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.
Yes, but counter to much of the country, Florida seems so well suited to solar. I saw a documentary, and for the life of me I forget which channel it was on. It went through each of the non-polluting alternatives, cited countries in which they were being used, and referenced the parts of the US which were ideally suited for that sort of energy gathering.
I really think this is rapidly approaching, or is already, a crisis. I remember France, in response to a really bad heat wave, installing air conditioners in the homes of all citizens that could not afford them, and even going to the extent of rewiring their homes. Then I think of the US, and how I think this country would just let people die, as happened in Katrina.
I know the types of government are different, but I think when our citizens are threatened by catastrophe, especially when the government certainly knew this day was coming and did next to nothing, I think they should step up and if necessary stop funding for space exploration and other projects until they have devised and implemented the use of alternate fuels.
Our Constitution restricts federal functions to defending the country from invasion. Ok, to me that translates into citizens in danger. I consider our climate problems tantamount to that, only it impacts the rest of the planet as well.
Right, we need different options for different part of the country - geothermal, wind, solar - whatever options can best exploit the natural assets of that part of the country. That's why I often wonder why we debate which option is best because it depends somewhat on where you're standing .
I heard a report that it's expected that we will see increases in heat waves in parts of the country where many people don't have AC and more deaths from the exposure .
Yes. If I were to live here in my home for about 10 years I would be seriously looking at geothermal. The constant caveat I got was to be sure
the fittings were insured, and not just the pieces. It is strange to me that not more attention is given to this because it seems like a great solution.
Now I'm really curious. What do you mean by insuring the fittings? Against what? Do you mean the fitting joints or the pipes used in the installation??
Now I'm really curious. What do you mean by insuring the fittings? Against what? Do you mean the fitting joints or the pipes used in the installation??
Sorry. I was told that when there was trouble in the past, it was that the joins of one pipe to another were not sound and leaks developed. It is very expensive to redig the yard to find the leaks and redo the work.
So, if you have this work done, be sure there is a specific insurance that these joins will hold up, and not just a general insurance of labor and equipment.
Atmospheric CO2 concentration leads average global temperature by about fifty years. Some of you are going to live in interesting times because there is no way the financial powers are going to let something that will happen in the far future interfere with their short term profits. I expect that the human race will continue to burn carbon as the major energy source and that the globe will just continue to get warmer and the sea level to keep rising. This should have a somewhat deleterious effect on ocean going shipping, as the port facilities will need to be moved inland. Among other accomodations.
Alright, we all know that the world is warming, that is a fact. We can openly see the affects and it is widely documented that global warming is in process. HOWEVER, we aren't 100% sure on what is causing global warming. Yet I see everyone talking about how they can reduce CO2 emissions, like it is a fact that more co2 in the air = more global warming and frankly many of you are mislead. For all we know, global warming could be entirely controlled by processes that are not in the realm of human control. Also the fact that many politicians have linked more co2 = more global warming tells me that there is a political agenda being pushed behind this co2 global warming idea.
no i don't. problem is we are using too much crude and are increasingly supplementing this with biofuels. biofuels lead to rising food prices and deforestation. china's population is nearly 5 times ours, they produce most of their own consumables AND most of ours, yet their fuel consumption is less than a third of ours.
no i don't. problem is we are using too much crude and are increasingly supplementing this with biofuels. biofuels lead to rising food prices and deforestation. china's population is nearly 5 times ours, they produce most of their own consumables AND most of ours, yet their fuel consumption is less than a third of ours.
By more fuel you mean oil right.....hard for me to believe they use less coal too.
Last October I visited a climateologist at Cambridge University outside London. The PHd. is an expert in ice core research in the Antarctic. According to him, ice core readings of trapped CO2 in the atmosphere are "off the charts" in the last 100 years - and this is looking at 800,000 years of data. This researcher has no personal agenda. He just reports the facts. And he wasn't too optimistic about the results.
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.
.
.
