Hydrogen car, already stated that In an earlier post.
What do you mean by "hydrogen car"?
Nuclear energy production that's not 50 years old also stated earlier. Both of which being squashed by this and previous administrations.
You've picked the wrong actors. It is not the administrations that have stopped nuclear energy development - it is the American people - people across the whole planet actually.
If you can think of emissions coming from either please let me know. Good luck. Well the problem with nuclear is what do we do with waste...I say send it into space. And I guess we are so dumb that no one can figure out how to make a fuel cell/battery system for solar/wind/thermal power, let alone kinetic ways of storing and producing energy? Solar energy has been only 5 years away from a breakthrough for the last 20 years. Oh and if you want to go off the grid for real with your own well and solar panels, guess what, you're not allowed, no you have to be plugged in to our grid even though you don't need it, we need to know what your doing.
You're rambling. Waste is a problem but sending it into space is not a solution. The cost is enormous and you run the risk of a crash with the same effect as a large scale dirty bomb.
Fuel cells are not energy storage devices.
Batteries for solar and wind is a good idea and there has been a great deal of progress lately on Pullman vanadium salt flow batteries. They have a unit in Washington state that has a 3.2 MW capacity. The technology is relatively simple and the design is child's play to scale upwards.
Solar PV is very close (if not beyond) the cost of fossil fuel-sourced electricity.
And it's undeniable that irrigating desert land and planting trees/crops is a good option for reducing carbon emissions
It's an option, but it is not a good one. You cannot soak up enough CO2 to have any noticeable effect. It would be far more effective to put in alternative technologies in the power and transportation sectors.
much better than passing laws and taxes on people using carbon.
I disagree. Deforestation is a contributing cause of AGW, but it is not the primary cause. You could reforest the entire planet - restore every bush, tree and blade of grass eliminated since the invention of the steam engine, but CO2 in the atmosphere would still increase. You have to stop the combustion of fossil fuels.
..or any aerobic being for that matter.
Eh? Aerobic being?
And yes lots of trees are being cut down, and they take many years to grow, let's start now. If government was really concerned about climate changed as they say they are, this would be happening.
The government does practice reforestation. And preservation. But if you actually believe they could cure global warming in such a manner, you need to bone up on more than a few topics. This line of reasoning is more than a little childish.
Also if the government really was concerned, than why did we make "green" deals with china and Mexico saying they can build as many dirty coal plants as they want for 16 years
The United States has no authority to tell Mexico, China or any other nation what they may and may not due. I would guess you are referring to trade negotiations in which we have told them that we will not continue to trade with them unless they work to reduced their emissions. Recent agreements of that sort are more emission-restrictive than former arrangements, so if you're looking for government action as evidence that global warming is real, you've got it.
And well consistently cut down our clean coal plants. But then they have to freeze it after that, right? China listens to us and will honor a 16 year old deal in the future, right. While they make something like 3 new dirty coal plants a week, so much that they have to make jumbotrons in their cities showing the sunrise in the morning because the smog blocks out the sun.
China is converting to alternative energy sources faster - and now has more alternative energy capacity - than any other planet on Earth. They do possess a very large coal infrastructure and are an enormous emitter, but they ARE working on it.
Looking for government action as evidence that AGW (anthropogenic global warming) is or is not real is just silly. A much better idea is to look at the science. The
science says that the primary cause of the warming we've experienced over the last 150 years is the greenhouse effect acting on human GHG emissions and deforestation. This problem will not be solved by irrigating the world's deserts.
