Your name is very efficient. lol  I think people try to think too big. When you think too big, the people you are trying to reach just blow it off as an impossibility. If we set reasonable goals and accomplish them, then we can lead by example and pass the goals and accomplishments on to others. I'm not saying that we don't need our government to act, but our representatives need to be given reasonable goals as well. Holding signs up and screaming "fix all our problems" doesn't appear to work very well. Instead of expecting our government to put many plans into action to relieve such a huge range of issues, I think we should take just a few things at a time. Pollution is a big issue with many factors. We like to blame the industries, but we sure like to enjoy the luxuries they bring us. The whole environment is too big of a issue to take on all at once. All we can do is try to pick it apart. Start with clean water acts. I know there are many other factors like air pollution that apply to water, but cross that bridge when we get to it. I mean for fuck's sake have you seen how much shit we have flowing into the ocean? Let's start there and work backwards, then deal with the problems of air pollution that affect the water.

The seemingly unsolvable problem is for the U.S. to set an example to the rest of the major countries without falling behind in the process. How do we preach clean environment to them without leading the way? The whole world holding hands and doing it together- I don't see it happening.

 I agree with Tony, the environmentalist movement as it stands today is looking for magic bullet solutions that either don't exist or are impractical. We are going to use energy and we are going to pollute. And for the most part, earth is a hell of a lot tougher than people give it credit for. In 50 billion years it will still be here and be getting along just fine. Humanity on the other hand has a great chance of becoming extinct in that time and very few remnants of our existence will be around except for the occasional fossil.

 

Cutting your own power consumption is nice, but I don't think it makes a big difference in the grand scheme of things. Even if every American cuts their personal power consumption 50%, you still have the massive amount of power used to create and transport everything we use. The obvious solution is to modify our power grid to include more energy sources that pollute less. Alright, which one?

 

Hydroelectric? There have been at least three attempts to build hydro plants here in Ohio the last 10 years and the fucking environmentalists have shut down every one. The most recent didn't even require building a new dam. The dam has been there for 100 years and someone had the brilliant idea of "well we have a dam, why not take advantage and throw in a small power plant?" The environmentalists through a fit and got the project shut down.

 http://www.cleveland.com/science/index.ssf/2009/06/hydroelectric_power_plant_at_g.html

 

Wind? Several private companies have been attempting to build wind farms in Ohio and have met massive amounts of red tape and lawsuits. Wind makes great sense in Ohio because we have a lot of huge farms and it really isn't a big deal to throw up a few 1-5 mw wind turbines in the middle of the occasional cornfield. There was a company that wanted to do just that, they would lease 1/4 of an acre, put up a large commercial wind turbine, maintain the turbine and sell the electricity and pay the farmer $14,000 per year. Environmentalists and politicians said no making the permits impossible to get approved. Heaven forbid some evil private company be making a profit.

 

So now the largest wind turbine I could put on my land is 100 kw, which at a $400,000 initial investment simply does not provide enough guarantee that I would get my money back in a reasonable amount of time. Smaller wind turbines designed for basically personal use are equally cost prohibitive. For example, a 5 kw turbine sells for $50,000 and is basically going to produce enough electricity for me and a maybe a couple thousand kwh to sell. (I only pay 6 cents a kwh, the good part of living really close to two coal plants)   

 

Several wind farms are under construction in Ohio but they have been plagued by bureaucracy and lawsuits as well. Fortunately, the first state supreme court lawsuit was recently decided in favor of the wind farm.  This should speed up development of wind farms across the state because many companies were holding back waiting to see the results. You don't want to sink a couple million into a project only to discover it is shut down in the courts before you build the first turbine. 

http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/PIO/summaries/2012/0306/101554.asp

 

