExxonMobil Pays $3 In Taxes For Every $1 In Profit

8/09/2012

It’s earnings season and America’s major energy companies once again face a barrage of criticism over their profits, coupled with suggestions they don’t pay enough in taxes. For example, our friends at the Center for American Progress cry, “Big 5 Oil Companies Going for the Gold; Second-Quarter Earnings Race Ahead, Boosted by Tax Breaks.” CAP advocates increasing taxes on large energy companies.

In a recent book, New America Foundation’s Steve Coll suggests there’s something almost unpatriotic with the profits earned by America’s energy companies. For example, in the last sentence of his book he contrasts the fortunes of the energy giant ExxonMobil with that of the United States.

“From the day of the Mobil merger closing [in 1999] until the day of the S&P downgrade [of U.S. debt], the net cash flow of the United States—receipts minus expenditures—was approximately negative $5.7 trillion. ExxonMobil’s net cash flow from operations and asset sales during the same period was a positive $493 billion.”....

That’s right, since its emergence as a unified company, ExxonMobil has paid governments around the world more than $1 trillion. That’s more than double its net cash flow over the same period and almost three times its profits of $352 billion.

Think about what this means: For every dollar in profits it earns for its shareholders, ExxonMobil earns nearly three dollars for governments.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/nickschulz/2012/08/09/taxation-hero-exxonmobil-pays-3-in-taxes-for-every-1-in-profit/

 

[Webster]

And their motives are as pure as the driven snow, no doubt.

No, but its' a start...

 

[WHO IS SERAFIN]

And their motives are as pure as the driven snow, no doubt.

No, but its' a start...

Its a start for what?

They are finding oil is a renewable resource being produced from deep within our planet and not just from fossils. Oil fields long abandoned are being found full of oil once again.

Alternative energy cannot power nowhere near a entire country without wreaking havoc on our landscape with windmills and solar panels on every square inch of America. In the near future maybe and hopefully home builders can start offering them with the homes as a kind of back up generator of sorts when there are power outages.

Alternative energy cannot power passenger jet planes, cargo planes or huge cargo ships the size of small towns that bring in all the products we need and want. Alternative energy is useless for the military.

Oil and shale are the future for the next several hundred years and unless some incredible break through appears.

 

[+paradox]

Could plants soon be powering airplanes?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p0KftFt29q8

The aviation industry is continuing to explore bio-fuels as a way to power their airplanes.

Etihad Airways, Boeing, Takreer, Total and Masdar made a joint announcement the 2014 World Future Energy Summit in Abu Dhabi that they would work together to develop and support a sustainable aviation biofuel industry in the UAE.

Katie Fielder met with the managing director of Environmental Strategy and Integration at Boeing Commercial Airplanes to find out more.

British Airways to Use Jet Fuel Made From Trash
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zjhe6a8Rl2U

Airline companies are starting to embrace the use of biofuel to power their airplanes. British Airways has teamed up with Solena fuels in Washington D.C. to create 50 thousand metric tons of fuel extracted from solid waste garbage.

Airline companies are starting to embrace the use of biofuel to power their airplanes.

British Airways has teamed up with Solena fuels in Washington D.C. to create 50 thousand metric tons of fuels extracted from solid waste garbage.

By the year 2017, British Airways could be powering flights from London to New York City completely on biofuel made from trash.

Research shows the switch to biofuel made from trash over fossil fuels could lower greenhouse gas emissions by 95 percent, and that doesn't include the reduced methane gas emissions from the garbage sitting in the dump.

Other companies like United Airlines, and Alaska Airlines also have plans to use sustainable fuels to power their airplanes in the near future.

Nancy Young, vice president of environmental affairs at the trade group Airlines for America is quoted as saying: "Airlines are really focused on alternative fuels for two reasons. One is to provide a competitor to petroleum-based fuels for supply and price volatility reasons. On the other side is the sustainability and emissions goals that we have."

The aviation industry in the United Kingdom has reportedly set a goal for 30 percent of the fuel used by airline companies to be from renewable sources by the year 2050.

A Cradle to Grave Assessment of Bio-Jet Fuels Production
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lt58sBZM4dM

This video highlights how Researchers at Hardwood Biofuels initiative use a Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) as a "cradle to grave" appraisal tool to understand the environmental impacts of producing poplar feedstock, converting it into bio-jet fuel, and distributing and using the fuel. The LCA models resource consumption and greenhouse gas emissions at every stage and identifies areas where impacts can be reduced.

