Global Warming, CO2...

[Mr. Oragahn]

Read here.

I'm not a Briton, but I would wager that a site/paper whose tagline is "Biting the hand that feeds it" to be what a Briton would call a "farce."

Sorry the bluntness but... and?

[PunkMaister]

Again I ask why is that leftists and muslims alike seem to solely rely on Tu-Quoque arguments, circular reasoning and off course other plethora of illogical arguments such as Pascal's wager, well we can add Murphy's law to that while you are at it. [...]

I challenge you to show me one single Tu quoque argument or one single circular reasoning or other illogical arguments of me. But it is not enough to quote something and say it is such or such fallacy. I expect an analyse, why it is such.

Dude you just used Pascal's Wager to try to validate your argument. More illogical than that it cannot get...

And read my posts more carefully next time because I never said that humans have no impact whatsoever as you seem to believe when you jumped all over my arse at the first post you encountered. I did say the movie (Al Gore's) exaggerates and it does as even you admitted it. Then I went on about the remake of the Earth Stood still in which Ecofreaks designate mankind as a disease that the planet needs to be ridden off for it to survive. Considering your attitude so far I'd say you agree with that movie's assessment. After all who cares if millions of Americans an Europeans end up on the street jobless, homeless and starving if it may, just may save in the short term over a billion more perhaps right, is just a numbers game to you. Off course with numbers like this it goes way over any principles even that of "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one" Millions are anything but a few.

And get real will yah? it could take decades to change from a society based on the use of fossil fuels to one that uses renewable sources of energy. The change is taking place but there is no way to force people to buy Eco-friendly cars in exchange of their old automobiles especially not with how the US and the world economy in general are going right now.

The way you want to do it would only result in millions in both the US and Europe impoverished and starving. But you already admitted you are willing and even relishing for such a thing to happen. Makes me wonder about your goals since they hardly seem humanitarian at all...

[Mr. Oragahn]

After all who cares if millions of Americans an Europeans end up on the street jobless, homeless and starving if it may, just may save in the short term over a billion more perhaps right, is just a numbers game to you. Off course with numbers like this it goes way over any principles even that of "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one" Millions are anything but a few.

And get real will yah? it could take decades to change from a society based on the use of fossil fuels to one that uses renewable sources of energy. The change is taking place but there is no way to force people to buy Eco-friendly cars in exchange of their old automobiles especially not with how the US and the world economy in general are going right now.

Man, if you can't go out to find energy, energy will come to you. ZZZWAAP! :D
007 on ice.

[PunkMaister]

Man, if you can't go out to find energy, energy will come to you. ZZZWAAP! :D
007 on ice.

James Bond has an Ice show now? Well if it has tons of hot babes like the classic movies of the 60s, 70s, 80s and up till Pierce Brosnan I'd go see it, if it's based on the lame new movies I'll pass...
;)

But seriously though ruining the developed world economy and bringing western civilization into the ground in order to save the rest of the world poor as Arbour claims and clearly would like to see would never work and if it does it would be extremely short term like the stupid solution of burning down the Amazon for cultivation also a very short term deal and extremely damaging to the environment.

[Who is like God arbour]

Again I ask why is that leftists and muslims alike seem to solely rely on Tu-Quoque arguments, circular reasoning and off course other plethora of illogical arguments such as Pascal's wager, well we can add Murphy's law to that while you are at it. [...]

I challenge you to show me one single Tu quoque argument or one single circular reasoning or other illogical arguments of me. But it is not enough to quote something and say it is such or such fallacy. I expect an analyse, why it is such.

Dude you just used Pascal's Wager to try to validate your argument. More illogical than that it cannot get...

And again you are confirming, that you are an idiot.

Read, what Pascal's Wager is, read why it is wrong.

Read what I have written and maybe, if you are not totally stupid, you will notice, why, what I have written, is not Pascal's Wager.

A risk and outcome assessment is something, that is done every day, if you have not all informations you would need to make a good decision.

