Larry Gude
Strung Out
http://reuters.myway.com/article/20..._N26602504_RTRIDST_0_NEWS-BUSH-ENERGY-DC.html
Get ready for the Doomsday reaction from the left.
Get ready for the Doomsday reaction from the left.
As long as we drive cars that run on gasoline, generate electricity with fossil fuels, and create petroleum-based products such as plastics - yeah, guess you're right.willie said:As long as the emphasis is on oil, we're going nowhere.
Tri-lithium?SamSpade said:BTW - the other day Alan Greenspan mentioned a fuel source that until then, I'd never heard of - some kind of fuel crystal that forms on the bottom of seabeds. ...
Found it.2ndAmendment said:Tri-lithium?
Yeah. The tri-lithium was used to mix the matter and anti-matter producing pure energy.SamSpade said:(I'm guessing that you're enough of a Trekkie to know that "tri-lithium" was never a *source* of energy in Trek, although it frequently implied it).
2ndAmendment said:Yeah. The tri-lithium was used to mix the matter and anti-matter producing pure energy.
FromTexas said:
Today's technology has made nuclear power safer, cleaner, and more efficient than ever before. Nuclear power is now providing about 20 percent of America's electricity, with no air pollution or greenhouse gas emissions. Nuclear power is one of the safest, cleanest sources of power in the world, and we need more of it here in America.
truby20 said:Did anyone else catch the speech that Bush gave yesterday? Where he was promoting some types of conservation and alternative energy usage? During the speech he made a very interesting comment which I haven't heard discussed (yet) by any of the political watchers.
From yesterday's speech:
Is this an admission that greenhouse gases exist and are changing our climate? Why else would he use them as an argument for nuclear energy? If so this would be a major policy shift for the administration...maybe he is starting to listen to his EPA?
truby20 said:Did anyone else catch the speech that Bush gave yesterday? Where he was promoting some types of conservation and alternative energy usage? During the speech he made a very interesting comment which I haven't heard discussed (yet) by any of the political watchers.
From yesterday's speech:
Is this an admission that greenhouse gases exist and are changing our climate? Why else would he use them as an argument for nuclear energy? If so this would be a major policy shift for the administration...maybe he is starting to listen to his EPA?
Such as?Sparx said:Those ideas expressed in the original article are good ones. Not original ideas but good ones. It's the things in his energy plan not mentioned that will be the problem.
Greenhouse gases - *exist*.truby20 said:Is this an admission that greenhouse gases exist and are changing our climate? Why else would he use them as an argument for nuclear energy? If so this would be a major policy shift for the administration...maybe he is starting to listen to his EPA?
SamSpade said:What he and others like myself, not to mention most of the scientific community question, is whether or not the emission of greenhouse gases from industrial sources has any effect on global warming. There simply is not enough data to prove one causes the other - just because they exist and correlate is NOT proof anymore than the rising and lowering of hemlines has any connection to the Dow Jones Index. Good science is PROVING one causes the other, not assuming it because it seems logical. It seems logical that heavy things should fall faster to the ground - but they don't. Most scientists studying the weather suspect it's more to do with a natural cyclical pattern of climate.
Well pollutants other than greenhouse gases are causing smog, but like you said cleaning up our emissions will only be a benefit to everyone...yes additional money will be spent retrofitting industries, but do we have any idea what costs we are paying for heath care related to respiratory issues because of pollution?SamSpade said:There's still little doubt that the environment would be better off if we didn't produce these air pollutants, because although they may NOT have a global effect, they always have a *local* effect. Thus, the smog in Los Angeles may not be causing global warming, but it's not doing *Los Angeles* any good.
The environmentalist consensus is under attack from its founders.truby20 said:
on the conflict between the romanticists vs. the scientists within the envorinmentalist community.. . .scientific perceptions are always a minority view, easily ignored, suppressed or demonized if they don't fit the consensus story line.
in discussion of the "birth dearth" and its impact on global population.Most environmentalists still haven't got the word
in discussion of how curbing population growth (and resultant spoilage of the land) is best impacted by urbanization.Urbanization is the most massive and sudden shift of humanity in its history. Environmentalists will be rewarded if they welcome it and get out of the way of it.
in discussion about genetic engineering.Most of the scare stories that go around . . . have as much substance as urban legends about toxic rat urine. . . .
The only technology ready to fill the gap and stop the carbon dioxide loading of the atmosphere is nuclear power.