1 - In what way is oil and drilling destroying our planet?
2 - What should we do about it?
3 - How should we power our cars?
4 - Should we drill to help our economy while we work on other ideas or no?
1. Oil spills have caused untold damage to marine and coastal environments. To name one example.
2. Drill responsibly while making headway into alternative, renewable sources of energy. BP being granted yet another contract is an example which infuriates me.
3. Electric, fuel cell, solar, hydrogen and steam are (as far as I can tell) increasingly valid alternatives.
4. Yes, while I don't like the idea of free-for-all drilling, any change in fuel consumption should be gradual in order to appease economic and market forces. I don't like it, but I can't see a way around freeing ourselves overnight from our oil dependency.
Nature spills more oil than we do. Deepwater Horizon was 5 million barrels. The gulf of mexico has 1 million + barrels of natural seepage every year.
I think a big conflict is what defines responsible drilling? Is it responsible to continually hold off drilling while our economy struggles and gas prices are so high?
Electric has to get it's electricity from somewhere. Hydrogen/fuel cell has to use energy to create the hydrogen. Steam? How are we going to get the energy to make steam? Solar won't work for cars. We would have to throw out safety regulations and sacrifice speed to even get close.
Every alternative requires energy. This seems to be the point that people miss. Where will we get the energy for our alternative energy?
It will take a long time to get off oil. I want to show people that it's not as bad as the media and pseudo-scientists want us to think.
Natural seepage does not mean oil spills are any less harmful (which was your original question), why add to the tally? While I agree that drilling is currently here to stay, until there are efficient alternatives, it is illogical to justify free-for-all drilling by saying that nature does it too. It's simply another reason FOR curtailing the philosophy of "drill, baby drill".
I'm also a little confused by your flat-out dismissal of the alternatives I suggested. Some models are now widely available such as the fully electric Nissan Leaf. Perhaps you should ask them how they did it. Solar powered cars, as you say, are far from workable as things stand. But several companies such as Venturi have built prototypes that are promising, and solar technology has made leaps and bounds of progress. Should we simply stop pushing because it seems unlikely?
You are correct that alternative energy requires energy, of course. But you'll also have to agree that energy efficiency on many of these new engines is far superior to petrol based engines (in excess of 60%).
The argument is usually that our oil spills are extremely harmful to the environment, when they really aren't. They are a small ding in the amount of natural seepage. Yes, it is bad, but not bad enough to nullify the benefits. The environmental damage is minuscule. The flip side is horrible, horrible drawbacks for humanity.
The point is, electricity isn't free. If everyone switched to electric, we would have massive blackouts. If we want to replace oil with electric, where are we going to get the energy for it?
No, not at all. We should keep researching. But none of these alternatives are close enough to justify curtailing drilling when prices are high, the economy suffers, and unemployment is high. It's much better to drill, help the economy, help jobs.
You have to also consider the energy efficiency of creating the energy for the new alternatives.
And people died in Iraq, Libya... for oil. Which honorable argument will you give me?
Every time an oil well is drilled it leaves a big hollow spot.Pretty soon the whole earth will be hollow,then it will drift off like a balloon and bump into the planet Nirubo and I heard that the Anunnaki will get really PO'd and do the same thing to us they did last time we bumped into their planet.
Personally,I don't like the Idea of mining gold for them if I don't get a little myself.
Is this the weed thread?
Uh... no, it's not
Maybe we could fill the holes with garbage that could turn into more oil?
I'm sure that statement is rational to you. Well done!
You are, no problem. However, your justification of particular acts, comes at the expense of others.
That's the problem, isn't it? You don't know what we are talking about.
Yes, the pursuit of oil is harmful and quite stupid. It doesn't take much research to see that.
But you will not see it, so why bother talking about it?
Show me how harmful it really is. Show me the cons and pros of more, 'status quo', and less drilling, and let's see what's truly harmful.
No. Why should I waste the energy of my fingers?
The question is settled in all but the minds of a few people like you. If you won't educate yourself when it would be so easy to do so, why should I bother?
Your response in the other thread was basically
Drilling is bad
We should do something else
You assume too many things. You assume everyone agrees with you. You assume that you know more than me. You assume that the things you hear from the media and 'scientists' at the IPCC are true. Follow your own advice and educate yourself.