That's something, that is e.g. also done with prophylaxis. Not a concrete disease is treated or cured but the goal is to prevent a disease, even if no evidence but probability suggests that one could get it. Sometimes such a prophylaxis is not always harmless. But, if a risk and outcome assessment results in a less risk for one with such a prophylaxis than without such a prophylaxis, it is done nevertheless.

And read my posts more carefully next time because I never said that humans have no impact whatsoever as you seem to believe when you jumped all over my arse at the first post you encountered. I did say the movie (Al Gore's) exaggerates and it does as even you admitted it. Then I went on about the remake of the Earth Stood still in which Ecofreaks designate mankind as a disease that the planet needs to be ridden off for it to survive.

I have read your post carefully.

I have never denied, that you have admitted that mankind may have an impact.

But after that first half sentence, you have started to complain about »ecofreaks«, who are »using a lot of sensationalism and what borders on religious fanaticism to spread their crap across.« That's why I have given you an explanation, why these »ecofreaks« are using the stylistic device exaggeration.

Then you have complained about Al Gore's movie »An Inconvenient Truth«. You have described it as »one of the most sensationalist pieces of film ever made«. I have merely shown, that a number of climatologists have confirmed, that Al Gore has, apart from some minor points, accurately presented the state of the climate research [1]. The correctness of that film would contradict your assessment, that it is »one of the most sensationalist pieces of film ever made«. That's why I have warned you to be bit more reserved to judge something from which you have no clue.

I have nothing said to »the remake of the Earth Stood still«.

Considering your attitude so far I'd say you agree with that movie's assessment.

At that point, I want to give you back your own advise: »read my posts more carefully next time«.

Read that thread again and you will see, if I agree with that movie's assessment or not.

After all who cares if millions of Americans an Europeans end up on the street jobless, homeless and starving [...]

Please explain, why a non-polluting economy would lead to the from you described results.

Why would for example the demand, that General Motors builds in the future only non-polluting cars result in unemployment, homelessness and starvation?

Please consider also the following articles:

• US Solar Market Had Record Growth in 2008 Despite Economy or
• Only Greentech Can Save U.S. Economy, Says Ãœber-Investor or
• How Green Technology Can Spark Economic Growth.

That are articles, I've found in only one minute.

And get real will yah? it could take decades to change from a society based on the use of fossil fuels to one that uses renewable sources of energy.

Why?

I'd say, it is only a question, how much effort is put into it. But until Obama has become president of the USA, there was no real effort put into it on the part of the government. I hope that this will change now.

The change is taking place but there is no way to force people to buy Eco-friendly cars in exchange of their old automobiles especially not with how the US and the world economy in general are going right now.

Make a law:

1. Only non-polluting cars are to be produced after 2010.
2. Only non-polluting cars are allowed to be driven after 2015.

The way you want to do it would only result in millions in both the US and Europe impoverished and starving.

Again: why?

It's good for your economy if all have to buy new cars. It's good for your economy, if the whole infrastructure has to be changed because that means work for workers. Yes, that means also, that certain jobs no longer exists, but new jobs are created in the same time.

[...] if it may, just may save in the short term over a billion more perhaps right, is just a numbers game to you. Off course with numbers like this it goes way over any principles even that of "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one" Millions are anything but a few.

[...]

But you already admitted you are willing and even relishing for such a thing to happen. Makes me wonder about your goals since they hardly seem humanitarian at all...

[...]

But seriously though ruining the developed world economy and bringing western civilization into the ground in order to save the rest of the world poor as Arbour claims and clearly would like to see would never work and if it does it would be extremely short term like the stupid solution of burning down the Amazon for cultivation also a very short term deal and extremely damaging to the environment.

I challenge you to show me, where I have said or propagated such thing.