Firescout Flies on Bio Fuel
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=duo0dUFow-M

ST INGOES, Md. (Sept 30, 2011) A U.S. Navy MQ-8B Fire Scout conducts the first unmanned biofuel flight at Webster Field in St. Inigoes, Md. The Unmanned Aircraft Systems Test Directorate piloted the helicopter fueled with a combination of JP-5 aviation fuel and plant-based camelina. The biofuel blend reduces carbon dioxide output by 75 percent when compared to conventional aviation fuel. The MQ-8B Fire Scout Vertical Take-Off and Landing Tactical Unmanned Aerial Vehicle provides critical situational awareness, intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance (ISR), and targeting data to the forward deployed warfighter. Fire Scout is designed to operate from all air capable ships and is currently providing ISR support during its first-land based deployment in U.S. Central Command area of responsibility. Fire Scout is the seventh aircraft to demonstrate the versatility of biofuel through its use in all facets of naval aviation. (U.S. Navy video/Released)

Blue Angels Flight Practice With 50/50 Biofuel
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b8aVCUGfsEA

Courtesy: NAVAIR (U.S. Navy video/Released) NAVAL AIR STATION PATUXENT RIVER, Md. (Sept. 1, 2011) The U.S. Navy flight demonstration team, the Blue Angels, fly F/A-18 Hornets with a 50-50 mix of biofuel and JP-5 aviation fuel. The Blue Angels will perform at the Naval Air Station Patuxent River Air Expo Sept. 3 and 4. While the Navy has experimented with biofuels in some of their other aircraft, this is the first time all six Blue Angels have flown burning the biofuel mix.

 

[Webster]

And their motives are as pure as the driven snow, no doubt.

No, but its' a start...

Its a start for what?

They are finding oil is a renewable resource being produced from deep within our planet and not just from fossils. Oil fields long abandoned are being found full of oil once again.

Alternative energy cannot power nowhere near a entire country without wreaking havoc on our landscape with windmills and solar panels on every square inch of America. In the near future maybe and hopefully home builders can start offering them with the homes as a kind of back up generator of sorts when there are power outages.

Alternative energy cannot power passenger jet planes, cargo planes or huge cargo ships the size of small towns that bring in all the products we need and want. Alternative energy is useless for the military.

Oil and shale are the future for the next several hundred years and unless some incredible break through appears.

You might want to rethink that "oil is a renewable resource" idea, Doc..and yes, it is entirely possible to power the world with renewable sources of energy or should we just burn every bit of carbon we can get our hands on?

..in regards to using home alternative energy usage, where the heck have you been the past decade or so, Doc?

...now, I'll concede one point to you: oil & gas are needed to ship goods to-and-from place to place and continent to continent; that hasn't changed and probably won't change. But to answer your last point: no, oil & shale are not the future and the more of that stuff we can keep in the ground, the better off we'll be.

 

[WHO IS SERAFIN]

And their motives are as pure as the driven snow, no doubt.

No, but its' a start...

Its a start for what?

They are finding oil is a renewable resource being produced from deep within our planet and not just from fossils. Oil fields long abandoned are being found full of oil once again.

Alternative energy cannot power nowhere near a entire country without wreaking havoc on our landscape with windmills and solar panels on every square inch of America. In the near future maybe and hopefully home builders can start offering them with the homes as a kind of back up generator of sorts when there are power outages.

Alternative energy cannot power passenger jet planes, cargo planes or huge cargo ships the size of small towns that bring in all the products we need and want. Alternative energy is useless for the military.

Oil and shale are the future for the next several hundred years and unless some incredible break through appears.

You might want to rethink that "oil is a renewable resource" idea, Doc..and yes, it is entirely possible to power the world with renewable sources of energy or should we just burn every bit of carbon we can get our hands on?

..in regards to using home alternative energy usage, where the heck have you been the past decade or so, Doc?

...now, I'll concede one point to you: oil & gas are needed to ship goods to-and-from place to place and continent to continent; that hasn't changed and probably won't change. But to answer your last point: no, oil & shale are not the future and the more of that stuff we can keep in the ground, the better off we'll be.

No I do not need to rethink oil being a renewable resource. Have read enough about over the years to know it is true.

