NASA research suggests rapid climate change this century. Were gonna drown!

China and U.S. alone contributes to less than half of all greenhouse emissions pumped into the atmosphere. China invests far more in green energy than we do and we'll most likely have to depend on them for their technology in the far future.

People complain about the pitfalls, of green energy investments, but I do see how petroleum based alternatives fare any better without massive government subsidaries.

Why does it seem that every year something like this gets said by a different source only for another source to come along and say something different? This has been going on since I was a kid in the 90s.

Really there isn't anything we can do about it short of nuking China, India, and any other southeast Asian country that industry is being built up in. So you can throw around all of the "solutions" across this board all you want, until you can convince China and the rest of those industrial countries to adapt some environmental laws, nothing is changing.

Taking cars and SUVs off the road because they cause to many greenhouse gasses is just silly. How about build new nuclear power plants? Oh wait, the hippies also have a problem with that. Well let's keep burning coal because you green energy solutions are extremely expensive and don't output nearly enough power.

Wasdie

You got a problem with hippes? Eh? :evil:. :P I'm a hippy and I agree with nuclear energy, the problem is the missinformation about nuclear energy. People equate nuclear power to nuclear bombs just waiting to explode...

China and U.S. alone contributes to less than half of all greenhouse emissions pumped into the atmosphere. China invests far more in green energy than we do and we'll most likely have to depend on them for their technology in the far future.

People complain about the pitfalls, of green energy investments, but I do see how petroleum based alternatives fare any better without massive government subsidaries.

Blue-Sky

Uh what? China doesn't make technological leaps, they get their technology from the businesses that come over to them.

[QUOTE="Blue-Sky"]

China and U.S. alone contributes to less than half of all greenhouse emissions pumped into the atmosphere. China invests far more in green energy than we do and we'll most likely have to depend on them for their technology in the far future.

People complain about the pitfalls, of green energy investments, but I do see how petroleum based alternatives fare any better without massive government subsidaries.

airshocker

Uh what? China doesn't make technological leaps, they get their technology from the businesses that come over to them.

[QUOTE="airshocker"]

[QUOTE="Blue-Sky"]

China and U.S. alone contributes to less than half of all greenhouse emissions pumped into the atmosphere. China invests far more in green energy than we do and we'll most likely have to depend on them for their technology in the far future.

People complain about the pitfalls, of green energy investments, but I do see how petroleum based alternatives fare any better without massive government subsidaries.

BranKetra

Uh what? China doesn't make technological leaps, they get their technology from the businesses that come over to them.

They also have 4x our population and we're just under them in emissions.

[QUOTE="Blue-Sky"]

China and U.S. alone contributes to less than half of all greenhouse emissions pumped into the atmosphere. China invests far more in green energy than we do and we'll most likely have to depend on them for their technology in the far future.

People complain about the pitfalls, of green energy investments, but I do see how petroleum based alternatives fare any better without massive government subsidaries.

airshocker

Uh what? China doesn't make technological leaps, they get their technology from the businesses that come over to them.

You're right, we won't be depending them for tech. But they're still making far more investments than we are in renewable energy.

[QUOTE="BranKetra"][QUOTE="airshocker"]

Uh what? China doesn't make technological leaps, they get their technology from the businesses that come over to them.

Blue-Sky

They also have 4x our population and we're just under them in emissions.

You're right, we won't be depending them for tech. But they're still making far more investments than we are in renewable energy.

Blue-Sky

That's fine.

Nothing we can do will match them, not when they have the advantage in the market-place.

You're right, we won't be depending them for tech. But they're still making far more investments than we are in renewable energy.

Blue-Sky

.

[QUOTE="horgen123"][QUOTE="BranKetra"] Nuclear reactors are serious business, bro.HoolaHoopMan

I'm still not going to buy a Prius. Sorry man, but I'd rather have some cahones and drown then drive one of those.

The only current problem I have with nuclear power is how to dispose of the spent cores, once that is taken care of I cannot see any reason to not support nuclear energy.