[PunkMaister]

General Motors? On which planet do you even live. General Motors is but one of several automobile manufacturing companies in the US alone. And without resorting to what could end being as just as dangerous to the environment solutions such as using algae as biofuel the only alternative is crops which would raise the price of food beyond what most people in the world could afford and would mean using every inch of arable land on the surface of this planet to meet the world's energy demands. We need alternatives that wont ruin the economy and cause mass starvation (as the food prices and availability over those used for fuel inevitably diminish). Second fossil fuels such as Oil are not only used as combustibles but also are key in the manufacture of essential materials in today's world such as plastics or did you conveniently forget that part? We need to find something that replaces oil in the manufacture of those goods as well. Once we do believe me I'd be more than happy to allow the muslim world to revert back to the stone age just as they want as we won't be needing their stinking oil anymore but not before then.


And when you propose to make changes quick without afterthought of the consequences as you have yes it amounts to placing millions of people's lives at risk for the possibility that it might just might save perhaps a billion in the short term. Again it would be short term because once the world is in the devastated impoverished economy you seem to dream off there won't be anybody left to pick up the pieces as everybody will be impoverished, starving and dying equally...

[Flectarn]

snip.

Let me tell you about a dream i have. a vision for an honest to Kal-El capitalist business that utterly negates almost all of your points.

Had I the start up capital, I would build a building, lets say 15 acres area, 15 stories tall. Essentially it would be a giant green house. glass exterior, sunlight piping into the inside. growing inside would be oil crops. most likely Oil Palm or rapeseed, depending on oil density per volume.

using rapeseed, the more conservative of the two. My biodiesel factory would produce 28,575 gallons per harvest, of which there will be multiple per year. Granted this is lower then algae, but it has fewer risks, and... well works, this requires engineering to be done, not science.

if I use Oil Palms, it's 142,875 gallons + whatever i can glean from cover plants around the Palm Trees, say peanuts and additional 16,950 assuming 5 full acres of each floor are rendered unusable by other crops by the presence of the tree.

compare this to 720 gallons for soybeans (the preferred oil crop in the US) on the same area using traditional farming.

combine with on site refining, and collection of oil from traditional McSources, and that's not to shabby of an output. Build a lot of them, and you can remake the whole economy.
This would allow us to grow as much fuel as we want, with out jeopardizing the food supply. It may not be THE answer their are a lot of promising technologies out there, but it is AN answer, and the important thing about the coming decades is we're going to have to get used to a more diverse energy mix


http://journeytoforever.org/biodiesel_yield.html
http://www.verticalfarm.com/


also
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bioplastic.

[Who is like God arbour]

General Motors? On which planet do you even live. General Motors is but one of several automobile manufacturing companies in the US alone.

And again you are confirming, that you are an idiot. I have named General Motors as an example for the whole automobile industry. Do you really think, that I don't know, that »General Motors is but one of several automobile manufacturing companies in the US alone.« Honestly, you shouldn't project your own intellectual shortness upon other people.

Furthermore, that was one sentence in my whole previous post. But it is the only thing, you complain about. If you have no other problems that you can nitpick, I can settle down.

And without resorting to what could end being as just as dangerous to the environment solutions such as using algae as biofuel the only alternative is crops which would raise the price of food beyond what most people in the world could afford and would mean using every inch of arable land on the surface of this planet to meet the world's energy demands.

Have you ever heard me saying, that I propagate the one or other solution?

And no, crops is not the only alternative. There are already many different concepts for non-polluting cars:

• Honda FCX Clarity
  BMW Hydrogen 7
  Chevrolet Volt

All three examples have a different system and all three have reached series-production readiness.

We need alternatives that wont ruin the economy and cause mass starvation (as the food prices and availability over those used for fuel inevitably diminish).

No objection but that there are already such alternatives.

Second fossil fuels such as Oil are not only used as combustibles but also are key in the manufacture of essential materials in today's world such as plastics or did you conveniently forget that part?

I have said it already and I say it again: Don't project your own intellectual shortness upon other people.
I have not forgotten that part. But for our problem, it is irrelevant because the so used oil does not pollute the environment.
Besides, there are already alternatives even for that: Bioplastic

We need to find something that replaces oil in the manufacture of those goods as well.

There are already alternatives to oil.

Once we do believe me I'd be more than happy to allow the muslim world to revert back to the stone age just as they want as we won't be needing their stinking oil anymore but not before then.