Yes, I know more than you do. That is a fact, both in assumption and in actuality.
Even more in love with you now. ~sighs~
Somebody has to appreciate loony liberal ACLU smart-aleck atheists - for some reason I have never understood, most people seem to dislike me :-)
Prove it. Come on, let's discuss. Back up your words.
It's simple. Your opinions tell me all I need to know.
And again, no, I will not help you educate yourself. It's plain enough that you have no intention of learning anything that would enlighten you. I am not going to wrestle with you or anyone else like you. I'll taunt you now and then, but I will not wrestle.
Listen, I'm all for new information. You think you know what my opinions are, but I'm sure many of them are just assumptions.
It's nice for you to act smart, but you refusing to even discuss why you think I'm wrong just shows that you're uncertain in your own views.
So you know it all. You are the specialists and we are the idiots.
I thought it was obvious. You are allowed to joke (is that not the question you asked? Correct me if I'm wrong) You have attempted to justify drilling, have you not? Keep up, E, I shouldn't have to explain you own posts to you! Come on, behave like a grown up, now.
Hollie, you said my justification of 'particular acts' comes at the expense of others.
If you were talking about drilling, wouldn't it have been easier to just type 'drilling'? Let's see, 15 characters you typed vs. 8 you could have. So, it doesn't even make sense that you would be talking about drilling.
I'll give you some help. If you use words that specifically state the idea you are trying to present, it works out better.
Nor did you ever say what the 'others' are.
Don't blame me for your poor communication.
Just to type "drilling" would be the American way, I use British, English. Or, have you forgotten? You sound a little defensive now E. Poor communication, can arise when an individual is too lazy (or ignorant) to expand and prefers a " testing method" It's not my fault that you have forgotten your original statements. Try to remember the questions you asked originally. Honestly, it works out better!
Hollie, grow up. You never referenced my OP, you referenced a joke post. If I don't understand what you mean with vague references, it's not my fault. For all I knew, you were taking another jab at me being a bad parent.
My response regarding the way you allowed your child to starve when there were other options, has really gotten to you hasn't it? I'm not surprised, it should. However, unlike you, I have not brought that into the room with me, you have. Twice now. I went quiet in the other forum, re this event because I felt you were embarrassed about it. Ok, we all have regrets. it appears however, that you feel you'll silence me with it, when you do not have a counter argument. You grow up, E! What happened to your child is on your conscience, not mine.
The options were to work, with little food for a week, and get a paycheck, or not work, have more food for a week, and lose my job. Get over it. Losing my job would have been stupid.
Which is exactly why you brought it up in my valley forge thread. Like I said before, I expect people to behave the way they have behaved in the past.
Just because you would have lost your job to get an extra few meals doesn't mean that's the right thing to do. The fact is, you came into this thread, replied to a joke post, and expected me to know you were talking about something else. Just learn to be clear in presenting your ideas..
Why don't you learn to stop talking BS? You introduced this thread, now apparently it's a joke. Why don't you learn to be clear in presenting your ideas. If this thread was a joke, it was in particularly bad taste. Drilling and oil costs lives, or have you not noticed?
Thank goodness I'm not like you, I would never allow my child to starve and lose weight when that could have been prevented. You seem somewhat reluctant to go in to too much detail about it now E, although you should, because you keep bringing it into the room!!!
I didn't say the thread was a joke, now did I? I said the post was a joke(filling in the 'oil holes' with trash so we wouldn't float away in space).
That's the post you replied to. That's the post that was a joke.
Ok Hollie. Two options. Pick one.
1 - Work for a week when your family has little food, knowing that you will get a paycheck on Friday and have a job to pay for shelter and other necessities.
2 - Quit your job so you have more food for that week.
Oh, and anyone who puts quotes around "scientists" when they aren't using it as I am here is never going to get anything but derision from me.
I put quotes around 'scientists' for their inconsistencies, obvious political corruption, and outright manipulation of data.
I put quotes around 'scientists' for their inconsistencies, obvious political corruption, and outright manipulation of data.
The extraction of oil, as I see it, is only destroying our planet through man's greed.
To put that statement in perspective, how many wars in the Middle east would have happened if it hadn't been for oil?
What about the other side? Where would we be without oil?
That's the kind of response that makes me bang my head on the desk.