The evidence is mounting that not only do we have more than a century's worth of recoverable oil in the United States alone (even if there is a limit to the earth's oil supply), but that we also actually have a limitless supply of Texas tea because oil is in fact a renewable resource that is being constantly created deep under the earth's surface and which rises upward, where microscopic organisms that thrive in the intense pressure and heat miles below us interact with and alter it.

In other words, we have an unending supply of oil, some of which is constantly migrating upward from the depths at which it is created to refill existing oil deposits, and much more of which remains far below the surface. This oil can be recovered using existing technology.

Scientist Thomas Gold presents the decades-old theory of "abiotic" oil-creation, which supports these facts, in his book, The Deep Hot Biosphere. In it he explains that the idea of the "biotic" creation of "fossil fuels" -- that decaying organic matter is compressed into oil -- is incorrect. In fact, the earth is constantly producing new oil very deep below its surface, and in some cases the oil flows up to replenish existing oil fields thought to be exhausted. In simple terms, the microscopic organisms mentioned above interact with the hydrocarbons, altering them and leaving their footprint, thus disproving the notion that oil is a "fossil fuel."

Here's an example of how the process plays out:

Eugene Island is an underwater mountain located about 80 miles off the coast of Louisiana in the Gulf of Mexico. In 1973 oil was struck and off-shore platform Eugene 330 erected. The field began production at 15,000 barrels a day, then gradually fell off, as is normal, to 4,000 barrels a day in 1989. Then came the surprise; it reversed itself and increased production to 13,000 barrels a day. Probable reserves have been increased to 400 million barrels from 60 million. The field appears to be filling from below and the crude coming up today is from a geological age different from the original crude, which leads to the speculation that the world has limitless supplies of petroleum.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/03/what_if_oil_and_natural_gas_are_renewable_resources.html

Yes burn the carbon. Solar and Wind is not anywhere near able to power the country.

 

[DrLeftover]

Hang on.

Point of order.

And just a cotton picken minute here.

When did I ever say oil was "renewable"?

...

It may well be, but not on anything other than a geologic time scale, which really doesn't help "us" a whole lot.

 

[WHO IS SERAFIN]

Hang on.

Point of order.

And just a cotton picken minute here.

When did I ever say oil was "renewable"?

...

It may well be, but not on anything other than a geologic time scale, which really doesn't help "us" a whole lot.

Its renewable far faster then that. Its constantly being produced at a massive scale.

 

[Webster]

No I do not need to rethink oil being a renewable resource. Have read enough about over the years to know it is true.

How many times do I have to repeat this: oil is not a renewable resource.

As with other fossil fuels, oil is found in underground reservoirs. It is the end product of the decomposition of organic materials that have been subjected to geologic heat and pressure over millions of years. Oil is considered a nonrenewable resource because it cannot be replenished on a human timeframe.

Here's a few more places where the myth of oil as renewable has been debunked:
Sicence Learning: Non-renewable energy resources cannot be replaced – once they are used up, they will not be restored (or not for millions of years). Non-renewable energy resources include fossil fuels and nuclear power.

Investopedia: A resource of economic value that cannot be readily replaced by natural means on a level equal to its consumption. Most fossil fuels, such as oil, natural gas and coal are considered nonrenewable resources in that their use is not sustainable because their formation takes billions of years.

Put simply, oil is not a renewable resource...period, full stop.

 

[WHO IS SERAFIN]

You can repeat it all you want but it is a true renewable resource. I know thats a threat to the leftist agenda but thats to bad.

To understand the reason for this, we return momentarily to the early days of the Cold War when an isolated Soviet Union tasked their top scientists to identify the actual source of oil. Not a weekend homework assignment. After considerable research, in 1956, Russian scientist Professor Vladimir Porfir’yev announced that “crude oil and natural petroleum gas have no intrinsic connection with biological matter originating near the surface of the earth. They are primordial [originating with the earth’s formation] materials which have been erupted from great depths.”

If your eyeballs didn’t fall out when you read that, you might want to read it again.

He said oil doesn’t come from anything biologic, not, as conventional wisdom dictates, from the fossilized remains of dinosaurs and/or ancient plant matter. It comes from very deep in the earth and is created by a biochemical reaction that subjected hydrocarbons (elements having carbon and hydrogen) to extreme heat and intense pressure during the earth’s formation.

Russians referred to this oil (any oil, really) as “abiotic oil” because it is not created from the decomposition of biological life forms, but rather from the chemical process continually occurring inside the earth.