What do you have against the Muslim world? Again and again you insult Muslims. Could it be, that you are religious intolerance? Yes, there are fundamentalists among the Muslims. But that can't be a reason to hate all Muslims. After all, there are also fundamentalist in the Christendom and you don't hate all Christians.

And when you propose to make changes quick without afterthought of the consequences as you have yes it amounts to placing millions of people's lives at risk for the possibility that it might just might save perhaps a billion in the short term.

I challenge you to show me, where I have proposed to make quick changes without afterthought.
And I challlenge you to show me, where my proposals would have risked »millions of people's lives«.

Again it would be short term because once the world is in the devastated impoverished economy you seem to dream off there won't be anybody left to pick up the pieces as everybody will be impoverished, starving and dying equally...

I challenge you to show me, where I have insinuated that I dream of a devastated impoverished economy, where everybody will be impoverished, starving and dying equally.

[Who is like God arbour]

Before I answer another post of PunkMaister, I demand that he answeres each challenge I have made in that thread:

Again I ask why is that leftists and muslims alike seem to solely rely on Tu-Quoque arguments, circular reasoning and off course other plethora of illogical arguments such as Pascal's wager, well we can add Murphy's law to that while you are at it. [...]

• • I challenge you to show me one single Tu quoque argument or one single circular reasoning or other illogical arguments of me. But it is not enough to quote something and say it is such or such fallacy. I expect an analyse, why it is such.

[...] if it may, just may save in the short term over a billion more perhaps right, is just a numbers game to you. Off course with numbers like this it goes way over any principles even that of "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one" Millions are anything but a few.

[...]

But you already admitted you are willing and even relishing for such a thing to happen. Makes me wonder about your goals since they hardly seem humanitarian at all...

[...]

But seriously though ruining the developed world economy and bringing western civilization into the ground in order to save the rest of the world poor as Arbour claims and clearly would like to see would never work and if it does it would be extremely short term like the stupid solution of burning down the Amazon for cultivation also a very short term deal and extremely damaging to the environment.

• • I challenge you to show me, where I have said or propagated such thing.

And when you propose to make changes quick without afterthought of the consequences as you have yes it amounts to placing millions of people's lives at risk for the possibility that it might just might save perhaps a billion in the short term.

• • I challenge you to show me, where I have proposed to make quick changes without afterthought.
    And I challlenge you to show me, where my proposals would have risked »millions of people's lives«.

Again it would be short term because once the world is in the devastated impoverished economy you seem to dream off there won't be anybody left to pick up the pieces as everybody will be impoverished, starving and dying equally...

• • I challenge you to show me, where I have insinuated that I dream of a devastated impoverished economy, where everybody will be impoverished, starving and dying equally.

I'm fed up that he continuously claims, that I have said things, I have never said or insinuated or that he continuously distorts what I have said, especially if he describes me as someone who is willing to let many million people die.

[sonofccn]

[...] if it may, just may save in the short term over a billion more perhaps right, is just a numbers game to you. Off course with numbers like this it goes way over any principles even that of "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one" Millions are anything but a few.

[...]

But you already admitted you are willing and even relishing for such a thing to happen. Makes me wonder about your goals since they hardly seem humanitarian at all...

[...]

But seriously though ruining the developed world economy and bringing western civilization into the ground in order to save the rest of the world poor as Arbour claims and clearly would like to see would never work and if it does it would be extremely short term like the stupid solution of burning down the Amazon for cultivation also a very short term deal and extremely damaging to the environment.

I challenge you to show me, where I have said or propagated such thing.

That would be because a green economy is a no profit economy,hence why the EU tends to ignore the various carbon limits it's signs. Now when and if this changes that's another thing but at that point it will occur naturally via the evolution of free markets. So no need for heavy handed tactics.

And when you propose to make changes quick without afterthought of the consequences as you have yes it amounts to placing millions of people's lives at risk for the possibility that it might just might save perhaps a billion in the short term.

I challenge you to show me, where I have proposed to make quick changes without afterthought.
And I challlenge you to show me, where my proposals would have risked »millions of people's lives«.

