riiiight... they just found them...



http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/envi...icle4133668.ece

Kick ass.

Go, scientists. Get busy. It's your birthday.

I can see it now. The new wave of eco-cars... run by bugshit.

I bet you Chevron and Exxon/Mobil will declare these bugs a threat and have them made extinct

So that's why Bush has always been against genetic engineering......

Dance all you want, but I'm stocking barrels of instecticide for when Big Science starts creating giant, mutant bugs for the mass production of crude oil.

You doomsayers and your predictions of doom. Can't it just be enough for you that this one problem is solved?

Besides, there's always the lysine contingency...

are you still in that y2k bunker?

Not pigshot. BUGshot!

Is it so wrong to hang on to hope that it will have SOME use, eventually?

Although this doesn't really solve any of the massive environmental issues of our oil based society....

Anyone else get the feeling *this* might happen?

Seriously though, I find this kind of science fascinating.

No, but it could solve a few issues temporarily. Such as getting the price of oil down.

Although, I hear that has little to do with actual economics and more to do with speculation overdoses.

Yea, temporarily like ten years from now!

say goodbye to the gas station. Say hello to the gas farm!

Oh goodie now we can keep pumping massive doses of carbon monoxide into the atmosphere FOREVER.


Seems to me we should invest effort in to the cleaner technologies developed for transportation 20 years ago rather than cockamamie endless pollution schemes made of duct tape and guano.

note: I am all for pursuing this as science. It has fantastic potential for production of petroleum based products in a future where Fossil fuels are exhausted or even places humanity might like to go that will have no fossil fuels. But you'll have to forgive me for not being excited about the prospect of people being able to get their Hummers back on the road and their heads back in the sand.

That's pretty much where I stand.

Plastics and other things our society currently needs to survive technologically = good


Cheap fuel so some cockwit can drive an SUV that he doesn't need = ignoring a large part of the problem.

Okay, I'm all for people buying cars with better gas mileage and not using vehicles with poor fuel economy just so they can drive by themselves to work and everything.

But dude, telling people that they shouldn't have something because they don't "need" it = über

Normally, yeah. I don't need transformers, the internet, etc. I agree with you there.

But when you add up the combined effects of all the tools who buy an SUV because they think a big, loud car makes them cool; then it becomes an issue.


*FWIW, I have no problem with people who actually require a large vehicle for their daily needs*

Just FYI, a UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report indicates that the world cattle population is responsible for more greenhouse gases into the air than planes, trains, automobiles, and all other forms of transportation combined.

"The report also blames livestock farming for over 100 other polluting gases, including the number one source of ammonia, a major contributor to acid rain. It further blames ranching for deforestation, and ends with a slap at the massive amounts of drinking water used to feed cattle herds, which presumably is taking water from the mouths of thirsty children."

Source.

It's safer for the environment to drive a hummer than it is to use animal products. I hope all you SUV haters are vegans.

Cows did it?
Screw you world, I like my Steak!



Another point of note is that a large percentage (No one can agree how big, but I've heard up to 90%. Probably financed by wood work industry I grant you) of oxygen producing plants are Ocean borne Algae, and not the rain forests.

Sorry Hobbes I'm calling BS on this one.
Agriculture and Food=Good. (though I do concur the current regulation of the cattle trade is in severe need of repair, but that is a complicated topic)

Pumping gas into the air especially in concentrated population centers for the sake of making the worlds oil douche population richer and accelerating that process by driving vehicles that serve no purpose but to compensate for philological inadequacy is weak.

I don't hold with any environmental justification that begins with, "But those people do it worse...".

I live in Japan, so I eat a lot of fish, tofu and rice.

There's no BS to call. You may not like it, but there it is.


I agree. For the record, my animal consumption habits have not wained a bit since I found out about this.


No weaker than acting all holier than thou and assuming every SUV driver you see is compensating for philological inadequacy until they take the time to prove to you otherwise, like you're anybody worth worrying about.*


You realize you're essentially saying "I ignore the biggest issues when it's inconvienent to me. Everyone else should change, even if that change produces minor or no actual help for the environment by comparison to what I could be doing."

