Bush admin about to reverse itself on global warming.

In summary, Bush officials are admitting that they were wrong in their dismissal of man-induced atmospheric warming. The conversation also touches on the need for real dialogue and practical solutions, rather than rhetoric and idle demands, in addressing environmental issues. Both sides are criticized for not effectively communicating and finding common ground. The speaker also mentions a need for a realistic plan that takes into account both environmental concerns and practicality.
  • #36
I agree with Dan, Coal has not only been being talked about but actively attacked (and rightfully so) in many cases. Greenpeace had a show down with the Coal plant in Salem Ma, One of the north east's big ugly's.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #37
Dissident Dan said:
They can raise fuel efficiency across the board--that includes SUVs, using better fuel injections with computer controlled timing and amount control, hybrid technology, and a host of other technologies that I can't remember. There was an article in, I think, Popular Science, or possibly Scientific American that was about combining several technologies to drasticallly improve fuel efficiency.
For the first one, computer controlled timing/combustion process, that would both increase efficiency and decrease emissions (and I have the sneaking suspicion that the $100 they charge for California emissions on a new car is simply turning that feature on via the computer). However, the improvement in efficiency is small - a couple of percent. The improvement in emissions is somewhat larger.

Hybrid technologies, sure, they work - but are you saying the government needs to start forcing people to buy them? Also, though they work, they don't work anywhere near as well as advertised. 85 mpg was dreamed, 50 mpg was advertised, and few people are getting much more than 40 mpg. Considering that half of Honda's line gets 30+ mpg, that's a pretty meager improvement.

Also, though I enjoy the magazine, there is a world of difference between Popular Science and Scientific American - Popular Science is as much science fiction as science.
Having frequent contact with people from many environmental groups, I can tell you that you are wrong. For example, the LCV has been talking about coal-burning power plants as they relate to Mercury pollution lately.
Fair enough - what is their solution?

For those who didn't see it, btw, the "real, proven, safe, clean, high capacity, inexpensive source" I was talking about is, of course, nucelar power. Until environmentalists start using their heads and stop opposing it (better yet, start actively supporting it, since it does fit with their stated goals), we will continue the energy and environmental death-spiral we are in.
 
Last edited:
  • #38
Russ, I wouldn't suggest forcing people to buy different cars, I would suggest the govt. start forcing the automotive industry to make higher fuel efficiency cars. Plus, some legislation to make hybrid cars look like they weren't designed by a 4 year old would help too. In NY you get a $2,000 government rebate when you buy a gas/electric hybrid, a national program like that could help encourage people to buy them as well. And honestly, if those hybrids started looking like normal cars, or companies started selling cars that you could buy as hybrids or normal, like a Honda Accord or something, that looked exactly the same, I think people would also be more inclined to buy them. I mean, it seems that if you have the choice between 32mpg and 45 mpg, you'd go with 45mpg, even if it cost more, since you'd get $2,000 or whatever back from the govt.

And the thing about the Long Island sound, I didn't post it to say that specifically filling the long island sound with windmills would solve a huge % of our problems, but just to show what could be achieved with filling a relatively small amount of space with windmills. Imagine all the windmills you could fit on empty plains in the mid-west, out at sea, on all the bays etc. in America.

Of course very little of our energy currently comes from sources besides coal/oil etc., but I want there to be efforts to increase this number, make more and more windmills, add solar panels to more and more buildings (I'm sure many factories wouldn't mind having solar panels on their roofs to cut down on their electricity bills), harness geo-thermal and tidal energy etc. We currently have very small amounts of this being put to use, I want more of it to be made useful.

And Russ, you said that coal and nuclear power plants were pretty much maxed out, then say that nuclear plants could help us a great deal and provide tons of energy, I'm lost... Are you saying that because of current environmentalist activism nuclear energy has gone as far as it's allowed to, but could go further?
 

Similar threads

Replies
13
Views
3K
Replies
58
Views
11K
  • General Discussion
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
2
Replies
36
Views
5K
  • General Discussion
7
Replies
237
Views
27K
  • New Member Introductions
Replies
1
Views
587
  • Earth Sciences
Replies
13
Views
5K
  • Feedback and Announcements
Replies
22
Views
10K
  • Earth Sciences
Replies
4
Views
6K
Replies
54
Views
11K
Back
Top