You said and I quote Make a law:

1. Only non-polluting cars are to be produced after 2010.
2. Only non-polluting cars are allowed to be driven after 2015.

One that is draconianaly heavy handed and yes reeks of fascism. Second that fact that you proposed that and somehow think that it wouldn't send every industry reeling for the forseeable future is a very good example of you not thinking beyond talking points.

And no, crops is not the only alternative. There are already many different concepts for non-polluting cars:

Honda FCX Clarity
BMW Hydrogen 7
Chevrolet Volt

All three examples have a different system and all three have reached series-production readiness.

The problem or at least the specific problem being addressed is the abundance of their fuel sources and ease of extraction. Face it fossil fuels are almost the only thing on this planet plentiful enough and cheap enough to use as a fuel source either directly in your tank or in your power plant producing power for your clean electric car shaped toy unless you prefer nuclear energy but I don't think that is considered "green".

I challenge you to show me, where I have insinuated that I dream of a devastated impoverished economy, where everybody will be impoverished, starving and dying equally.

Punkmaister never claimed that you dream of the above, or at least I didn't read it as such, he is saying that your goal if accomplished would cripple industry, reduce first world nation citizens to live as peasants and in general make everyone, excepting our ruling elite, lives miserable. The fact that you feel it needed to basically put a gun to people's head to carry out your goal, that whole no more car law you proposed, pretty much proves that their is no profit in it. If people could expect a reasonable chance of a payoff down the road someone would have already done it. Yet every green tech fails and is only due to government funds and or edicts that any of this stuff gets built.


Also I admit to not being a climate scientist guy but if you are afraid of global warming shouldn't the planet be you know be getting warmer as this one hasn't been since 1998 I believe, after rising the blistering amount of 3/4 or so of a degree over the last hundred years, with the bulk of that being 1950 earlier when there was less of the so called problem around. I mean at this rate I'll die of frost bite before I get my water front property.

[Praeothmin]

One that is draconianaly heavy handed and yes reeks of fascism.

You mean like the law that was passed that says "only digital TVs from now on"?
A law that had no ecological or humanitarian reason behind it, but was just as heavy handed.
And the people most punished by that law are those who have old TV sets and didn't have the means to replace them.
Now, they'll have to...

So you see, heavy handed laws are already passed daily, most without any public concern.
So why would a law favoring an ecological agenda be so bad?

Face it fossil fuels are almost the only thing on this planet plentiful enough and cheap enough to use as a fuel source either directly in your tank or in your power plant producing power for your clean electric car shaped toy unless you prefer nuclear energy but I don't think that is considered "green".

Really?
What about Hydro electicity?
Electric cars?
Windmills?
They're not without flaws, but they are much greener then fossil fuel...

[PunkMaister]

That would be because a green economy is a no profit economy,hence why the EU tends to ignore the various carbon limits it's signs. Now when and if this changes that's another thing but at that point it will occur naturally via the evolution of free markets. So no need for heavy handed tactics.

Yo got it!

One that is draconianaly heavy handed and yes reeks of fascism. Second that fact that you proposed that and somehow think that it wouldn't send every industry reeling for the forseeable future is a very good example of you not thinking beyond talking points.

Right on again!

The problem or at least the specific problem being addressed is the abundance of their fuel sources and ease of extraction. Face it fossil fuels are almost the only thing on this planet plentiful enough and cheap enough to use as a fuel source either directly in your tank or in your power plant producing power for your clean electric car shaped toy unless you prefer nuclear energy but I don't think that is considered "green".

Eureka you got it!

Punkmaister never claimed that you dream of the above, or at least I didn't read it as such, he is saying that your goal if accomplished would cripple industry, reduce first world nation citizens to live as peasants and in general make everyone, excepting our ruling elite, lives miserable. The fact that you feel it needed to basically put a gun to people's head to carry out your goal, that whole no more car law you proposed, pretty much proves that their is no profit in it. If people could expect a reasonable chance of a payoff down the road someone would have already done it. Yet every green tech fails and is only due to government funds and or edicts that any of this stuff gets built.


