Take lead in green energy
Abandoning fossil fuel exploration altogether is not feasible for America. But significant further government support of oil and gas drilling in places like the Alaskan wilderness or the American heartland in the name of economic growth would be a huge mistake.
Join the discussion below, or Read more at The Times.
#1 Apr 8, 2013
"Abandoning fossil fuel exploration altogether is not feasible for America."
True. It will take generations or at least decades of investment to replace the trillions of dollars we have invested in exploiting fossil fuels. But the future WILL have a change, just as we changed over from whale oil. The Energy Return for Energy Invested from fossil fuels is already below the necessary value for a technologicial civilization on many fossil fuels we exploit(as prime resources are depleted), while that from green energy sources is rising steadily as technology improves.
"But significant further government support of oil and gas drilling in places like the Alaskan wilderness or the American heartland in the name of economic growth would be a huge mistake."
Yes. It is time to stop subsidizing "whale oil" and start investing in the next thing. To destroy the pristine beauty of this last stand of so many species would be an act of insanity even if there WERE proven oil there. The FACT is that a lot of exploration has been done, and nothing found (at least, nothing reported). The 'hype' is usually a result of claims based on flawed or even made up figures on 'possible reserves'.
#2 Apr 8, 2013
Hermann Flohn in 1980:.. a doubling of the CO2, content could be accompanied by quite serious regional consequences, some of them benign, but others deleterious. These consequences would be more profound than all climatic changes mankind has experienced during the last 10,000 years. To avoid serious risks, provision should be made to avoid exceeding about 450 ppm, as a threshold value of the real CO2, content.
What has happened can happen again; after a series of catastrophic weather extremes, it would lead to a nearly inconceivable displacement of climatic zones by 400-800 km (or more), definitely affecting mankind as a whole.
The author firmly believes that this risk is unacceptable and must be avoided even at very high cost. It is at least as large as, but probably much larger than, all the risks involved in the transitional use of nuclear energy under special
precautions. The risk of a global warming can be avoided if decisions regarding future energy policies and all their consequences are carefully planned and can be executed, under an international agreement, without undue delay.
#3 Apr 8, 2013
The government should seriously promote (or subsidize) the transition to speed it up. Primarily in the areas of 'proven green technology' but also with a fair sprinkling of innovative research. Check NASA. Research has ALWAYS been a mainstay of American success as it gives the US control of the most profitable and most exciting 'new products' as well as things that nobody else can do well enough to compete.
And subsidies to fossil fuels should end COMPLETELY. We do not NEED to promote more pollution.
Add your comments below
|Brown seeks to broaden California's clean-energ...||4 hr||Solarman||1|
|Renewable Energy Doing So Well That Subsidies C...||5 hr||Solarman||1|
|Solar energy fails a free market test||5 hr||Joe Balls||7|
|Energy Delusions||6 hr||Solarman||1|
|Solar advocates see bright opportunity in north...||6 hr||Solarman||1|
|Kiribati presidenta s coal challenge faces deaf...||19 hr||Earthling-1||1|
|How Caltecha s a artificial leafa could revolut...||Sat||SpaceBlues||1|
Find what you want!
Search Alternative Energy Forum Now
Copyright © 2015 Topix LLC