the Global Warming debate

[mmmbop1976 1]

That's just windpower alone... It's not going to 'hit' our economy, but shift the economic power from one industry (oil) to more evenly distributed among other sources. This is why the Oil Companies fight against policy changes that invest in alternative energy because it means they would lose their monopoly on energy.

I'll find some info on geothermal and solar energy.

Oil? What about coal? Coal generates 54% of our electricity, and is the single biggest air polluter in the U.S., so why are we attacking oil? Replace all coal power plants with Solar panels and windmills. What happens to the tens of thousands of employees directly employed by the Coal Industry? Do you think there would be enough jobs created maintaining windmills and solar panels to replace that?

Yes, any fossil fuel burning industries need to dramatically be reduced or phased out. CO2 happens to be the biggest contributor to Global Warming and it is the automobile industry that we need to be targeting with higher fuel effeciency standards as well as zero emissions goals.

Our economy cannot be tethered by industries that no longer seem feasible for a sustainable future, nor is it necessary for economic strength. Our economic strength should be to built on pushing forward new technologies that improve the overall quality of life for us. If that means that we ween ourselves off of certain industries and shift to new ones, that's not doomsday. Did you worry about all those VHS employees when DVD players replaced them? Or when digital cameras took over the market over film cameras? You're being shortsighted to think we must hold onto industries just for fear of job loss. Job loss is bad, but not when we're replacing old jobs with new ones.

yes, and do you know why digital cams replaced film cameras, dvd's replaced vhs, etc etc...it's because there was a marketplace demand for it. somebody came along with a better product or a cheaper product or both, better and cheaper. and when you can convince the american public that wind or solar power is their best bet for cheap, reliable power, only then will it happen on a mass basis. as much as you want it to happen, it will only happen when the market dictates it, we are a free market economy. and that is a good thing, for only in a free market economy is there prosperity.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

That's just windpower alone... It's not going to 'hit' our economy, but shift the economic power from one industry (oil) to more evenly distributed among other sources. This is why the Oil Companies fight against policy changes that invest in alternative energy because it means they would lose their monopoly on energy.

I'll find some info on geothermal and solar energy.

Oil? What about coal? Coal generates 54% of our electricity, and is the single biggest air polluter in the U.S., so why are we attacking oil? Replace all coal power plants with Solar panels and windmills. What happens to the tens of thousands of employees directly employed by the Coal Industry? Do you think there would be enough jobs created maintaining windmills and solar panels to replace that?

Yes, any fossil fuel burning industries need to dramatically be reduced or phased out. CO2 happens to be the biggest contributor to Global Warming and it is the automobile industry that we need to be targeting with higher fuel effeciency standards as well as zero emissions goals.

Our economy cannot be tethered by industries that no longer seem feasible for a sustainable future, nor is it necessary for economic strength. Our economic strength should be to built on pushing forward new technologies that improve the overall quality of life for us. If that means that we ween ourselves off of certain industries and shift to new ones, that's not doomsday. Did you worry about all those VHS employees when DVD players replaced them? Or when digital cameras took over the market over film cameras? You're being shortsighted to think we must hold onto industries just for fear of job loss. Job loss is bad, but not when we're replacing old jobs with new ones.

yes, and do you know why digital cams replaced film cameras, dvd's replaced vhs, etc etc...it's because there was a marketplace demand for it. somebody came along with a better product or a cheaper product or both, better and cheaper. and when you can convince the american public that wind or solar power is their best bet for cheap, reliable power, only then will it happen on a mass basis. as much as you want it to happen, it will only happen when the market dictates it, we are a free market economy. and that is a good thing, for only in a free market economy is there prosperity.

Actually, when digital camera's first came out, they were incredibly pricey compared to their film counterparts and the quality was not up to par with film. It has only been recently that the technology has improved and the price dropped. I'm all for letting the marketplace influence our economy but it's reckless to assume that marketplace trends are the litmus test as to whether we should or shouldn't adopt a new technology - we have to take into account longterm goals towards a sustainable future that supports our quality of life. You have to have public policy that supports those new technologies and then once they get off to a good start, the marketplace will fill up with competing solar and wind industries, boosting our economy.

[mawilson 2,133]

Have we actually discovered a safe way to deal with the nuclear waste material?

Sure - we give it to cash-strapped African countries and pay them to keep their mouth shut.

[samir_shannon 0]

pleeease no more debates

[Henia 11]

pleeease no more debates

[dalegg 143]

You have to have public policy that supports those new technologies and then once they get off to a good start, the marketplace will fill up with competing solar and wind industries, boosting our economy.

I'm skeptical- and I like the idea of alternative energy sources for many reasons. That isn't to say I wouldn't listen to someone who laid the plan out for me convincingly, but then my own job is not on the line. You have to picture trying to convince the thousands of people who would be directly affected by seeping changes that the marketplace will take care of them somehow.

I think this is why Gore didn't win the election of 2000. Put aside the whole vote stealing debate in Florida for a moment. It shouldn't have been that close anyway with people generally happy with Clinton's policies. Too many blue-collar worker type democrats were afraid, and they always will be.