Also I admit to not being a climate scientist guy but if you are afraid of global warming shouldn't the planet be you know be getting warmer as this one hasn't been since 1998 I believe, after rising the blistering amount of 3/4 or so of a degree over the last hundred years, with the bulk of that being 1950 earlier when there was less of the so called problem around. I mean at this rate I'll die of frost bite before I get my water front property.

In short should we do something about it sure! Should we force everybody particularly the developed world to change at the point of a gun (quasi fascist laws that Arbour proposes) absolutely not!

Arbour take for example how long it has taken to make the change from analog to digital TV. We are talking TVs and converter boxes and even with all the hoopla and government coupons to this date a whole lot of people have not even bought a single digital converter box. Cars and trucks are over 80 times as harder to make a change from one type of cars and trucks etc to another.

My apologies it if seems that I am, accusing you of actually wanting to place people's lives at risk but your quasi fascist proposed laws would only have that effect sorry to burst your bubble but Rome was not built in a day and neither will be the move from fossil fuel to renewable sources...

[sonofccn]

You mean like the law that was passed that says "only digital TVs from now on"?
A law that had no ecological or humanitarian reason behind it, but was just as heavy handed.
And the people most punished by that law are those who have old TV sets and didn't have the means to replace them.
Now, they'll have to...

So you see, heavy handed laws are already passed daily, most without any public concern.
So why would a law favoring an ecological agenda be so bad?

If I had said I supported that law you would have a point. However I don't for the exact same reason, no one has the authority to say from now on only this, that goes for digital tv to green tech.

What about Hydro electicity?

It isn't bad but is limited to places where water is flowing and as an extension can not be the primary power generator of your country. It is I think like the third largest generator of power in the US, after fossil fuels and nuclear technolagy IIRC.

Electric cars?

Uh electric cars use electricty not produce them IIRC :). Now back to my statment your responding too. I said you can either put fossil fuel in your gas tank or use it to power your power plant and put that electricity in your tank the end result is the same.

Windmills?
They're not without flaws, but they are much greener then fossil fuel...

The point here is energy production not greenry. Windmills, solar power etc are virtually worthless as energy sources and have never to my knowledge been run for a profit.

[Cocytus]

Okay, I need to step in here. Although I hate giving any personal info over the internet, I'll preface by saying I work in the field of architecture. So I know a bit about green energy.

First off, the largest contributor to greenhouse gas emissions is not the transportation sector, and it is not oil. It is electrical generation, which in the United States relies overwhelmingly on coal, to the tune of almost 50% of domestic energy generation. Coal is the worst polluter there is in terms of greenhouse gas emissions.

Turning the subject into fallacious arguments about left vs right, and economy vs energy is CRAP, and it's distracting from the problem at hand. The left wants it done their way, the right wants it done their way (or just plain wants nothing done) and there are a few people in the middle who know the truth: green energy has nothing to do with politics, and the solution is not one-or-the-other, it's a comprehensive strategy that attacks the problem of emissions from all angles.

First off, the grid needs to be converted away from coal. The way we do that is to invest in not only alternative sustainable sources, but in sources we already have and know how to exploit, such as nuclear and hydroelectric. Nuclear may produce radioactive waste, but we can bury that in shielded facilities (as opposed to spreading it into the atmosphere). Yes, that's a stopgap, but what it does is provide a bridge to keep the grid running as it is converted over the next few decades. The major drawback of hydroelectric is of course the environmental impact of damming rivers, which is why great care must be taken in their planning (Vajont dam, anyone?) Hydroelectric provides about 7% of domestic energy. The next strategy is clean coal. I know the left was screaming about the death of clean coal after the Kingston Plant disaster, and as unfortunate as it was, it shouldn't spell the end of a technique which can further aid us in our efforts to reduce emissions from existing facilities. The third is further development of alternative sources, such as wind and solar. Now, of course, the wind and the sun are intermittent depending on weather patterns, but even on a cloudy day a PV array will produce some energy. One promising design is the photovoltaic tower, a design which uses a circular array at the base of a huge concrete chimney. Inside the chimney, spiraling air currents generated by the heat of the array at the base power wind turbines inside the chimney. Designs range from 50 mW to 200 mW, and while that obviously can't replace the 1-2 gW nuclear reactors and coal-fired plants, it can help us gradually reduce our dependence on coal and the emissions it produces. Now, the drawback to solar is that the price of the technology has remained high due to the cost and availability of silicon. But domestic production of silicon is set to increase considerably over the next few years. The real tipping point will come when solar power reaches a price-per-watt parity with conventional generation. Wind works as well, with large farms producing between 50 and 200 mW. Again, that can't replace nuclear or coal, but it can supplement it, and continual increases in wind farming will gradually reduce dependence on coal. (The small town of Rockport, Missouri is powered entirely by wind.)

