Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think the environmentalists are actually working for the oil companies .
IMO if places like Yellowstone and caldera were used to generate power, all of the electricity this country/continent needed would be free practically . but your not going to see this happen .
I think the environmentalists are actually working for the oil companies .
IMO if places like Yellowstone and caldera were used to generate power, all of the electricity this country/continent needed would be free practically . but your not going to see this happen .
Lay people often have very inflated ideas about the potential for unconventional energy.
I am an Independent/Conservative and don't understand why protecting the environment it such a bad thing?? Technology should be used to harness the natural resources we have that cannot be depleted (wind, solar, etc...). Also, regardless if we are overpopulated or not, the less people we have means the less of a footprint we have on the earth. Technology allows us to live longer which just aids in the ever growing population, we are essentially killing ourselves slowly. There are clearly other issues going on in the world that are important but why is our home not as equally as important?
I am an Independent/Conservative and don't understand why protecting the environment it such a bad thing?? Technology should be used to harness the natural resources we have that cannot be depleted (wind, solar, etc...). Also, regardless if we are overpopulated or not, the less people we have means the less of a footprint we have on the earth. Technology allows us to live longer which just aids in the ever growing population, we are essentially killing ourselves slowly. There are clearly other issues going on in the world that are important but why is our home not as equally as important?
I think that most self-described conservatives would agree with you.
They can. The people in Florida, not so much. East of the Mississippi, not enough to be worth the effort. Most geothermal plants out west face declining output. It's a great resource, but geographically very localized.
They can. The people in Florida, not so much. East of the Mississippi, not enough to be worth the effort. Most geothermal plants out west face declining output. It's a great resource, but geographically very localized.
Yes, but the majority of areas have some sort of natural renewable resource they could utilize rather than just relying on fossil fuels. Florida is a good example, so,e parts of it are a good candidate for solar, others like the east coast would be a good fit for OTEC. Farther north, offshore wind farms, and so on.
Yes, but the majority of areas have some sort of natural renewable resource they could utilize rather than just relying on fossil fuels. Florida is a good example, so,e parts of it are a good candidate for solar, others like the east coast would be a good fit for OTEC. Farther north, offshore wind farms, and so on.
Yes, but the majority of areas have some sort of natural renewable resource they could utilize rather than just relying on fossil fuels. Florida is a good example, so,e parts of it are a good candidate for solar, others like the east coast would be a good fit for OTEC. Farther north, offshore wind farms, and so on.
Absolutely. There is a viable renewable resource in most areas. I haven't ever seen an economically viable OTEC area. Wind, PV, hydro, biofuels are the mosts viable in my experience.
The problem is priorities, really. You can argue (as a conservative vs progressive) whether taxes are good or bad and whether big government is good or bad but facts are that we have a big government. If we are going to have a big government, then priorities should be such that instead of spending trillions of dollars (and countless lives) on "liberating" third world countries and funding rebellions, building them hospitals and bringing them democracy, funding a massive and over-priced military with unknown/classified budgets, we should provide anyone who wants it - free or near free solar panels to put on their homes or wind turbines or whatever works in the area. Every new construction should be mandated to derive x% of its energy from renewable sources, preferably self-sufficient (i.e. roof mounted solar or on-property wind or geo thermal). This would reduce our dependence on oil and on the country-wide grid (which may prove to be a risk anyways).
The problem is - our government is not owned by the people nor does it work for the people - it is owned by conglomerates and corporate "persons" who have no interest in seeing our population be independent, be it in energy only.
I am a pragmatic, I don't care for labels like conservative or liberal - you should always go with what is practical and long-term beneficial, not with ideology. People who go with ideology are no different than Soviets in the 1917-1980, they just happen to live in a place where ideology is "free" of consequence.
Along the same lines, educating the population (via free college) will result in educated voters who really understand the issues and can see the danger of no term limits or of money in politics. This, in turn, will have a long term beneficial impact on the environment - educated people tend to be more aware of scientific ways to solve problems, not ideological ways to do the same. They are also more likely to uncover fraud in solutions that are being proposed to solve problems (like a pipeline being sold to the people as a job-creating tool, for example).
Same with the food chain - right now the food chain in United States is unsustainable because it is owned by entities like Monsanto or Tyson or Nestle or whoever. They have no interest in being clean, they just have an interest in inventing the next chemical or GMO that will yield more for less while at the same time protecting/hiding the not-so-good side effects. Food is the basic building block for a healthy population (this also has a link to educated population).
Finally, people need to understand that protecting the environment will cost money and this is something we need to come to terms with. You cannot compete with China and keep your water clean, unless you invest in education, science, innovation and technologies that are clean. Another problem is the sheer amount of poverty in United States. Cleaning up the food chain will result in expensive foods, cleaning up the building/energy sector will make things more expensive (at least initially). Finally, educating people will cost money.
However, just like we spent a lot of money on the interstate system (and it paid back multiple times over the decades), the next investment has to be in people and the environment (technologies, education, science, food chain...). The people will take it from there afterwards.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