I know, easy for Porfir’yev to say. But it turns out it was more than just a theory.

Because shortly after the Russians discovered this, they started drilling ultra-deep wells and finding oil at 30,000 and 40,000 feet below the earth’s surface. These are staggering depths, and far below the depth at which organic matter can be found, which is 18,000 feet.

Interesting, eh?

The Russians applied their theory of abiotic deep-drilling technology to the Dnieper-Donets Basin, an area understood for the previous half a century to be barren of oil. Of sixty wells drilled there using abiotic technology, thirty-seven became commercially productive—a 62 percent success rate compared with the roughly 10 percent success rate of a U.S. wildcat driller. The oil found in the basin rivaled Alaska’s North Slope.

Let’s say they had a good hair day.

But it doesn’t stop there, not by a long shot. Since their earlier discoveries, the major Russian oil companies have quietly drilled more than 310 ultra-deep wells and put them into production.

Result? Russia recently overtook Saudi Arabia as the planet’s largest oil producer.

Maybe they are onto something.

Though there were papers written on this early on, almost all were in Russian and few made it to the West. And those that did were laughed at.

No more. With Russia’s rejection of the Exxon-Yukos deal (Putin did not want this technology and their abiotic oil experts exported to the West) and the access to information now available on the Internet, the word has begun to spread rapidly to the West. Still, it hasn’t taken hold yet.

Why not? This is huge. Oil is not a fossil fuel! And it’s renewable! Wow!

 

[Webster]

Wait, wait...you're trying to justify continuing use of fossil fuels on old Soviet ideas and info? Isn't that akin to invoking Godwin's Law?

And speaking of abiotic oil, that's just as big of a myth as that of oil being renewable to start with:

The easiest to get petroleum has been gotten. Now comes the more difficult to extract oil which is harder to process.

Those who think Peak Oil is not real rarely address the reason why the oil industry ended in northwest Pennsylvania. Hint: It's the same reason why 200 foot tall trees aren't being cut down in New England any more and why gold mining is essentially ended in California.

Claims that oil is infinite are either a psychological blockage that makes it difficult to accept a round (ie. finite) planet or disinformation to distract people from demanding that the rest of the oil should be used in a humane and sane manner (solar panels, not battleships).

The real Peak Oil conspiracy is that the public is not allowed to be part of the decisions about how to cope with the environmental crisis.

Are there any disbelievers in Peak Oil who talk about the need for energy efficiency, to stop petroleum pollution that causes cancer and fouls the atmosphere, to reduce consumption, improve Amtrak, relocalize food production or other steps to reduce dependence on oil. Selfishness is not a great approach for figuring out how to have a sustainable civilization.

There's also peak natural gas, peak mineral resources (they can only be mined once!), peak fish, peak forests, peak soil, peak food, peak water and many other limits to endless growth. We have only one Earth, but most Americans (and others who aspire to live like Americans) act as if we'll just grab some more planets when we strip the resources from this one. That's the real issue and it's not solved by name calling, appeals for false unity, or various distractions that avoid the core problem of a round planet.(Oil Empire)

*looks around at everyone else* Next thing we know, Liberty will step up and tell us that the Earth is still flat...

 

[WHO IS SERAFIN]

Not just Russians of the past but modern day Russians. And it is not just Russians but credible American scientists.

[/quote]Petroleum, methane, and other hydrocarbons found on earth, are believed to be “fossil fuels,” the remnant of decayed organic matter deposited in the sedimentary layers of the earth’s crust for hundreds of millions of years. But for more than a half century, Russian scientists have been exploring an alternate hypothesis; that hydrocarbons existed prior to the formation of the earth, or were produced in the extreme pressure of the earth’s upper mantle shortly thereafter. For many years, Thomas Gold, a well known scientist with many original contributions to his credit, has been proposing his own synthesis of the Russian “abiogenic” theory. Through his independent formulations, research, and experiments, he has brought attention to it in Western academic and scientific forums, and thereby posed a significant challenge to the firmly entrenched but poorly substantiated fossil fuel theory. Gold therefore qualifies as the principal scientist for the theory in question, not the mere advocate of a theory fully formulated by others, and certainly not a theory that has been accepted by the Western scientific establishment. A resolution to this paradigm conflict in his favor would of course have momentous consequences, both scientific and macroeconomic, but in keeping with the theme of the present work, it is the scientific issue that concerns us most, and which will be the subject of this discussion.


