NYT So Much for Obama's Green Jobs

[bhunter]

Originally Posted by Oerets

I'm afraid that our future decedents will be looking back at these time with great discuss. Instead of looking ahead we are only looking to the right now. Or at least the next election cycle.

I still can't see where anybody can say the climate is not warmer then just a few years ago. But then again I have lived in this area as an adult and can remember what it was like in the 60's through now. No one can truly say man has not been an influence.

That period is far too short to make sweeping conclusions on climate change. Remember the scare stories of the coming ice age in the sixties and early seventies. Those folks were just as sure and just as convinced as the global warming folks are today. Man has had an influence but the significance is in question.

But why take a chance right or wrong when we can do something now. If I'm wrong then we have just invented new technologies that could improve our lives. But if I'm right and nothing is done it might be to late by the time we realize it!

Why take a chance? Because it is economically costly. It is simply not feasible to move to green using any method other than nuclear. The nuclear industry was killed by the environmentalists years ago. Remember all the pablum that Jane Fonda spewed in the late seventies. That, together with the recent Japanese nuclear plant, has put a dagger into nuclear. So what's left? Solar? Solar panel production is not environmentally friendly and is costly. Hydrogen? Again too costly. Batteries? Too dangerous and limited by resource availability. A viable alternative does not exist. If and when a viable alternative exists it will not need subsidies to garner acceptance in the marketplace.

I'm a believer in if given a choice between the two options of going green or not. Then go with the one with the least amount of negative outcomes to the environment if at all possible. How could getting away from the oil/ natural gas dependency be really a bad thing anyway? It is normally cheaper to fix a problem if known about before it breaks. Some of the time when you wait till it is broken to fix it will take out other unforeseen items.

Sure. As long as it's feasible and cost effective to do so. It's bad because oil and energy produces all the modern necessities that make life more tolerable for people on this planet. Consider how many more people would not be able to eat without modern agriculture or the number that would die without modern medicine. Energy production underlies all because its use has allowed people to have leisure. Leisure means that people have the necessary time to develop and innovate.

I mean even now we are messing up ground water across the nation "Fraking" for natural gas. Clean air and water two basic needs to sustain life we'all need to remember.

Producing solar cells and batteries in vast quantities is also very environmentally unfriendly. Perhaps a simpler way would be to eliminate, say 4 or 5 billion people. That would help our environmental problem and, ironically, would probably be where we'd be without the modern convenience of cheap energy.

[Charles]

Originally Posted by bhunter

That period is far too short to make sweeping conclusions on climate change. Remember the scare stories of the coming ice age in the sixties and early seventies. Those folks were just as sure and just as convinced as the global warming folks are today. Man has had an influence but the significance is in question.



Why take a chance? Because it is economically costly. It is simply not feasible to move to green using any method other than nuclear. The nuclear industry was killed by the environmentalists years ago. Remember all the pablum that Jane Fonda spewed in the late seventies. That, together with the recent Japanese nuclear plant, has put a dagger into nuclear. So what's left? Solar? Solar panel production is not environmentally friendly and is costly. Hydrogen? Again too costly. Batteries? Too dangerous and limited by resource availability. A viable alternative does not exist. If and when a viable alternative exists it will not need subsidies to garner acceptance in the marketplace.



Sure. As long as it's feasible and cost effective to do so. It's bad because oil and energy produces all the modern necessities that make life more tolerable for people on this planet. Consider how many more people would not be able to eat without modern agriculture or the number that would die without modern medicine. Energy production underlies all because its use has allowed people to have leisure. Leisure means that people have the necessary time to develop and innovate.



Producing solar cells and batteries in vast quantities is also very environmentally unfriendly. Perhaps a simpler way would be to eliminate, say 4 or 5 billion people. That would help our environmental problem and, ironically, would probably be where we'd be without the modern convenience of cheap energy.

I think you're onto something.

Chas