Where would we be? We'd be in a different place. But that's not the point. The point is that we are at a point where we desperately need to develop alternatives NOW. We will likely NEVER replace oil entirely, but the more we can replace, the better off we will be.
But never mind: you still don't understand why we'd be better off.
When someone says 'consider the wars that never would have happened without oil', it's pretty logical to consider what else wouldn't have happened without oil.
Why do we need to develop alternatives now? Is it the cost of oil? Pollution? Damage to the environment because of drilling and speculating?
See, I'm trying really hard here to get you to present some real ideas.
I have never claimed to be against alternative energies. I'm all for developing alternatives. You seem to think I'm completely against them...
Who knows but there would have to have been a lot more crops and animals grown to provide the planet with clothing. One big issue is this: Most of the clothing worn by first and second nations is made from petroleum based fibers. Cotton products are more expensive to purchase and processing cotton comes with its own downside. There isn't enough wool and most people wouldn't wear it anyway. Silk is too expensive. Bamboo and hemp are still too expensive.
So this would be a big issue if there were no more oil processing. China would be out of business in clothing manufacturing as would most other manufacturers. What about petroleum based plastics? A huge can of worms. I'm not saying drilling is ok, in fact I wish there were a solution substitute but the facts remain.
A few million lives may have been saved.
How many would be lost? How many technological advancements would we not have without modern travel? How many diseases would we not be able to control?
Where do you actually think we would be without oil?
And literally almost every convenience we know wouldn't exist. Some might exist in another form. The use of petroleum is clearly out of hand. Plastic bottles, lamination, plexiglass, all synthetic fibers - clothing, fire retardant gear, sleeping bags, baby wear, uniforms, dive gear, blankets - countertops, equipment cases, machine housings, packaging of all sorts, paints, carpeting, you name it. Even that computer your typing on.
Yes, but just because it was our best option for advancements at the time, does not mean it is the best option now. Oil drilling is an outdated practice that is being continued, despite the risk and pollution, because the wealthy are heavily invested in continuing it.
We don't have viable alternatives right now. Not unless you want to stop all cars, aircraft, etc...
Any alternative would require IMMENSE amounts of energy. Either immense new sources of power for electricity, or immense amounts of power to create enough hydrogen to switch to fuel cells.... we're nowhere near that point.
In the meantime, gas is expensive and our economy suffers. Let's keep working on alternatives, bring the price of gas down, and create jobs.
That post wasn't directed at you. I thought we had an agreement.
I don't really care, if you want to post in a thread I make about a topic, I'll correct you like I'll correct anyone else who thinks we can do without oil.
Nobody said we can do without oil. We need to REDUCE our dependence on oil.
You hit the nail on the head, Pc. Change takes time but there will never be change if consumers continue to buy and waste petroleum based products. Plastic water bottles is a great example. There's no need for the vast amounts of plastic bottles. A switch to a simple water filter would work.
Not replacing our clothing, disposing of it, as often as people do is another solution in the consumer waste area. Stop buying foods packaged in plastic, like the bags within the box. Use canvas reusable grocery bags instead of either paper, plastic, or the nylon reusable bags. Nylon is a petroleum based fiber.
You're not correcting anyone. You are merely offering an opinion. That is not a correction, who on earth do you think you are?
"Oil drilling is outdated"
Yeah, we don't need oil. Right.
It's not an opinion. It's fact. We need oil.
Helloooo. read previous posts, this was not disputed! How can we achieve less dependency? You still aren't correcting anyone. You do not have the ability! Wake up and smell the coffee.
Oh, I see. You word doesn't matter. Nice to know. I didn't trust anything you said before, but thank you for giving me proof. If you are trying to make a point, then telling the truth is irrelevant.
You want to come into my thread, make jokes, and make points about the topic without me responding?
If you don't want me to respond to you, don't post in a thread I create and am active in. It's pretty simple.
I told you before, I usually don't notice who says something, I just respond to the message. I don't really care if I accidentally respond to you, as I have no problem with you.
Sorry to bother you, but you can just ignore my posts/threads if you want.
Thanks for the clarification... It is ok to lie to someone and make promises you won't keep if you are completely lacking in self control. I didn't address anything you posted or said. I was trying to show respect to our agreement. Obviously you don't feel any such need to honor your word.
How surprising from someone who would let his child starve and blame someone else for it.
