Offshore oil rigs coming from delaware to florida

Agreed, gotta give credit where credit's due.

 

In shore nuclear power located away from fault lines would be way more efficient. It would be cleaner than fossil fuels too. The U.S. has a storage facility built and ready to take nuclear waste in the middle of the desert in Utah, but the EPA has managed to block it's use. I'd be all over "green energy" if it was proven to be effective as a solution to our nations power needs. Green energy is a secondary solution presently, Nuke is the way to go until those green technologies yield larger and more consistent amounts of energy.

 

I don't think we're getting away from fossil fuels because they do work better. That said, I do believe in conservation, i.e. cars getting great fuel economy (60mpg) like a poster referred to above.

 

we should be using what we have now to realize the potential of renewables. the only reason solar, wind, etc...haven't become as efficient (or more efficient) is b/c we haven't taken the time to develop them. we've rested on the laurels of fossil fuels for more than 100 years, 50 of which we knew how they polluted. future generations will not be kind to us for that, i think.
i'm also a proponent of each region utilizing what it has available...ie: the southwest making extensive use to solar, the northwest using hydroelectric, the northeast using wind, etc...much, much cheaper & more efficient than trucking fuel across thousands of miles.

 

Add that w/ a realistic decrease in standard of living=problem solved. Nuke power scares me.

 

I'm sure you're correct that "alternative" energy sources would improve via use until they were efficient enough to be primary. Step one is firing all the politicians who get paid by big oil and electing politicians beyond reproach to replace them. Step 2 is making our use of fossil fuels as efficient as possible. Step 3 is the development of alternative technologies.

Seems like we've been stuck at step 1 for 100 years.

 

easy there fella, define realistic....this is a VERY big conversation with MANY stakeholders

 

due to big corpos influence on gvt and research

 

Hahaha I knew that was a slippery slope when I posted, w/ potentially totalitarian implications. I'm talking like dumsh*t stuff that my roommate does, ie/ leaving lights on in rooms that are not in use, smarter consumption(avoidance of single serving economy products)...little things that we all can do. I mean, even at work...my friggin boss acts like I'm all high and mighty b/c I use my aluminum water bottle while they probably go through 10 plastic ones a day. And for the record I am the farthest thing from high and mighty about it...I just say no thanks to his plastic bottles.

Also for the record I think we're gonna get back-handed so hard before any positive changes actually happen.

 

In my experience, this is where the divide in views really comes in. So the corporations are evil for pushing their agendas over the greater good, and big oil is evil for putting profit above the greater good, but on the other hand, the corporations provide jobs, and big oil has directly contributed to the dramatic increase in the quality and length of our lives over the last 100 years, despite all the criticism.

So where do we go from here? Does anyone expect any business to voluntarily stop lobbying and decrease profits and explain to their shareholders that they are getting less money in exchange for improving the greater good? I really enjoy the conversation, but in the end, this is a circular argument that ends with all of us and our environment taking a back seat to profit. Unless we figure out how to make alternative energy and a cleaner environment profitable (for the oil companies), the entities involved in oil are not going to budge.

 

both yall got good points

here is where I think the conversation is: find the value in ecosystem services and incorporate that into the model
IE: how much carbon does that forest draw down (through photosysnthesis) how much would it cost to do that in a factory with scrubbers in the smokestacks? ok, it would cost 10 million to scrub that carbon in a factory and the forest is doing it for free? it is a 10 million dollar loss to cut down that forest for THAT service

now forests also

are habitats for animals
provide goods and services OTHER THAN TIMBER (medicine, food forage, entertainment, enjoyment) etc
buffer rainwater during floods
etc etc
add up the value of those services and see the figure rise a bunch and it is economically foolish to ruin the environment

the 'backseat to profit' is because they are using a shortsighted view of the value of the things that are being destroyed

 

viva la socialism. if I buy a surfboard ill let you ride it as long as I can ride your wife.

 

I like that...and we could be growing hemp for paper(and other things) instead of using trees, way more renewable.

 

where is the socialism? keeping a forest intact for the good of all? is it better destroyed for the good of none?

Im not saying give handouts, AT ALL, not my style

 

and it is a cure all. good bye big pharma. google 'charlotte's web' strain of marijuana for an amazing example of what The Medicine can do for The People

 

i don't see how any of that could be considered a "decrease in the standard of living" unless you define your (& i mean the collective your here) standard of living by the ability to be wasteful. i was raised to turn the water off immediately when i was done w/ it, whether it be while brushing my teeth or washing dishes & to turn the light out when i left a room. it's second nature to me at this point.

unfortunately, i agree that it will take some major catastrophe to get our collective heads out of our asses.

 

I agree and was raised very similarly...it just absolutely astonishes me when I see the aforementioned behaviors and even worse, like the way people throw fast food bags(like whole bags of multiple happy meals) out of the car windows. I mean I'd be willing to make bigger sacrifices but if we can get the masses to even just not waste in the day to day stuff that would be huge.

 

Word. I actually just came off a little over a month hiatus(job stuff) and man, life is just better with it, for me anyway.

 

not disagreeing, but i wonder where we'd be if we didn't have to deal w/ the carcinogenic effects of fossil fuels & that which is refined from it.
what if we'd more fully harnessed wind power or developed solar before discovering oil & other fossil fuels?

i think Yvon Chouinard said it best: "there is no business to be done on a dead planet." i think corporations have a responsibility, same as individuals, to be good citizens. that means considering all possible consequences of their actions, cleaning up their messes, & generally not being above the law or having undue influence upon public policy. if that means less profit, then so be it. finding the answers to the questions facing our society is not going to be easy, but we have a responsibility to the future, to our children & their children, to seek them out & make the changes that need to be made to ensure those future generations have a chance.

 

Yvon Chouinard is a shining example of how to be both profitable and responsible. Individuals taking responsibility for themselves (wasting and using less) is the only way I believe any real change is going to happen. Perhaps removing the corporate veil and making shareholders and managers personally liable for the damage their organizations inflict could help as well. If one does not fear punishment, what's the motivation for doing the right thing vs. the most profitable?