DarkGamer007

You would be begging for nuclear power to come back when your electricity bill doubles.

Why does it seem that every year something like this gets said by a different source only for another source to come along and say something different? This has been going on since I was a kid in the 90s.

Really there isn't anything we can do about it short of nuking China, India, and any other southeast Asian country that industry is being built up in. So you can throw around all of the "solutions" across this board all you want, until you can convince China and the rest of those industrial countries to adapt some environmental laws, nothing is changing.

Taking cars and SUVs off the road because they cause to many greenhouse gasses is just silly. How about build new nuclear power plants? Oh wait, the hippies also have a problem with that. Well let's keep burning coal because you green energy solutions are extremely expensive and don't output nearly enough power.

Wasdie

The US has the highest per capita emissions rates in the world, not to mention we are the largest producer of garbage, not to mention we've always shied away from international environmental agreements. If we expect developing countries to cut back on their emissions, we have to lead the way and set an example.

Yes, taking crappy cars off the road will help somewhat with emissions. I am all in favor of taxing the **** out of people whose cars get under 20 MPG. I am a strong proponent of nuclear power, and of solar energy. And we will be in a hell of a lot more trouble when we burn off allthe fossil fuel and have no infrastructure of clean energy sources. Here in Arizona, we have thousands of square miles of useless, barren land that gets the most sun of any area in teh country, yet there are absolutely no solar powere plants. It is absolutely apalling. Not to mention that it will create more jobs, so there.

The US has the highest per capita emissions rates in the world, not to mention we are the largest producer of garbage, not to mention we've always shied away from international environmental agreements. If we expect developing countries to cut back on their emissions, we have to lead the way and set an example.

Yes, taking crappy cars off the road will help somewhat with emissions. I am all in favor of taxing the **** out of people whose cars get under 20 MPG. I am a strong proponent of nuclear power, and of solar energy. And we will be in a hell of a lot more trouble when we burn off allthe fossil fuel and have no infrastructure of clean energy sources. Here in Arizona, we have thousands of square miles of useless, barren land that gets the most sun of any area in teh country, yet there are absolutely no solar powere plants. It is absolutely apalling. Not to mention that it will create more jobs, so there.

Tokugawa77

When China and India do something about their emissions, maybe then we'll talk.

[QUOTE="Tokugawa77"]

The US has the highest per capita emissions rates in the world, not to mention we are the largest producer of garbage, not to mention we've always shied away from international environmental agreements. If we expect developing countries to cut back on their emissions, we have to lead the way and set an example.

Yes, taking crappy cars off the road will help somewhat with emissions. I am all in favor of taxing the **** out of people whose cars get under 20 MPG. I am a strong proponent of nuclear power, and of solar energy. And we will be in a hell of a lot more trouble when we burn off allthe fossil fuel and have no infrastructure of clean energy sources. Here in Arizona, we have thousands of square miles of useless, barren land that gets the most sun of any area in teh country, yet there are absolutely no solar powere plants. It is absolutely apalling. Not to mention that it will create more jobs, so there.

airshocker

When China and India do something about their emissions, maybe then we'll talk.

[QUOTE="Tokugawa77"]

The US has the highest per capita emissions rates in the world, not to mention we are the largest producer of garbage, not to mention we've always shied away from international environmental agreements. If we expect developing countries to cut back on their emissions, we have to lead the way and set an example.

Yes, taking crappy cars off the road will help somewhat with emissions. I am all in favor of taxing the **** out of people whose cars get under 20 MPG. I am a strong proponent of nuclear power, and of solar energy. And we will be in a hell of a lot more trouble when we burn off allthe fossil fuel and have no infrastructure of clean energy sources. Here in Arizona, we have thousands of square miles of useless, barren land that gets the most sun of any area in teh country, yet there are absolutely no solar powere plants. It is absolutely apalling. Not to mention that it will create more jobs, so there.

airshocker

When China and India do something about their emissions, maybe then we'll talk.

They're developing nations. Naturally, they will bawk at any motion to limit their industries when established first world nations refuse to do the same.