Melissa, I'm on a netbook. My screen isn't wide enough to see avatars and posts together. No, I"m not interested in scrolling over to check every post to see if it's yours.
I'm sorry, but it was just a general post and I replied to it.
Why don't you stick to the American oil, why go and murder people for your own comfort? And the money doesn't even go to your pockets. or does it?
I'm all for drilling in America. No problem with that.
How long do you think it will last as the second consumer in the world?
And then, what will you do, look at the horizon? And find the cow that will quench your thirst for oil.
We don't know exactly how much we have, but it's probably somewhere in the range of 20-100 years of oil. More if we work on alternatives consistently.
I was a political activist back in 80s, and I campaigned fr alternatives to oil, which will one run out.
I am so happy that windfarms have since been introduced, and the wavefarms are in the offing, and that alternatives to fuelling cars are available.
What is this argument about?
Governments successively, in all Western nations, have used oil as a negotiating point.
The increase in alternative power sources, decreases our dependence on oil, which one day will run out.
Well enough for the sake of energy. There are alternatives for energy but what about all the other uses petroleum is put to? That's a long road
Not so long as you would think. Products were developed using petroleum based products because the materials were by-products(read cheap). Remove cheap materials and you would be surprised how quickly new products will be developed.
You also fail to address that many of the products made with petrochemicals are ridiculously dangerous/toxic. We would be better off without them anyway.
@Emrldphx. I have raised my 19 year old son and 14 year old daughter, alone, since 2002. Never, despite recessions and a poisonous divorce, have I had to choose between one or the other. Why? Because I was always one step ahead of the game. No employer would ever have that power over me, because I've never been a conformist or an apologist for the disgustingly wealthy. I have made my own money and supported my children completely. Perhaps the quintessential student, should think about protecting his own instead of making ridiculous arguments.
Sorry Holly, you didn't pick an answer. You criticize me for my choice, what would you have done in my shoes?
If you think that it is 100% up to you whether or not you are 'ahead of the game', then you show your lack of knowledge, wisdom, and compassion. Not everyone can work for themselves. Not everyone can control what happens.
If you want to continue criticizing me, pick an answer.
Not everyone can work for themselves. Not everyone can control what happens.
Yet, when you talk about the OWS movement, you are completely judgemental. You appear to have absolutely no compassion for people who have lost their homes, jobs, pensions and self respect! How does it feel when the shoe is on the other foot?
Here's the answer, I would beg, borrow and steal, to keep my children from starving. Fortunately I've never had to. Which is why I would never judge a parent who is in that position. Wake up, many of your fellow American citizens are. They need your help, not your judgement.
Ok, you would beg, borrow, and steal(and presumably lose your job).
I didn't steal. I worked. When I was home I cooked what we had and took care of my family. I would have intervened if I needed to to save my son's life, but it wasn't to that point. It was much better for me to keep my job so he would have food and shelter the next week too.
I have compassion for people who are struggling. I don't have compassion for people who complain about the police when they are breaking the law.
Where is the point of your questions? To lead us to believe that oil is key and we should still drill?
Let me be as manipulative and biased.
In what way is oil and drilling not destroying our planet?
What should we do about it?
Should we power our cars with natural gas or electricity or another form of energy?
Should we stop now drilling since the electric car is on the market?
When he can't counter this argument, he'll say it was a joke.
My point is, yes, we should continue to drill while we work on alternatives. We can create jobs, lower gas prices, and help our economy.
Oil and drilling create pollution and occasional oil spills. However, the effect of these spills and the pollution is minimal compared to the necessity of maintaining our economy. The pollution isn't destroying our planet through global warming... I admit is hurts health, but so does unemployment.
We should continue to drill, and continue to work on other energy sources.
We should power our cars with gas until a viable solution is presented.
We should continue drilling, because we don't have the infrastructure for all-electric cars, long-distance trips wouldn't be possible, and airlines can't operate off of electric.
therefore no more cars and the problem is solved. We walk, we bicycle... and it is positive for our health...
Which jobs would be created?
Lower gas prices whereas we passed the oil peak? Good analysis! On which planet are you leaving?
You would cut out anyone who lives too far from work to walk or bike. Anyone who is in too hot or cold of a climate to walk or bike. What about construction? Do we need to carry each bit of sheetrock from a factory to where we want to build a house?
