Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I guess I just don't see the same future you do. We are far more aware of our effect on the environment then we were 50 yrs ago. Over that time our fuel efficiency has improved drastically, we have learned that many items we use can be recycled. As a country, we have made very significant strides in terms of our stewardship to the environment. It isn't the U.S. that you should be pointing the finger at when it comes dangers to our environmental future. You should be pointing your finger at countries like China and other developing countries who's factories our spewing pollution into air primarily because they don't have the technology we have.
I beleive as a country we have crossed a line as well. As a country I believe we are past are worst environmental abuses and things will only get better.
So what is your solution to The Problem?Who said anything about ONLY the US being responsible? I was talking about Human Beings in general. I said nothing about a certain country in the quote you provided. However you are correct in saying that we have made some important strides, but overall, as a collective Human Race, we didn't make the mark.
So what alternative energy source do you propose to fuel all these major industrial economies?The united states is by far the largest consumer of oil, but if anthropogenic global warming is proven to exist. the united states alone would not be able to completly stop or even slow it down without the cooperation of the entire world. We only account for less than 24% of the earths oil consumption a year, which is alot but not enough to cut emissions in half on a world wide scale. We need japan, china, russia, australia, africa, Asia, and the middle east all to cut emissions in half to reach that goal.
There are no alternative re-usable fuels to power the world without causing inflation. Nuclear power is something we are working on though it is highly unstable, and very expensive. Ethanol would be the first step to lowering dependence on oil, and the only logical one as well. It is combined with gasoline to create less C02 output.
My own personal opinion, though it would take some time and money to create this, i would say a fuel cell engine. We have tiny fuel cells powerd by a continous flow of hydrogen and oxygen, two of the most obundant elements on the planet. We definitely have the technology to create large hydrogen powerd fuel cell engines but just like when the computer first came out, we dont have a cheap and efficient way of manufacturing something like this.
It takes research and time to become less dependent on fossil fuels but i really think ethanol is the most logical way as of right now. Its re-usable because we can use sugar crops to grow extracts of it. Brazil uses 12% of the worlds ethanol, all on cars, and it comes from only 4% of brazil's land to grow it.
There are no alternative re-usable fuels to power the world without causing inflation. Nuclear power is something we are working on though it is highly unstable, and very expensive. Ethanol would be the first step to lowering dependence on oil, and the only logical one as well. It is combined with gasoline to create less C02 output.
Interesting, that Law od Unitended Consequences. I wonder what tens of thosands of windmills will do to global wind patterns, or hundreds of ocean turbines in the Gulf Stream do to the climate in Europe? Not to mention bird and fish populations.Actually Ethanol currenlty has some major, albeit unexpected environmental issues as well. I am from the ethanol capital of the world, Minnesota. A recent study that I read in the Minnesota Explorer directly linked an increase in corn growth to the destruction of coral reafs in the gulf of mexico, creating what popularilly know has the dead zone. What is happening is the increas in corn growth for ethanol here has naturally led to increase in the use of pesticides and fertalizers, which runs into the mississipi, which runs into the gulf, the combination of chemicals creates algea blooms in the gulf which suck up all of the oxygen, which kills fish and plant life.
Interesting, that Law od Unitended Consequences. I wonder what tens of thosands of windmills will do to global wind patterns, or hundreds of ocean turbines in the Gulf Stream do to the climate in Europe? Not to mention bird and fish populations.
The way I see it, we have 4 long term options:
1. Develop nuclear power.
2. Pollute like hell, using up all the oil and coal while waiting for the holy grail (fission power).
3. Some combination of 1 and 2.
4. Kill off 90% of human life.
Since radical environmentalists do not support options 1, 2 or 3, the logical conclusion is that they support option 4.
1.Ethanol: Post 28, item 1. Its also extremely toxic, and disolves in groundwater, not like gasoline that floats on it.Nuclear fusion would be more logical than fission, if we were to go that rout. It produces less waste, and is powerd by raw materials. I still believe that ethanol will be the power of our cars though, we dont have the technology to power small cars with nuclear fusion without blowing everyone up during a car accident. Ethanol is re-usable and you can grow it using all natural bug reppelant that wont cause any damage to the water systems. The idea is to have more ethanol than gas, not a full tank of ethanol. We are TRYING to use less gas because scientists believe all the oil reserves will be gone within 90 years.