Early Accomplishments of the Scientist

Astronomer, Thomas Gold, is best known for his “steady state” theory of the universe, which he developed with H. Bondi and F. Hoyle in 1955, in opposition to the commonly accepted Big Bang (BB) theory. Although it did not succeed in unseating the BB theory, largely because of the indisputable astronomical red shift data provided by the famous Edwin Hubble, the steady state theory was (and in more up-to-date versions, still is) favored by many astronomers and physicists for a variety of reasons, but which are beyond the scope of the present discussion.



During WWII and its aftermath, Gold made important contributions to Doppler radar science and technology; and applying this theory, he made inroads into our understanding of human hearing, formulating a new theory of the structure and function of the inner-ear that was far ahead of its time, and also proposing medical uses of sonic radar, or sonography, which were later developed by others. Working as an astronomer at the Royal Greenwich Observatory, he conducted original research on the sun and magnetic fields, coining the word, “magnetosphere” to describe the magnetic field of a star or planet. This work led to another important contribution; namely that the earth’s (or a planet’s) rotational axis can be unstable over time, and can move with changes in the distribution of matter or angular momentum of the rotating planet, (caused by glaciers, the upwelling of mountains, or meteor impacts).

 

[Webster]

Thomas Gold is a crackpot, both for his abiotic oil theories and for his steady state theory of the universe...me thinks you've drunk from the John Galt keg of kool-aid way too much, my friend...

 

[WHO IS SERAFIN]

Thomas Gold is a crackpot, both for his abiotic oil theories and for his steady state theory of the universe...me thinks you've drunk from the John Galt keg of kool-aid way too much, my friend...

Hardly a crackpot since its been proven and is happening all over the world with old abandoned oil fields are refilling. But again that is a threat to the anti oil global warming hoax crowd.

Oil Fields Are Refilling...
Naturally - Sometimes Rapidly
There Are More Oil Seeps Than All The Tankers On Earth
By Robert Cooke



Deep underwater, and deeper underground, scientists see surprising hints that gas and oil deposits can be replenished, filling up again, sometimes rapidly.

Although it sounds too good to be true, increasing evidence from the Gulf of Mexico suggests that some old oil fields are being refilled by petroleum surging up from deep below, scientists report. That may mean that current estimates of oil and gas abundance are far too low.
http://www.rense.com/general63/refil.htm

 

[Webster]

Thomas Gold is a crackpot, both for his abiotic oil theories and for his steady state theory of the universe...me thinks you've drunk from the John Galt keg of kool-aid way too much, my friend...

Hardly a crackpot since its been proven and is happening all over the world with old abandoned oil fields are refilling. But again that is a threat to the anti oil global warming hoax crowd.

Oil Fields Are Refilling...
Naturally - Sometimes Rapidly
There Are More Oil Seeps Than All The Tankers On Earth
By Robert Cooke



Deep underwater, and deeper underground, scientists see surprising hints that gas and oil deposits can be replenished, filling up again, sometimes rapidly.

Although it sounds too good to be true, increasing evidence from the Gulf of Mexico suggests that some old oil fields are being refilled by petroleum surging up from deep below, scientists report. That may mean that current estimates of oil and gas abundance are far too low.
http://www.rense.com/general63/refil.htm

Still doesn't mean we should get the damned oil out of the ground.

 

[WHO IS SERAFIN]

Thomas Gold is a crackpot, both for his abiotic oil theories and for his steady state theory of the universe...me thinks you've drunk from the John Galt keg of kool-aid way too much, my friend...

Hardly a crackpot since its been proven and is happening all over the world with old abandoned oil fields are refilling. But again that is a threat to the anti oil global warming hoax crowd.

Oil Fields Are Refilling...
Naturally - Sometimes Rapidly
There Are More Oil Seeps Than All The Tankers On Earth
By Robert Cooke



Deep underwater, and deeper underground, scientists see surprising hints that gas and oil deposits can be replenished, filling up again, sometimes rapidly.

Although it sounds too good to be true, increasing evidence from the Gulf of Mexico suggests that some old oil fields are being refilled by petroleum surging up from deep below, scientists report. That may mean that current estimates of oil and gas abundance are far too low.
http://www.rense.com/general63/refil.htm

Still doesn't mean we should get the damned oil out of the ground.