The jobs are created at drilling sites, transportation, construction, maintenance, more processing factories, etc, etc, etc...
The money people make at those jobs is spent at stores, which further helps create jobs. It's all about cash flow.
We use 7 billion barrels of oil in one year.
I was wrong, we have an estimated 1.8 trillion barrels of oil in shale alone.
1,800,000,000,000 / 7,000,000,000
over 200 years of oil just from shale. I had forgotten how much of that there is.
http://fossil.energy.gov/programs/reser … _Sheet.pdf
Then you have Alaska, Gulf, and other offshore drilling.
I have an idea for all of you green advocates. Why don't we drill everything we have right now to have energy independence and get rid of the world's fossil fuels, the faster we deplete them, the quicker inefficient green technologies will become cost effective and the world will shift towards them. We also could create jobs so that we can employ the smelly hippies with Guy Fawkes masks dancing to bongo drums and wasting tax dollars. Drill here, drill now, get it over with and push for renewable energies full steam ahead. Don't be stupid eco-dummies, we can work together without destroying the environment long term and you won't have to burn your bra's and produce carbon, not to mention the methane coming from your unshaven, non-deodorized arm pits.
Wow! I'd love to respond to this but not really sure where you're coming from. Whom do you hate, the tree huggers, the hippies, the bra burners, the naturalists, or the oil drillers?
I was almost listening to you, until you mentioned bra-burning.
Excuse me, but my bra keeps me in shape (sort of).
This isn't a sex topic. This affects all of us.
Green technologies should be promoted at every opportunity.
Know why? Because the oil isn't going to be there forever.
I'm an oldie, and I see that.
Not forever, but it isn't going to run out any time soon either.
We have plenty of time to develop alternatives without having to rush and ruin our economy/infrastructure.
Yea, we have plenty of time to shift our wealth to the middle east for energy while we make our assets worth nothing at home. Our economy already is ruined we pour our depleting currency overseas by the bucket for oil to countries that are the most tyrannical and unjust to human rights on Earth. Then we get involved in no win wars over a resource we have plenty of at home and no political will to tap. We could actually develop renewable energy that is realistically competitive if we get rid of our own super cheap fossil fuels at home without enriching dictatorships and primitive theocratic human rights nightmares.
What is plenty of time? I am paying 3.37 at the pump and I know most of that is taxes to an out of control government but the rest goes overseas to support governments I think even less of.
You propose we replace oil before we get rid of our oil supplies and we hover at 9% unemployment under another incompetant president? Please. Get rid of all the fossil fuels while they still have value, then your green dream will become a reality; not before the inefficient green technologies bankrupt our economy after each failed experiment to replace a cheap fuel source is subsidised by Obama and the rest of the socialist humanists world's government fueled disaster project. This is like using government and taxpayers to finance airports in the 1700's.
I'm talking about oil in America. We have enough to keep ourselves going for a long long time. I'm saying we should utilize the oil we have, drive prices down, and create new jobs.
Why would america plegde war if it had plenty of oil, for the second biggest oil consumer
With your realism framboise, you still believe that governments are competent? That master degrees in economics can fix the problems of the economy?
Seen under your reductive prism, you found all the answers to the problems and the green advocates are the idiots. But you, you are smart, you ahve everything figured out with your pseudo explanations
And America is the country of freedom. No tyranny at all, no surveillance of black listed journalists, lobbies through congress decides which policy to apply in the name of their interests and you dare refer to tyranny? What did American soldiers in Iraq, in Guantanamo, you call that human rights? When kids demonstrate peacefully they pepper spray them! Let's see what will happen if they riot, if they won't send the army?
And the one world order doesn't exist! Please, you sound like a sensible person, spread the word. Let people know what we are all up against.
The guy who posted after you made some valid points too, but the fact is that oil has corrupted our politicians; it has corrupted some of the wealthiest people on the planet, and yet at the same time it is needed.
It is only needed until an alternative fuel is found.
The FACT that oil will run out, makes it valuable.
With today's technology, we could build cars with tires that never wear out.
Do you think business wants that?
Do they want cars built that aren't wrecked in the slightest collision? Because we have the technology to build them.
We, the people, want one thing, them, the top money makers want another thing.