I've read the gyst of the Kyoto treaty and Frankly, I think it looks pretty useless. A 7% reduction? What is that going to do? And besides it looks like one country could buy credits from another country- and go on with business as usual and I'm sure that's probably what we'd do rather than make any radical changes.

pleeease no more debates

No way. I'll never get my second heart.

[GaryC 7]

Ok Steve, we can play dueling links all day long and in the end get no where. Lets just agree to disagree on the issue of Global Warming. There are issues that I think we can agree on though. I wholeheartedly agree that we need to get away from fossil fuels. Not for climate or pollution reasons but for national security reasons. It's insane to put our energy future in the hands of people that, quite frankly, hate our guts. And burning fossil fuels is so 20th century. We are smarter than that. We need to have an energy source that is totally domestic and infinitely renewable.

The future is in electricity. We can adapt almost anything to run on electricity if we can just make enough of it. I don't, however, see that coming from wind or solar. The technology is just not efficient enough yet. It may be good to supplamate our energy needs until we develop something better but at best it is only short term.

Wind and solar farms take up way to much real estate. On cloudy days solar does not work, on calm days wind does not work. There are areas of the country where it will work but there is no way to scale it up to supply enough to get us off of our oil habit. We need something that will give us a monstrous amount of energy on a continues basis. Right now the only thing that comes close is nuclear fission reactors. I have real issues with that. One is safety and believe it or not the other is enviromental. High level nuclear waste is the most evil nasty stuff that man has ever created. It's a disaster waiting to happen.

So what is left? Fuel cells look promising. For portable things like cars and local power like houses it looks very good. And guess what! No pollution!! They run on hydrogen and the only by-product is water! The oceans are full of hydrogen so we will never run out! For running the nations power grid I like nuclear fusion. I honestly think we can make that work if we put our national resources behind it. It also runs on hydrogen and is non-polluting. It is also one kick-a$$ power source! If we could perfect that our energy needs will be met.

Another idea is tidal power generators. There is a lot of power to be had there. We have a lot of coast and a lot of potential there.

So what you think? These things are do-able and they would have the side benefit of stopping that nasty old CO2 .

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I wholeheartedly agree that we need to get away from fossil fuels. Not for climate or pollution reasons but for national security reasons. It's insane to put our energy future in the hands of people that, quite frankly, hate our guts. And burning fossil fuels is so 20th century. We are smarter than that. We need to have an energy source that is totally domestic and infinitely renewable.

I'm with you on that. That is one of the BIG reasons why I think we should be looking into alternative energy sources and the potential for really boosting our economy when those alternative energies are harnessed right here on American soil. I took an environmental biology class back in college and I still have my text book (1995). I did a report back then on photovoltaic energy and even at that time, one article I found was written by a guy who converted his home in Vermont to run on solar energy for less than 10g's. While some people would scoff at such a steep price to have virtually free electricity, I know the cost to build a pool in your backyard in Arizona can run around 30g's, not to mention the continual upkeep and maintanence costs. My point is that a pool is not a necessity, yet over 70 percent of homes in Arizona have a pool. People are willing to pay for something they believe will give them value and when summer electric bills can run upwards of $300 per month in Arizona, spending 10g's to get off the grid and have your home completely energy independent would be an great value to homeowners.

Contrary to what some people believe, even in colder climates, there are enough sun's rays to at least significantly reduce the amount of electricity a home uses from a traditional power plant. The technology is currently available and the solar energy industry, although still in it's infancy is building up momentum as more and more solar companies are popping up. I believe 'off the grid' solar power vs. centralized is the way to go. I think the more independent Americans can be with regard to their homestead, the closer they are to achieving the American Dream. So I hope you see now, I'm not 'anti-capitalist', I'm against the status quo that says this as good as it gets...no, we can do better.

[GaryC 7]

I'm with you on that. That is one of the BIG reasons why I think we should be looking into alternative energy sources and the potential for really boosting our economy when those alternative energies are harnessed right here on American soil. I took an environmental biology class back in college and I still have my text book (1995). I did a report back then on photovoltaic energy and even at that time, one article I found was written by a guy who converted his home in Vermont to run on solar energy for less than 10g's. While some people would scoff at such a steep price to have virtually free electricity, I know the cost to build a pool in your backyard in Arizona can run around 30g's, not to mention the continual upkeep and maintanence costs. My point is that a pool is not a necessity, yet over 70 percent of homes in Arizona have a pool. People are willing to pay for something they believe will give them value and when summer electric bills can run upwards of $300 per month in Arizona, spending 10g's to get off the grid and have your home completely energy independent would be an great value to homeowners.

Contrary to what some people believe, even in colder climates, there are enough sun's rays to at least significantly reduce the amount of electricity a home uses from a traditional power plant. The technology is currently available and the solar energy industry, although still in it's infancy is building up momentum as more and more solar companies are popping up. I believe 'off the grid' solar power vs. centralized is the way to go. I think the more independent Americans can be with regard to their homestead, the closer they are to achieving the American Dream. So I hope you see now, I'm not 'anti-capitalist', I'm against the status quo that says this as good as it gets...no, we can do better.

