|
Post by teancum79 on Oct 30, 2007 9:09:07 GMT -5
Diana I think you have the right idea, at least in general.
Amalcas I'm fine with science still being a learning process. What concerns me is the fanatics who have purposed according to one radio show awhile back (gratefully no one has bought into it) making denying global warming a crime. I'm all for improving the efficiency of energy use and being reasonable with the treatment of the environment. What really concerns me is the faked science (not just a over sight or being off by a small detail, but an actual lie) being used to make policy. If we want to make major regulation changes they need to be solidly on fact or at least the best research we can get. Not Gore fiction to improve his popularity and cash flow.
|
|
|
Post by Amalcas on Oct 30, 2007 16:26:33 GMT -5
That proposal would tread on the ground of a thought police, and is cetainly more than a bit off the deep end. As to your point about science, you are right in that "faked" science is not a part of the continual adaptation and expansion of science; it is reprehensible, no matter the situation. However, I have seen no solid evidence that Gore, or any other environmentalist, has fabricated data or intentionally misconstrued evidence. Has the data been perfectly correct, and presented in the absolutely clearest manner, which makes the most straightforward, precise conclusions? Probably not. Still, there is no evidence to my knowledge that any misrepresentation was intentional.
As to Diana's ideas, I would agree with them in general, too. Making "green" technology and alternatives economically viable is one of the biggest issues in this debate, which is actually somewhat peculiar, when you look at them in depth. Switching to "green" economies entails a truly massive expenditure, yes, as does any great economic endeavour, but "green" technologies, as a rule, tend to actually be more efficient economically than current technologies, at least in economic projections. Making people switch to newer, environmentally-friendly technology should be fairly easy, after that initial expenditure is made (of course, no one wants to pay it, hence the issue). Gasoline, and other petroleum products, in particular will be easy to phase out; we are running out. However, I would shy away from a fully voluntary system. First off, many necessary changes are on such a scale that there would be no such thing as voluntary lack of participation (such as new power plant designs). Beyond which, the problem, according to some projections, may come to a critical point even within the next few decades. If this is true, purely voluntary participation may be inadequate; older, less friendly technologies may have to be replaced actively (and I think probably will).
|
|
|
Post by teancum79 on Oct 30, 2007 21:57:42 GMT -5
Many persons Gore included have stated that human made carbon is causing global warming. The evidence is simply not there to support that. If anything the evidence shows us that higher temps cause more carbon to be made.
When there is real evidence that humans (or fish for that matter) are causing a problem we can address it, but to make a policy on fiction is simply foolish.
|
|
|
Post by dianaholberg on Nov 3, 2007 9:48:27 GMT -5
The way to keep participation voluntary yet still accomplish the goals of "green" technologies is to embrace a free and competitive economy. In other words, reconsider capitalism.
Too many "green" efforts have dismissed capitalism because of its darker tendencies: engendering greed, empowering the rich, etc. But even with those dark sides, the competitive nature of capitalism has proven to be the most successful for bringing technology to people in the most cost-effective way.
So, in my opinion, those most motivated to have "green" technologies need to re-invent capitalism. For example, instead of viewing the oil industry as the competitor, it would be better to go into it with a different competitive strategy. For example, instead of looking for governmental backing of "green" technologies in the energy industries on a nationwide scale, the education system could be used to inspire nationwide competitions in making use of "green" technologies a reality in our schools.
Can you imagine if all of our school systems were using a relatively free source of energy -- such as solar or wind power -- how much more money that would free up in their budgets for academic advancement? I find it hard to believe that in the nearly 40 years of research there haven't been advancements in the technologies which could make this possible.
In the 70s, the competitions were to make little solar powered vehicles. By now, the competitions should be on a much higher scale. There is no reason that our highschools and colleges could not make it a nationwide goal to have all facilities of higher education using alternative forms of power by the end of the next decade. And if they accomplished that, it would go a long way toward convincing "the powers that be" that "green" technologies can take a competitive place in America's economic market.
The main reason, in my opinion, that "green" technologies don't yet have wider acceptance is not "big business" keeping them down -- it's that those who think "green" have labeled everything related to "big bigness" as evil... even the healthy aspects of competition.
|
|
|
Post by teancum79 on Nov 3, 2007 15:22:36 GMT -5
Diana I think you are onto something. Some people will go green because they think it is the right thing to do. Almost everyone would go green if it saved them money. "If you make it cheep they will come."
|
|
|
Post by dianaholberg on Nov 3, 2007 17:13:03 GMT -5
Most of us Gen-Xers were raised believing that we would be using solar, wind, hydro- power by now. Most of us devoted a lot of energy to writing papers about it, putting little models together, etc. But the tinsel of computer technology in the 80s and dot-coms in the 90s drew our attention away to things of lesser meaning and impact.
So unfortunately it falls to later generations to pick up the ball -- and I believe the Gen-Xers would generally lend their support. Most of us are "green" at heart even if it was a different kind of "green" that lured us into other industries...
|
|