<p>^^^smart cars are pretty ridiculous…</p>
<p>teslas are so sexy though, but I don’t have that kind of money</p>
<p>really, here’s a solution: stop making low fuel cars look so stupid, is that even possible?</p>
<h2>Ninth, nuclear and wind energy both present significant opportunities that should be pursued. ~ Noimagination</h2>
<p>Nuclear will always be roadblocked by environmental groups, unfortunately.</p>
<p>The problem with wind is that it’s currently not able to be stored, so excess energy it produces is lost. Also, the best wind usually blows in the least populated areas.</p>
<p>But it certainly has potential.</p>
<p>I’m concerned about inefficient water use practices, which have left millions with water sources in danger. Largely due to the activities of agribusinesses and mining companies, water sources are being polluted and otherwise irreversibly damaged. That’s not cool.</p>
<p>Like, honestly. Will they ruin Lake Baikal next?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I cautiously agree with this statement. Wind is too inefficient and requires a lot more research before large-scale adoption. Nuclear energy, while not as inefficient, is a source of thermal pollution. Provided that it’s utilized in a manner that does not grossly affect the environment in an extremely adverse way, I’m okay with it.</p>
<p>Isn’t like 3/4ths of France’s energy from nuclear energy? don’t quote me on this haha</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Oh, I am acquainted with this idea - well, as knowledgeable as a recent high school graduate can be expected to be. I don’t have too many qualms with it; it seems like a reasonable stopgap measure while more long-term measures are further researched. However, I’m skittish about the extraction process: will this be yet another excuse for mining companies to participate in irresponsible procedures that result in erosion, pollution of nearby water sources, and the destruction of surface vegetation, not to mention the ruination of valuable topsoil?</p>
<p>@pierre0913:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Here’s the [url=<a href=“http://energypriorities.com/entries/2007/05/france_78_nuclear.php]link[/url”>http://energypriorities.com/entries/2007/05/france_78_nuclear.php]link[/url</a>].</p>
<h2>Oh, I am acquainted with this idea - well, as knowledgeable as a recent high school graduate can be expected to be. I don’t have too many qualms with it; it seems like a reasonable stopgap measure while more long-term measures are further researched. However, I’m skittish about the extraction process: will this be yet another excuse for mining companies to participate in irresponsible procedures that result in erosion, pollution of nearby water sources, and the destruction of surface vegetation? ~ Ksarmand</h2>
<p>Well, there’s only one way to extract it kiddo.</p>
<p>Drill/frac down there and get it.</p>
<p>
A better grid is a prerequisite to effective wind development, as is some form of electricity storage. Electric cars may offer a storage medium if they become widespread.</p>
<p>I don’t really want to save it…</p>
<p>Definitely renewable energy.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Now, now. There’s no need to be patronizing. :o</p>
<p>I’m well aware of the current means to extract natural gas, and that is exactly my problem. Can nothing more efficient and less environmentally costly be used?</p>
<p>Furthermore, ruination of surface vegetation and topsoil is not a prerequisite for natural gas extraction; disregard for the environment is all that makes it so.</p>
<p>^^Teleportation, obviously.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Hm. While a grid would help to solve many of wind power’s problems, I doubt it would address the looming issue of cost.</p>
<p>
True, but the cost may decrease somewhat as the technology becomes more mature/widespread.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Wind power is limited by the very way in which it derives its energy: the wind. There are simply not enough suitable locations, so it is quite unlikely that it will become widespread. The maturation of wind technologies is another matter, but without substantial investment, either from the public or from private enterprises, this is unlikely to happen soon, and time is of the essence. The government doesn’t have the money so sink in such ventures, no matter what the “this-will-offset-costs-in-the-future” people say. It remains to be seen if private enterprise will deem wind energy worthy of continual and large investment and support.</p>
<p>We need green accounting. FASB should be requiring companies to record carbon emissions as a contingent liability that will ultimately have to be paid–whether it’s due to cap and trade or another bill is to be seen. Depletion of natural resources should be an expense. We force oil/landfill companies to record retirement obligations to clean up the ruin they cause, why aren’t we forcing companies to reserve cash to replant the trees the cut for building stores, etc.?</p>
<p>Not to mention, FASB could allow R&D for environmental purposes to be capitalized. The useful life of green policies is far more than one year. </p>
<p>Give the investors PROOF that green businesses thrive in the long-run by quantifying the costs of running environmentally hazardous businesses today. Nowadays, investors can use annual reports to see the effects of equity financing, of debt, of leases, of investments, of inventory holdings, of intangibles, of everything. Why can’t they see the effect of low carbon emissions and high environmental standards? No one really knows what a green business means to the bottom line, because our financials are so short-term oriented. Does the PR boost and the lower costs of cleanup outweigh the higher manufacturing/building costs? Show us by including long-run costs. You force the industry to account for environmental factors and investors will do the rest.</p>
<p>The only real thing that we can do is the simple things- not using plastic water bottles, using public transportation and/or biking, limiting the number of times we eat out, eating locally grown food and reducing the amount of meat we consume, turning off lights, using energy-efficient devices, etc. </p>
<p>The biggest problem is that people that run our environmental policies are going to die 50 years before we do. They don’t give two s**ts about what condition they leave the planet in. Until we vote out the bums who don’t want to help the planet, we’re going to keep going down this terrible path. </p>
<p>And as someone else said- it’s not the planet that’s dying, it’s us.</p>
<p>
It really sucks that actual bureaucrats have the heinous anti-reproduction philosophy whose opposition is exaggerated by your “24 children” hyperbole. It sucks that young people aspire to enter politics and use their influence to “improve” the world within the framework of that philosophy.</p>
<p>^^
Well, something like that will always come up whenever you have a species with a virtually unlimited capacity to reproduce in an environment with limited resources. Most populations (in other species) are controlled by nature, but it seems that our technology and medicine have outpaced the power of nature to contain us…</p>