I'm not sure what kind of tires you are referring to. My guess would be they would either be very expensive or very uncomfortable
Actually, it's very important for a car to wreck in a collision. All of the energy that goes into bending that relatively soft metal is energy that doesn't go into your body.
We can ultimately change things, we're not so far gone that the voice of the people doesn't have a say. I'm hopeful for some real changes, but at the same time, I've got other ideas on where I would like to spend the rest of my life in case it doesn't.
Right now, right in this time, it is possible to make tyres that do not degrade.
Tires, tyres, spelling difference only.
The majority of accidents that happen on the road in wet weather are caused by worn tyres.
You need to have tyres with a good thread to deal with surface water on the road
Worn tyres, even those that are only worn to the minimum level, are a danger.
Yet the technology exists to make tyres perfect forever, or damned near it.
If those that governed our world REALLY cared about us, do you not think they would have forced through a law to make everlasting tyres a reality?
No, they prefer the returning profit of an ever-renewing source, like tyres, which it doesn't need to be.
That's just a matter of driving faster than you should in given conditions.
Not if you are driving properly. Proper driving means giving yourself room to stop.
What tires? Made out of what? Can you post a link? They'll either be very expensive or very uncomfortable, or both.
Even if they did, would we be able to afford them?
Do you believe that? Why is it then that Heads of State travel around in crash-proof cars?
Why do most families prefer the German-built Volvos to carry their family around?
Volvo's don't crumple on impact.
They can build impact-proof cars.
With tyres/tires that last forever.
But then, they'd be out of work, wouldn't they?
Do you understand physics at all? Let's assume you had a car that wouldn't even dent in a crash, and you are firmly secured. If you get into a crash and stop instantly, there is going to be TREMENDOUS pressure on you from the restraints, you would likely break your neck and/or dislocate joints, and the force of your brain pressing into your skull could kill you. The faster you stop, the more it hurts.
If you don't understand, look at these examples. Which one is going to hurt most?
You go from 60 to 0 in 10 seconds with the brakes.
You go from 60 to 0 in 2 seconds hitting the back of a car.
You go from 60 to 0 in .5 seconds hitting an oncoming car.
Crumple zones absorb force, which makes it so you can live. They are a VERY good thing.
Volvo are very safe, Swedish(right?) cars. Not everyone can afford a $27,000 entry level coupe though.
Volvo's crumple too. Watch the crash tests. The goal is to have maximum crumple without any structural integrity lost in the passenger areas.
Show me an impact-proof car.
Show me tires that last forever(and costs)
OK, my school physics isn't quite up to the impact/survival rate, though it should be - I am getting forgetful the older I get - but faulty tyres is the cause of most accidents.
Who sold those faulty tyres?
Well they were brand new six months before, but a few thousand miles down the line and they are worn.
Tyres aquaplane on wet road surfaces when they are worn.
The whole point of a deep thread is that water is dispelled sideways.
Having good tyres on a vehicle makes all the different between life and death.
Why wait for a collision?
The Law in most countries in the world demands a good thread on tyres.
Butu I would pay 10 times the current price for a new tyre, to have ones that didn't wear down.
Uh-uh! Ain't for sale.
by CaribeM7 years ago
The recent events in the Gulf after the explosion of the Deepwater Horizon, reminds us again that offshore oil drilling is too dangerous for marine ecosystems and coastal communities and economies, I think it should not...
by Dustin Staples5 years ago
Is there a theist bold enough to answer? My least favorite story in the bible, "The Binding of Isaac": let's assume you have a kid, would you have the same fear and faith in God to carry out his will? If so,...
by Kathryn L Hill3 years ago
...furthermore, He is behind the logical aspect of the world. In other words, He invented logic! We merely discovered / uncovered it!
by SparklingJewel7 years ago
World Affairs Brief, June 18, 2010 Commentary and Insights on a Troubled World.Copyright Joel Skousen. Partial quotations with attribution permitted. Cite source as Joel Skousen's World Affairs Brief (...
by CMHypno7 years ago
Obama's attacks on BP are increasingly being viewed in the UK as signs of his anti-British stance. Or is he just trying to pull attention away from his own administration's...
by lady_love1586 years ago
http://www.environmentalleader.com/2011 … -api-says/Shame! According to API a change in Obama's energy policy could create 1.4 million jobs, add 800 billion to government coffers, and make America completely...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.