China actually was talking about signing onto the Kyoto Accord. So...seems like they do plan on doing something. More than North Americas doing at least.Ace6301

Get back to me when they actually do it. I see no reason for the U.S. to hurt itself when there are bigger countries out there that aren't doing anything.

They're developing nations. Naturally, they will bawk at any motion to limit their industries when established first world nations refuse to do the same.

Tokugawa77

China and India can hardly be considered developing nations. And the word you're looking for is balk, btw.

I balk at the idea of doing myself and my country harm just to pander to environmentalists. What we do won't change anything. Either the entire world does something together, or nothing. Of course I'm talking about carbon taxing.

[QUOTE="Tokugawa77"]

They're developing nations. Naturally, they will bawk at any motion to limit their industries when established first world nations refuse to do the same.

airshocker

China and India can hardly be considered developing nations. And the word you're looking for is balk, btw.

I balk at the idea of doing myself and my country harm just to pander to environmentalists. What we do won't change anything. Either the entire world does something together, or nothing. Of course I'm talking about carbon taxing.

I never was great at spelling :P

In any case, revamping our energy infrastructure to depend more upon clean fuel sources can have only beneficial effects. We cut out dependence upon foreign oil, we of course vastly reduce carbon emissions, and create more sustainable jobs, all at the cost of an initial high price tag, but within a decade or so (just speculation by the way, I don't really have the time to look up exact statistics) it will more than pay off. Now, if teh US leads the way, then otehr nations will be more inclined to follow

I never was great at spelling :P

In any case, revamping our energy infrastructure to depend more upon clean fuel sources can have only beneficial effects. We cut out dependence upon foreign oil, we of course vastly reduce carbon emissions, and create more sustainable jobs, all at the cost of an initial high price tag, but within a decade or so (just speculation by the way, I don't really have the time to look up exact statistics) it will more than pay off. Now, if teh US leads the way, then otehr nations will be more inclined to follow

Tokugawa77

And I'm absolutely fine with using more clean energy sources. What I'm NOT fine with is having to pay more to use them.

My other major problem is, I'm not willing to spend more money just to reduce carbon emissions. When the rest of the world follows suit I'll be happy to play along. But not before then. I simply do not see what our country can do when others will continue to do what they've always done and prosper.

[QUOTE="airshocker"]

[QUOTE="Tokugawa77"]

They're developing nations. Naturally, they will bawk at any motion to limit their industries when established first world nations refuse to do the same.

Tokugawa77

China and India can hardly be considered developing nations. And the word you're looking for is balk, btw.

I balk at the idea of doing myself and my country harm just to pander to environmentalists. What we do won't change anything. Either the entire world does something together, or nothing. Of course I'm talking about carbon taxing.

I never was great at spelling :P

In any case, revamping our energy infrastructure to depend more upon clean fuel sources can have only beneficial effects. We cut out dependence upon foreign oil, we of course vastly reduce carbon emissions, and create more sustainable jobs, all at the cost of an initial high price tag, but within a decade or so (just speculation by the way, I don't really have the time to look up exact statistics) it will more than pay off. Now, if teh US leads the way, then otehr nations will be more inclined to follow

Pretty much. US doesn't want to sign on because China hasn't signed on. China doesn't want to sign on because the US hasn't signed on. Canada doesn't want to sign on for the same reason. Ace6301

I don't think China would. They're enjoying their stranglehold on the market. Why waste it pandering to us Westerners?

[QUOTE="Ace6301"]Pretty much. US doesn't want to sign on because China hasn't signed on. China doesn't want to sign on because the US hasn't signed on. Canada doesn't want to sign on for the same reason. airshocker

I don't think China would. They're enjoying their stranglehold on the market. Why waste it pandering to us Westerners?

[QUOTE="Tokugawa77"]

I never was great at spelling :P

In any case, revamping our energy infrastructure to depend more upon clean fuel sources can have only beneficial effects. We cut out dependence upon foreign oil, we of course vastly reduce carbon emissions, and create more sustainable jobs, all at the cost of an initial high price tag, but within a decade or so (just speculation by the way, I don't really have the time to look up exact statistics) it will more than pay off. Now, if teh US leads the way, then otehr nations will be more inclined to follow

airshocker

And I'm absolutely fine with using more clean energy sources. What I'm NOT fine with is having to pay more to use them.