Ahhh!! Thats better! I am glad we could find some common ground. I look at solar as a viable short term measure and for individual houses it can make sense. I was looking at the long term with my ideas there. Think about it. If we could perfect fusion (I really think we could in 20-30 years if we put our minds to it) we would have a virtually limitless amount of power!! With that power all kinds of wonderful things are possible. I know it sounds geeky but I am thinking Star Trek stuff. With limitless power the world could put aside a lot of it's fighting and bickering. We could reach the utopia that everyone dreams of.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I'm with you on that. That is one of the BIG reasons why I think we should be looking into alternative energy sources and the potential for really boosting our economy when those alternative energies are harnessed right here on American soil. I took an environmental biology class back in college and I still have my text book (1995). I did a report back then on photovoltaic energy and even at that time, one article I found was written by a guy who converted his home in Vermont to run on solar energy for less than 10g's. While some people would scoff at such a steep price to have virtually free electricity, I know the cost to build a pool in your backyard in Arizona can run around 30g's, not to mention the continual upkeep and maintanence costs. My point is that a pool is not a necessity, yet over 70 percent of homes in Arizona have a pool. People are willing to pay for something they believe will give them value and when summer electric bills can run upwards of $300 per month in Arizona, spending 10g's to get off the grid and have your home completely energy independent would be an great value to homeowners.

Contrary to what some people believe, even in colder climates, there are enough sun's rays to at least significantly reduce the amount of electricity a home uses from a traditional power plant. The technology is currently available and the solar energy industry, although still in it's infancy is building up momentum as more and more solar companies are popping up. I believe 'off the grid' solar power vs. centralized is the way to go. I think the more independent Americans can be with regard to their homestead, the closer they are to achieving the American Dream. So I hope you see now, I'm not 'anti-capitalist', I'm against the status quo that says this as good as it gets...no, we can do better.

Ahhh!! Thats better! I am glad we could find some common ground. I look at solar as a viable short term measure and for individual houses it can make sense. I was looking at the long term with my ideas there. Think about it. If we could perfect fusion (I really think we could in 20-30 years if we put our minds to it) we would have a virtually limitless amount of power!! With that power all kinds of wonderful things are possible. I know it sounds geeky but I am thinking Star Trek stuff. With limitless power the world could put aside a lot of it's fighting and bickering. We could reach the utopia that everyone dreams of.

I thought you might be Vulcan.

[dalegg 143]

The U.S. is behind even China when it comes to fuel efficiency standards. While the rest of the industrialized world has ratified the Kyoto Protocol, we've thumbed our noses. It's not because of capitalism - it's because of lack of leadership in making it an important issue.

So China is a good example. All we need to do is replace cars with bicycles and interstates with cow trails. And do they still have a law that limits population growth in China. If humans cause the problem then just get rid of the source. Lets all take birth control and stop breathing.

Sure they are...Third of China hit by acid rain.

yeah, yeah. Beating a dead horse.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

The U.S. is behind even China when it comes to fuel efficiency standards. While the rest of the industrialized world has ratified the Kyoto Protocol, we've thumbed our noses. It's not because of capitalism - it's because of lack of leadership in making it an important issue.

So China is a good example. All we need to do is replace cars with bicycles and interstates with cow trails. And do they still have a law that limits population growth in China. If humans cause the problem then just get rid of the source. Lets all take birth control and stop breathing.

Sure they are...Third of China hit by acid rain.

yeah, yeah. Beating a dead horse.

Apparantly you didn't notice that I said China's fuel efficiency standards on automobiles are higher than ours.

Although the domestic car industry is booming, China has relied heavily on tie-ups with global giants such as General Motors and Volkswagen and has long accused foreign partners of withholding advanced technology. China is increasingly reliant on imported crude oil.

"This is good for China," said Yang Fuqiang, chief representative of the Energy Foundation's Beijing office.

Though not particularly stringent, the new requirements are stricter than U.S. standards, which haven't been updated for more than 20 years, Yang noted.

American fuel efficiency standards are calculated using the average fuel use of the entire fleet sold by an automaker. In China, similar to Japan, the standards require that each model sold meet the criteria, Yang said.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/world/2004-1...fficiency_x.htm

[dalegg 143]

The U.S. is behind even China when it comes to fuel efficiency standards. While the rest of the industrialized world has ratified the Kyoto Protocol, we've thumbed our noses. It's not because of capitalism - it's because of lack of leadership in making it an important issue.

So China is a good example. All we need to do is replace cars with bicycles and interstates with cow trails. And do they still have a law that limits population growth in China. If humans cause the problem then just get rid of the source. Lets all take birth control and stop breathing.

Sure they are...Third of China hit by acid rain.

yeah, yeah. Beating a dead horse.

Apparantly you didn't notice that I said China's fuel efficiency standards on automobiles are higher than ours.

I wasn't replying to you. I was replying to Artegal's rhetorical question "So China is a good example (?)" To which I said, "Sure they are"

Edited August 28, 2006 by dalegg