Let me get this straight. Some of y'all want to have greener energy as y'all say because y'all want to lower y'alls carbon footprint? What does that even mean? If you want to have greener energy because the price of oil is high then say that rather than lie to yourself and everyone else. And if what you really want is greener energy because the price of gasoline is high, then just say that. To be blunt with my stance on all this green energy stuff is that it ain't nothing more than a scam. The only alternative to gasoline, and the one I believe in, is nuclear energy. Yes, I do believe we need an alternative for gasoline, but that's not because of the price or the whole climate change thing. In fact I welcome an ice-free Greenland, epeiric seas and the impending human migration to higher altitudes. However, oil is too valueable to be burnt as a fuel. Oil is like, the most basic chemical for a lot of stuff we use like plastics, rubber and such. True as it is that gasoline is an amalgamation of light weight fats and such, but they could still be used for things other than burning it in a car's engine, especially when we have the perfectly good alternative of nuclear energy.:grin: And let me conclude with this: man does not **** with mother nature, mother nature ****s with man. Peace.
Capitalism is the cancer of this planet. no. no theory can stop people from pursuing profit or fulfilling their greediness.
People will buy an LED light as they learn they will pay less in bills and that it is fashionable to do so. Same with other technologies. Most folks aren't going to wallk or bike or take transit to save the planet. They will do it because it's cheaper faster more convenient etc - it has to appeal to their self-interests. It's just too hard to convince people to do something for "the planet" which is a bit out of context to one's daily life.
That is my point though. It is in people's self-interest to take actions that save energy as it has a direct benefit to their pocketbooks. The problem with "green" technology is that the argument is too much focused on nebulous benefits of saving the planet while also being caught up in political debates, like Bachmann declaring freedom to buy incandescent light bulbs. The argument that should be pushed is that basic steps to save energy not only will help "save the planet" but will also help "save your pocket book" .
I'm all for focusing on people's self-interest and think it's absurd how people react to the word green like it's a communist word. But besides light bulbs and a few other items, most "green" technology is still more expensive. And heck, it's not even expensive, it's just more of a pain in the ass. It's ironic that people don't buy rechargable batteries and opt for one time use batteries, and yet everyone has a rechargeable battery that recharge everyday.
As a republican I say there is no way in hell will we ever destroy this planet. We aren't that smart. We are smart enough to destroy this era of civilization though. And if that happens, we'll be back. As a person that is liberal in my surroundings I say be as green as you can...it doesn't hurt.
This is sad but very accurate. I think mankind is having an effect on climate, BUT I still occasionally fly in a commercial jet. This is the single most direct thing a person can do to affect CO2 load (unless you own a coal plant in your backyard.)
Except the prices of "green" technology is coming down. As I noted with computers but also many other appliances such as refrigerators are much more energy efficient now but are about the same cost (when adjusted for inflation) or cheaper than before. So much of this is a matter of perception.