Sure it does. Smart people need to continue to come up with ideas for it to be used and burn cleaner. While thats happening smart people will continue to work on ideas to make solar and such work better. But rushing this alternative energy and forcing people to use a expensive technology that just does not work as good as oil destroys economies. Another 50 or 60 years we just might be there with revolutionary batteries and solar panels. Until then pull as much out of the ground as humanly possible.

 

[DrLeftover]

The "refilling oil field" thing is true.

Some of the earliest wells drilled in Pennsylvania and Ohio have been put back into production.

2012 article

http://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Are-Oil-Wells-Recharging-Themselves.html

 

[+paradox]

Thomas Gold is a crackpot, both for his abiotic oil theories and for his steady state theory of the universe...me thinks you've drunk from the John Galt keg of kool-aid way too much, my friend...

Hardly a crackpot since its been proven and is happening all over the world with old abandoned oil fields are refilling. But again that is a threat to the anti oil global warming hoax crowd.

Oil Fields Are Refilling...
Naturally - Sometimes Rapidly
There Are More Oil Seeps Than All The Tankers On Earth
By Robert Cooke



Deep underwater, and deeper underground, scientists see surprising hints that gas and oil deposits can be replenished, filling up again, sometimes rapidly.

Although it sounds too good to be true, increasing evidence from the Gulf of Mexico suggests that some old oil fields are being refilled by petroleum surging up from deep below, scientists report. That may mean that current estimates of oil and gas abundance are far too low.
http://www.rense.com/general63/refil.htm

Still doesn't mean we should get the damned oil out of the ground.

Sure it does. Smart people need to continue to come up with ideas for it to be used and burn cleaner. While thats happening smart people will continue to work on ideas to make solar and such work better. But rushing this alternative energy and forcing people to use a expensive technology that just does not work as good as oil destroys economies. Another 50 or 60 years we just might be there with revolutionary batteries and solar panels. Until then pull as much out of the ground as humanly possible.

that's not true, it's been proven that some of the best new technology with motors or engines are "green", using less oil and more something else like bio-fuel... some of this technology doesn't even need oil anymore...

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


there's "green" everything now...

cars
bikes
trucks
buses
planes
jets
helicopters
garbage trucks

even the military are using bi-fuel toys that works just fine...

 

[WHO IS SERAFIN]

Much Less efficient.

The energy in ethanol is less than gasoline, so in practice, biodiesel efficiency is much less than theoretical numbers. Biodiesel gas prices, such as E85, are usually cheaper than gasoline. However, the fuel economy does not make up for this loss.

More Expensive and still with problems.

[/quote]Biodiesel cars. One of the major cons of biodiesel fuel is its cost, being more expensive to produce than regular diesel. Another hazard is seen as the temptation for farmers to turn to growing biodiesel plants rather than food crops. In addition, large-scale farm production would use vast amounts of land.
Ethanol cars. The cons of ethanol-fueled cars include the fact that ethanol contains less energy than gasoline and so delivers less on a gas mileage comparison. Some people also suggest that the emissions from petrol-based fuels used in producing the grain exceed the ethanol's own emission benefits.
Hybrid cars. The downsides of choosing this vehicle include the considerably higher prices they cost to buy. There remains doubt about the longevity of the electricity-storing battery. As relatively new vehicles, few have experienced the 10-years plus life that could satisfactorily answer this open question either way.
Hydrogen cars. The negatives associated with using hydrogen as a vehicle fuel are rather troublesome. Considerable problems have arisen in the practical manufacture of these cars. There are no answers to these problems on the immediate horizon. In addition, hydrogen is a very explosive fuel. No complete solutions have yet been found to the safe transport of this fuel to the pump for distribution.
http://www.carsdirect.com/green-cars/pros-and-cons-of-alternative-fuel-cars

Biofuels cause pollution, not as green as thought - study

Green schemes to fight climate change by producing more bio-fuels could actually worsen a little-known type of air pollution and cause almost 1,400 premature deaths a year in Europe by 2020, a study showed on Sunday.

The report said trees grown to produce wood fuel - seen as a cleaner alternative to oil and coal - released a chemical into the air that, when mixed with other pollutants, could also reduce farmers' crop yields.

Not to mention all the energy used to make bio fuels. And all the land that could be used to feed people it is being used to grow gas. No give me good old oil for many years to come.