My other major problem is, I'm not willing to spend more money just to reduce carbon emissions. When the rest of the world follows suit I'll be happy to play along. But not before then. I simply do not see what our country can do when others will continue to do what they've always done and prosper.

But you won't have to pay more. I for one have solar pannels and within ten years they have more than paid for themselves. If actual energy providers used them as well, the prices will also be lower because they do not actually have to pay to purchase and import actual fuel- not to mention that a feild of solar pannels takes a lot less maintenence than a coal or nuclear power plant.

Again: China has shown more interest in joining onto the Kyoto Accord than North America has. You could literally say the exact same thing about the US. I's not like the US is even that far behind china in emissions despite having 1/4 of the population.Ace6301

If all of China was as rich as our country, they'd have a much larger carbon foot-print.

[QUOTE="Ace6301"]Again: China has shown more interest in joining onto the Kyoto Accord than North America has. You could literally say the exact same thing about the US. I's not like the US is even that far behind china in emissions despite having 1/4 of the population.airshocker

If all of China was as rich as our country, they'd have a much larger carbon foot-print.

.

themajormayor

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

Why does it seem that every year something like this gets said by a different source only for another source to come along and say something different? This has been going on since I was a kid in the 90s.

Really there isn't anything we can do about it short of nuking China, India, and any other southeast Asian country that industry is being built up in. So you can throw around all of the "solutions" across this board all you want, until you can convince China and the rest of those industrial countries to adapt some environmental laws, nothing is changing.

Taking cars and SUVs off the road because they cause to many greenhouse gasses is just silly. How about build new nuclear power plants? Oh wait, the hippies also have a problem with that. Well let's keep burning coal because you green energy solutions are extremely expensive and don't output nearly enough power.

tenaka2

The people that come along and say different are usually funded by petrol companies, or, are politicians with no knowledge of science also funded by big business.

But you won't have to pay more. I for one have solar pannels and within ten years they have more than paid for themselves. If actual energy providers used them as well, the prices will also be lower because they do not actually have to pay to purchase and import actual fuel- not to mention that a feild of solar pannels takes a lot less maintenence than a coal or nuclear power plant.

Tokugawa77

I'm sorry, but I'm pretty skeptical at that.

See, me and my Dad are contractors and we've actually been looking into solar panels and they are very, very expensive. About $2000 to do the entire section of our roof. Not to mention you have to have a roof that faces a certain direction(for us it's south). Secondly, they can't power the entire house, so we'd have to use electricity from the power company at some point.

So basically, even if we did drop the money to put them on our roof(well, his roof), we'd still have to use the power company. Solar panels, at this point in their existence, will never provide the kind of electricity you're thinking of.

Well guess what: They aren't. That's no excuse.Ace6301

Where do excuses come into anything? You're making a big deal about the US having a large carbon footprint that is only barely less than Chinas. I'm telling you that if the entirety of China had our wealth, they'd be much different.

That's a simple statement.

[QUOTE="Ace6301"]Well guess what: They aren't. That's no excuse.airshocker

Where do excuses come into anything? You're making a big deal about the US having a large carbon footprint that is only barely less than Chinas. I'm telling you that if the entirety of China had our wealth, they'd be much different.

That's a simple statement.

[QUOTE="Tokugawa77"]

But you won't have to pay more. I for one have solar pannels and within ten years they have more than paid for themselves. If actual energy providers used them as well, the prices will also be lower because they do not actually have to pay to purchase and import actual fuel- not to mention that a feild of solar pannels takes a lot less maintenence than a coal or nuclear power plant.

airshocker

I'm sorry, but I'm pretty skeptical at that.

