significant global warming is ocurring.

[Strk]

Originally posted by: hurtstotalktoyou

• Why continue to use gasoline when biodiesel is better while hybrids young and hydrogen isn't ready yet?

• 
  
  It's too expensive. No it isn't, especially with the current price of gasoline. I've read it's around $3 to produce biodiesel. And when you're in a car that gets 40+ mpg versus a gasoline powered one of equal size getting 10-20mpg less, I'd argue quite a bit on which was is cheaper when one can get double the mileage in some vehicles.
  
  

  [*]Coal can be very clean, just look at the differences before and after the law suits started by Clinton.

  
  Again, we have money to be concerned about. If factories can't produce efficiently, the economic impact would almost certainly be worse than any environmental threat.
  
  Yet the law suits went through. Bush only stopped a small number of them. And guess what? The numbers have gone down and the profits seem to be doing ok for the energy industry.
  
  

  [*]Why aren't there new nuclear power plants?

  
  Why should there be? My guess is there's just no demand, but I'd have to investigate that before commenting further.
  
  There is a demand for fuel that doesn't force us to dependent on foreign imports, which at the same time not destroying everything around it. People are just afraid of nuclear energy because of past experiences. It is both clean and reliable. If we had a clue, we would have done everything possible to get that fusion reactor built in America instead of France.
  
  

  [*]Is there really a point to a Suburban?

Suburbia offers ideal distance between residential and business properties.

Suburban, not the suburbs; you know, that behemoth of a vehicle that servers very little purpose other than soccer moms and nascar dads having compensation issues.
[/quote]

 

[busmaster11]

It's not primarily that republicans ignore or censor science that almost on a daily basis suggest climatic changes in the past 50 years that seem vastly accelerated over the course of recorded history.

It's that they label it junk science hoping to put up enough of a smokescreen for people not to realize that the issue is not what we know for sure. But rather, the issue is those in charge lack the sense of accountability to our earth and our future generations to be responsible for their actions today. In this world, money talks; so much more than we can imagine, and for sure, so much more than the personal moral integrity of most men.

We may not know for sure what impact humans have on our environment. But if anyone here can be honest, he must admit one thing. It is unsustainable.

 

[piasabird]

It takes more than one or two years to show global warming, whatever that is. I read this thread and I wondered what the definition of what global warming is and how you can measure it. How do we measure the mean temperature of a planet? We only have around 50 - 150 years of recorded temperature and some people claim the earth is over a billion years old. How can we quantify anything. What we are going through may just be a general pattern that can change at any time. One question is, do we make more or less emmission now than we did in the 1950's? do we even know?

Nothing wrong with reducing emissions. I am all for that. To start, you can stop driving that big SUV.

 

[busmaster11]

Originally posted by: piasabird
It takes more than one or two years to show global warming, whatever that is. I read this thread and I wondered what the definition of what global warming is and how you can measure it. How do we measure the mean temperature of a planet? We only have around 50 - 150 years of recorded temperature and some people claim the earth is over a billion years old. How can we quantify anything. What we are going through may just be a general pattern that can change at any time. One question is, do we make more or less emmission now than we did in the 1950's? do we even know?

Nothing wrong with reducing emissions. I am all for that. To start, you can stop driving that big SUV.

How do you quantify human-accelerated global warming? Thats a question only climatologists can credibly partially confirm.

But can we reasonably confirm that we are polluting the land, air, and sea very irresponsibly?

Can we also reasonably confirm that this action is not sustainable indefinitely and that our descendants will inherit this problem?

Are those two not adequate as a call to action?

 

[wchou]

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Ferocious
click

Hopefully we can come up with a solution before it's too late!

I was thinking about the movie 'Total Recall' with those breathable domed cities (on Mars) and all those mutants walking around. I'd hate to live like that.

we're ALL gonna die!

the earth's climate goes in cycles.

You wish may come true sooner then you realize! at least 50 percent of the population on earth are going to perish very soon because their are no more room to breathe!
what a small world we live in with 70 percent water and only 30 percent land. if some can live in water then population wouldn't be a problem today would it?

 

[Duckzilla]

Originally posted by: Ferocious
click

Hopefully we can come up with a solution before it's too late!

I was thinking about the movie 'Total Recall' with those breathable domed cities (on Mars) and all those mutants walking around. I'd hate to live like that.

Jesus, I hope you're right about global warming. We can't afford to stay warm here. 3.5k a year for energy. If you're looking for sympathy and understanding, you won't find it here.

Bring on global warming.

 

[hurtstotalktoyou]

Originally posted by: Strk
No it isn't, especially with the current price of gasoline. I've read it's around $3 to produce biodiesel. And when you're in a car that gets 40+ mpg versus a gasoline powered one of equal size getting 10-20mpg less, I'd argue quite a bit on which was is cheaper when one can get double the mileage in some vehicles.

Are you saying that a biodiesel-powered car gets double the mileage as a gasoline-powered car? I'm almost positive that's not true--in fact, some online sources claim biodiesel actually gets slightly less (one site gave a figure of 11% less) than ordinary diesel. Moreover, it doesn't seem to be fully compatible with today's automobiles. Some sources warn of all-out failure in low temperature environments.

The average price of petrolium diesel is indeed approaching biodiesel, but it's not quite there, yet. Unfortunately, you can't just fill your gas tank with biodiesel and expect it to function properly, if at all. Biodiesel is a subsitute for petrolium diesel, not gasoline.

That is not to say biodiesel is a bad idea. It could all but halt our dependence on Middle Eastern trade, and spur the creation of American jobs. But these are economic benefits, not at all related to the environment.

Yet the law suits went through. Bush only stopped a small number of them. And guess what? The numbers have gone down and the profits seem to be doing ok for the energy industry.

I'm not really clear on what the lawsuits entailed, but I highly doubt they had no adverse impact on energy industry profits.

There is a demand for fuel that doesn't force us to dependent on foreign imports, which at the same time not destroying everything around it. People are just afraid of nuclear energy because of past experiences. It is both clean and reliable. If we had a clue, we would have done everything possible to get that fusian reactor built in America instead of France.

First of all, the US never seemed to be a candidate in that award. More importantly, though, is the fact that US nuclear energy production, if not the raw number of power plants, has indeed been steadily on the rise.

Suburban, not the suburbs; you know, that behemoth of a vehicle that servers very little purpose other than soccer moms and nascar dads having compensation issues.

[/quote]

Ah--that makes much more sense. Well, you're probably right about that. The problem is, though, we can't very well tighten emissions restrictions, because the working class citizens often can't afford anything better than old beaters which don't test up to par. We might be able to create laws requiring initial emissions standards, though.