This goes back to the "Environmentalism as Religion" thread I started a while ago. Present someone "concerned" with the environment legitimate information that something else might be a bigger problem than the easily demonized "Big Oil" or corporations in general - something that would force them to change their behavior - or even more taboo present them with legitimate information that some environmental issues may not be as dire as previously thought, and they tend to plug their ears and sing "I'm not listening" like a Creationist confronted with evolution.


ETA: Oh, and, while everyone else complains about SUVs, someone's actually working on that livestock problem.





*Note the very general intent of this statement is meant to not suggest that "P-C" is nobody, but that in our general day-to-day lives none of us worries very much about justifying our choices to strangers, and you therefore cannot ask strangers to change a behavior - even if that behavior is worthy of change - by just passing judgment and looking down on them and insulting their dork size.

FTR, I think P-C is the bee's knees.

FTR, I reciprocate Hobbes's "Bees knees" feeling toward me.


I'm feeling to lazy to quote bullet point my response so please forgive.

I didn't mean to imply that your facts were BS callable merely that the implications it should have on our actions were debatable.

I was using the genital size inversion metaphor to cover all the myriad stupid reasons that people who do not need supersized vehicles drive them. I derive this to be a large number due to the inverse ratio of people with occupations (or even hobbies I'd wager) and the number of such vehicles on our roads. It was merely meant to be an insult to that population, and a heartfelt one. I have no data to confirm that they are wanting in the dangly unmentionable arena.

For the last part, I think you misunderstand my meaning. I hold that to say I may be bad, because X is worse is no argument at all.

IE: We can pollute all we want because China Pollutes MORE.

A lot of SUVs are driven by moms FWIW.

You have no evidence to suppose anyone drives an SUV for no reason. You presume to be able to know, or at least accurately estimate, the number of reasons to legitimately drive an SUV and the amount of the population engaged in such activities. You can't possibly know that information, and yet you're willing to insult perfect strangers based solely on...well, nothing. And I'm not saying that there aren't people who drive SUVs needlessly. It's the "guilty until proven innocent" approach that I take issue with.


I agree that you can't say, "we can pollute because China pollutes more than we do." But you also can't say, "people who drive SUVs suck because they harm the environment" when you, yourself, engage in even more environmentally harmful behavior (the use of animal products).

If you want to say SUVs suck because they take up two parking spaces or make it hard for you to see on the road or whatever, fine. But don't make it an environmental issue...and if it's not an environmental issue it probably belongs in another thread.

By the way, did everyone notice that this Bug Oil is a carbon negative? Pretty cool, huh?

Oh, please Hobbes, have you met our fellow Americans?





I had not noticed that. But I'd still rather we started to rely less on pollutant producing goop.

Indeed I have.

But I still don't believe that a "guilty until proven innocent" outlook is ever justified.

Especially when the subject of the prejudging is a blip on the radar of the bigger problem and the judge is equally engaged in the activities that are real issues.

Eh, well. We're arguing about nothing.

I think the lesson here is that Hobbes and I both think the glass is half full, I just think it's half full of crap.

BUG crap!

Hey, dude, Bug Crap is worth $4.19 a gallon.

Man, Earth really has turned into Bizzaro-world...not too long ago, we were trying to find microorganisms to break down oil for bioremediation projects...

Hey Bug Fuel plus hybrid electric cars could really solve a lot of problems



wouldn't these bugs pollute the environment if they got out of control though?

You could produce you're own oil! Like bee keepers.

Now we just need bugs that would eat the oil and produce refined fuel...

And then bugs that will eat refined fuel and then carry us on their backs to work.

Problem solved.

I'm getting a Starship Troopers vibe here...

WOOD U LYK 2 NO MOAR?

Bee Pee!







Wait. Does anyone outside the UK get that?

I do not.

Isn't that what makes honey?

EDIT: No, wait, that's bee puke.

I DO! I fill my car up with Bee Pee all the time.

*lubricates human*

We have BP in the states. I don't think anyone buys it (it's la expensiva where I live)

, last five posts WIN

The chain at the lower priced end of the "still-nationally-recognized" chains here is Arco which has been owned by BP since 2000.

http://www.insertcredit.com/