See, me and my Dad are contractors and we've actually been looking into solar panels and they are very, very expensive. About $2000 to do the entire section of our roof. Not to mention you have to have a roof that faces a certain direction(for us it's south). Secondly, they can't power the entire house, so we'd have to use electricity from the power company at some point.

So basically, even if we did drop the money to put them on our roof(well, his roof), we'd still have to use the power company. Solar panels, at this point in their existence, will never provide the kind of electricity you're thinking of.

[QUOTE="tenaka2"]

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

Why does it seem that every year something like this gets said by a different source only for another source to come along and say something different? This has been going on since I was a kid in the 90s.

Really there isn't anything we can do about it short of nuking China, India, and any other southeast Asian country that industry is being built up in. So you can throw around all of the "solutions" across this board all you want, until you can convince China and the rest of those industrial countries to adapt some environmental laws, nothing is changing.

Taking cars and SUVs off the road because they cause to many greenhouse gasses is just silly. How about build new nuclear power plants? Oh wait, the hippies also have a problem with that. Well let's keep burning coal because you green energy solutions are extremely expensive and don't output nearly enough power.

Mac8457

The people that come along and say different are usually funded by petrol companies, or, are politicians with no knowledge of science also funded by big business.

Possibly. It's equally possible that if China had the wealth the US had with the population it has it could have much cleaner production than it currently does. After all the main issue when it comes to cleaner emissions is money. Excuse me if I thought you were trying to use that as an argument against my post, force of habit.Ace6301

Possibly, but I tend to think they'd be just as ambivalent towards a world-wide carbon tax initiative as we would.

No worries to the last part.

I thought the US was already part of the Kyoto Protocol?

That would depend where you live. I'm in Arizona, so we have a good 340 or so days of sun a year. But look- the average American household spends 100$ a month on electrical bills- so if pannels cost $20000, (I'm assuming you left out a zero in your estimate) then it will take under 16 years for them to pay for themselves. Not to mention that there are various government incentives. But this is just residential- actual power companies could make great use out of useless but sunny land.Tokugawa77

New York is much different. For one, we don't have the desert like you guys do, and we also have lots, and lots of trees that obstruct sunlight. Nuclear power is really the only cost-effective kind of power we have.

[QUOTE="Tokugawa77"]That would depend where you live. I'm in Arizona, so we have a good 340 or so days of sun a year. But look- the average American household spends 100$ a month on electrical bills- so if pannels cost $20000, (I'm assuming you left out a zero in your estimate) then it will take under 16 years for them to pay for themselves. Not to mention that there are various government incentives. But this is just residential- actual power companies could make great use out of useless but sunny land.airshocker

New York is much different. For one, we don't have the desert like you guys do, and we also have lots, and lots of trees that obstruct sunlight. Nuclear power is really the only cost-effective kind of power we have.

Ok, then New York should invest more in nuclear and wind power. There really is a sustainable source of energy suitable to every region.Tokugawa77

Wind is better for the northern tier states, the Dakotas, Montana, Minnesota, etc. New York would be better off going straight nuclear. That probably won't happen anytime soon, though. Our governor is pandering to the liberals who want to shut the power plants down.

[QUOTE="Tokugawa77"]Ok, then New York should invest more in nuclear and wind power. There really is a sustainable source of energy suitable to every region.airshocker

Wind is better for the northern tier states, the Dakotas, Montana, Minnesota, etc. New York would be better off going straight nuclear. That probably won't happen anytime soon, though. Our governor is pandering to the liberals who want to shut the power plants down.

I'm all for nuclear. the benefits greatly outwiegh the risks imo.Tokugawa77

I agree. People are all flipping out over what happened in Japan, though. Idiots. My New Yorkers, I mean, Not the Japanese.

Give it a year or two and they will be warning about the incoming ice age.

Give it a year or two and they will be warning about the incoming ice age.

GOGOGOGURT

[QUOTE="GOGOGOGURT"]

Give it a year or two and they will be warning about the incoming ice age.

wis3boi

HAHAHA! It's just earth's normal climate cycle. Ice age, global warming. And Global warming is just a phenomenon created by some rich guy.