Now, that attacks the supply end of the energy problem. On the demand end, strategies to reduce demand involve sustainable design practices and guidelines like LEED. The drawback to this is that the initial cost of construction is higher, due to the price of the technologies of photovoltaic arrays, wind turbines, greywater systems, that sort of thing, as well as the consultants running back and forth between the architecture office and the client, and the LEED council itself. But the initial cost is offset by the savings aggregated over the lifespan of the building. The ultimate goal of sustainable design is the production of grid-autonomous zero energy structure. A zero energy structure is one which uses no power from the grid, generating it all on-site through a combination of alternative sources, such as wind and solar. The caveat is that all extant examples of zero energy structures are smaller, since it's difficult to generate the multiple megawatts skyscrapers consume entirely on-site, although one promising development is the Pearl River Tower in Guangzhou, purported to be zero-energy, a first for a 1000+ foot structure. Additionally, there are tax credits in place for developers, business owners and private residences to pursue green energy on their own. That is the key, that going green is a choice which provides an economic benefit i.e. keeps more of your money in your pocket over the long run. The moral imperative of "saving the planet for our children" just doesn't work. An economic imperative that demonstrates the advantages of green energy to individual consumers is what is needed.

http://www.energy.gov/taxbreaks.htm

One unfortunate drawback of these programs is that even grid-autonomous structures may not reduce power plant output, since many regulations require plants to meet peak demand whether or not that energy is actually being used. See, if you attack one end of the problem and not the other, you aren't solving anything.

Now, on to the cars. There are tons of wonderful innovations in the field, but we cannot simply mandate that automakers produce only a certain type of car, because whole sections of the American auto market love trucks and SUVs. The left may hate them, but they aren't going anywhere. Automakers are trying to make trucks and SUVs more fuel efficient, and I applaud them for it. We already have hybrid SUVs, and while some may be inclined to consider the term an oxymoron, my view is every little bit helps. Furthermore, demand for trucks and SUVs is reinforced by the fact that in a country where so many people die in accidents, bigger cars are percieved as being safer. Yes, there's the rollover risk associated with SUVs, but frankly, if you're taking tight turns at 55, I've no sympathy if you spread your innards over the asphalt.

The electric car has great potential, but it's a little deceptive as a "green" technology, because even while it is itself emission-free, a plug-in electric will still draw power from the grid, hence, from coal. Hybridization is really the way to go, gradually moving towards lesser and lesser dependence on oil, at least for transportation.

Now, until we develop the replicator in the year 22whatever, fossil fuels are still going to play a role in our lived and in our industry. Steel is manufactured using a refined coal called coke, and concrete is manufactured in kilns heated by coal. As I and others have pointed out in several different threads, plastic production makes use of oil, as do numerous cosmetics.

Bottom line here: to everyone arguing on this topic, you've all been right about certain things at certain points. But if you think your way is the only way, you're absolutely wrong. What is needed is a comprehensive, PRAGMATIC strategy that uses the best that each technology can offer.

[PunkMaister]

But if you think your way is the only way, you're absolutely wrong. What is needed is a comprehensive, PRAGMATIC strategy that uses the best that each technology can offer.

Amen to that!