Originally Posted By DAR <<we need to find a way to make the First World lifestyle green and sustainable. And that takes work - work that needs to begin right now.>> But you have to find a way to make it cost effect for the consumer right away not in the long run. I'm slowly phasing out the light bulbs in my house from incandescent to the more energy efficent type and by slowly I mean one has been changed so far.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan That's a start, DAR. I've been doing the same thing. Here, the cost of the new bulbs has been cut significantly recently with input from Pacific Gas & Electric. I read something a year ago that if every home replaced just a single bulb, the energy savings is enormous. You're off the hook! ; )
Originally Posted By plpeters70 "But you have to find a way to make it cost effect for the consumer right away not in the long run." And that's why all the debating in the government needs to stop, and they need to take action - like stopping tax breaks for oil companies and giving the tax breaks to companies that develop alternate, clean energy sources.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan You could also offer more tax incentives to people who take measures to use solar, wind, etc. in the homes and businesses. The problem wth stopping all the tax breaks for big oil is that it would only result in consumers paying even more at the pump as those costs are transferred to the consumer. I'd rather not pay $10 a gallon while waiting for the flux capacitor to be invented! ; )
Originally Posted By DAR <<That's a start, DAR. I've been doing the same thing. Here, the cost of the new bulbs has been cut significantly recently with input from Pacific Gas & Electric. I read something a year ago that if every home replaced just a single bulb, the energy savings is enormous. You're off the hook! ; )>> About a year ago I went to a budget plan for my heating and electric bills. Instead of paying close to $250 during the winter months and around $70 during summer, then inbetween during the fall and spring, it's now $106.00 every month.
Originally Posted By DAR <<I'd rather not pay $10 a gallon while waiting for the flux capacitor to be invented! ; )>> IIRC that required only bannana peel and some half drunk beer.
Originally Posted By DAR <<and giving the tax breaks to companies that develop alternate, clean energy sources.>> As I said earlier that's fine as long as it's not 100% ethanol. I'm just not comfortable with the idea of our food sources taking place of our fuel sources.
Originally Posted By jonvn "we need to get off oil NOW and we need to start moving to a greener economy NOW " Yes. But when you have people trying to pretend none of this is true, you expend resources and time trying to make the faithful who refuse to believe it. "Global Warming is no different than the Evolution debate where people say it is fact and settled." This is true, because there is no debate on that, either. It is an accepted fact. Evolution is the basic underpinning of biological science. "But the truth is Evolution is still looking for a elegant theory. " No, Woody, that is not the truth.
Originally Posted By DAR <<This is true, because there is no debate on that, either. It is an accepted fact. Evolution is the basic underpinning of biological science. >> Here's the halfway point on that topic. God created the heavens and earth and everything evolved from that.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>I'm just not comfortable with the idea of our food sources taking place of our fuel sources.<< Wouldn't be the first time food gave us gas.
Originally Posted By jonvn "God created the heavens and earth and everything evolved from that." You can believe that if you want. Many people do. I don't see a need. Another God comment, someone on another board said that he was not worried about global warming because "God has a plan." My response was, we know what that is? How do we know that God's plan isn't for us to take care of the problem? There is just no escaping the need to fix this issue, and as soon as possible. That is why ridiculous "debate" on this issue serves no purpose except to slow progress and cause further damage. The more we wait, the worse it will get and the harder and more expensive it will be to fix.
Originally Posted By ecdc Sign me up for post 95 - great comments, plpeters. It's all well and good for people to say science is changing, we need more research, etc. In principle, I agree. But the problem is, 9 times out of 10, when someone says that, it's because they're uncomfortable with the current results or they have an agenda. In this case, when government Republicans say the science is still out on global warming, it's because they don't want to upset their big business donors and lobbyists. It's not (perhaps with some rare exceptions) because they really do want science to figure out what's going on; it's because they've already made up their minds and they're just upset that they aren't being validated. Woody's reference to evolution is most apropo and only proves this point. Woody isn't really interested in more research on evolution (which has as much scientific consensus as gravity and the earth rotating around the sun, mind you) or finding out how evolution works, etc. He has to attack it and say that the jury is still out because it threatens his religious beliefs. So while I appreciate any attempt to stay open-minded to more research and more science on any issue, history has shown that we typically have to be very skeptical of anyone who says science is wrong and needs more research.
Originally Posted By plpeters70 "As I said earlier that's fine as long as it's not 100% ethanol." I agree with this too - ethanol just seems like more of the same to me. We're still burning gas - it's just gas that's been grown here instead of imported from other countries. Which is great - but still not really a clean, sustainable solution. Especially when you factor in the fact that currently it takes more energy to produce ethanol from corn than you get out of it. So, you're really gaining nothing.
Originally Posted By plpeters70 "I'd rather not pay $10 a gallon while waiting for the flux capacitor to be invented! ; )" Neither would I, but I have a feeling that things won't really change in this country until the vast majority of Americans are actually feeling some real ecomonic hurt when they are pumping their cars full of gas. As has been shown time and time again, if there's a cheaper option, the American public will almost always buy it.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << As has been shown time and time again, if there's a cheaper option, the American public will almost always buy it. >> That's true to a point, but not always the case. Sometimes the financial impact of adopting a new technology blinds people to the long term economic benefit. The compact fluorescent light bulbs are a good example. Even though it is proven that these light bulbs will save a significant amount of money (and energy) in as little as one year of use, the majority of consumers will still choose incandescent light bulbs because the sticker price on the shelf is so much lower. It's hard to get people who are living paycheck to paycheck to think about long-term economic benefits when they're trying to figure out how much they can fit into their grocery basket on limited income. Then there's the impact of big business -- if they prevent options from being allowed in the marketplace, there's no hope that consumers can even make a choice on what source of energy they want to exploit. Electric cars are a good example of this. Electric cars are capable of demonstrating performance that is equivalent of about 200 mpg, and that's using technology that's been around for decades. Would consumers be interested in a 200 mpg car? You can't answer that question because all of the auto makers have stopped producing those vehicles and never even gave them a chance in the marketplace.
Originally Posted By DAR <<So while I appreciate any attempt to stay open-minded to more research and more science on any issue, history has shown that we typically have to be very skeptical of anyone who says science is wrong and needs more research.>> Here's where my skepticism comes and why I favor some more research. Who's to say that the alternate sources of energy we're coming up with won't do more damage? While I favor the alternate, there has to be a look into the long term affects that these new sources will bring.
Originally Posted By jonvn Well, be happy, because they are continually doing research. And you know what? Everything continues to point to the same conclusion. What the research is doing now is filling in the cracks of our knowledge, but the basic underlying concepts are pretty much nailed down at this point. "Who's to say that the alternate sources of energy we're coming up with won't do more damage?" We already know that what we are doing now is causing damage, and we are expending a finite resource in order to do this damage.
Originally Posted By DAR <<We already know that what we are doing now is causing damage, and we are expending a finite resource in order to do this damage.>> But what guarantees are there that damage won't be lessened, the same or more a 100 years from now? Not one person on this planet knows.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <Whether there is a consensus is almost irrelevant because it was touted very strongly by the press. It was widely reported.> Britney Spears is widely reported. The idea that Richard Jewell was the Atlanta olympics bomber was widely reported. "Widely reported" means nothing. There was nothing like the scientific consensus that exists today on global warming for global cooling in the 70's. Not even close. It was an idea that had a brief vogue, but nothing lasting and not believed by every major scientific organization that studies such things. To compare the two and try to say that they are in any way the same is disingenuous. plpeters70, post 95 was indeed excellent.