Coal? Well new environmental regulations have forced several coal plants to close in Ohio.  Meanwhile, those fucking dumb asses at Ohio Citizen Action cheer the fact that they have blocked every attempt to build modern cleaner coal power plants. I wonder how they think their fucking tvs turn on? It is one thing to want to close 60 year old power plants that pollute a lot, but to do so while at the same time blocking every new power source? That is just stupid. Coal accounts for over 86% of Ohio's power, you can't just eliminate it. And coal is particularly efficient for us since we have significant coal mining right here in the state. Always easier to burn the fuel that is in your backyard. 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/26/coal-power-plants-closing-firstenergy_n_1234611.html

http://www.ohiocitizen.org/campaigns/coal/amp_ohio.html 

 

Nuclear? Those evil SOB's at Duke Energy are trying to build one of those in Ohio too. Forget a nuclear Iran, the real nuclear threat is Piketon, OH.  The enviro-wackos are already in full hysterics mode. I mean, those crazy people who live in Piketon can't be trusted with nuclear power, why they might weaponize it and attack Columbus (which might improve Columbus). As things stand, we probably have to wait at least another two years to get the initial application approved by the feds, a doubtful proposition if Bama is reelected. Then if it is approved the environmentalists will no doubt devote themselves full time to blocking it, and blocking a nuclear plant today is pretty easy because the public is irrationally fearful of them. 

http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2009/06/16/nuclear.html 

 

Solar? No one could have a problem with solar right? Well, environmentalists can. The federal government gave Brightsource a $1.6 BILLION loan to build a solar plants in the Mojave dessert. The Ivanpah project is on hold because of the Wildlands Conservancy group in California made a ruckus over the potential that 600 tortoises might have their habitat destroyed. Now we await the verdict of the US Fish & Wildlife Service which will almost certainly be challenged in court if it decides in favor of the power plant. A similar lawsuit is being pursued in Coyote Springs, NV against another solar plant. 

http://www.lvrj.com/news/39421007.html 

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2009/sep/23/vision-desert-solar-power-plant-expands/

 

So what power source meets the approval of the brilliant minds in the enviro-wacko movement? Seems to me that they want to stop all power and live like the Amish, or for humans to simply cease to exist. Sure, a new coal plant pollutes, but the pollution is hardly environmentally devastating. I'm all for reducing our pollution as our technology improves and trying to minimize our environmental footprint. I am a fisher and a hunter, I like the environment to be clean. And for the most part we do a damn good job producing the power we want/need and not polluting. The best area in Ohio to hunt and fish is in the same county as two of our coal plants. There is no great end of the world emergency and no reason to destroy our standard of living to pollute a little less.

 

We can and should improve, but there is no reason those improvements can't be done in an economically viable manner, improving a little here and there. Instead of blocking every new power plant, the environmentalist movement should be embracing every new plant, because regardless of whether it is coal, oil, hydro, solar, wind, nuclear etc. all new plants pollute less than old plants. Our understanding and technology is better than it was 50 years ago. So even though the new plant might pollute, it pollutes less than whatever it is replacing. Instead, by blocking everything new they are forcing us to rely on ancient power plants built in a time when pollution wasn't considered and patched up with modifications to keep them working. One small step in the right direction is better than sitting down and refusing to move.

 

Edit: moved all my source links to the end of the relevant paragraph for ease of reading.

Looks like people want their new system handed to them on a silver plate. They want specific answers, but don't understand that everyone needs different specific answers. First we must go from generals to particulars. First we need to get out of the way the corrupt and obtuse people that aren't interested in real solutions but ideologies - boundless market capitalism, totalitarian communism, Amish life (technology bad!), the "Jesus-comes-and-destroys-and-rebuilds-everything" solution, paranoid military green brains (North Korea and Iran are gonna bomb us!) and so on. 

What we need for a start is a rule of trusted people's representatives AND experts, that is, people who's job is engineering of solutions to problems. The first group is to provide political will to act in people's interest and with responsibility. The second group is experts in their respective fields, oriented on practical problem-solving, not any irrational ideologies, like Adam Smith or Margaret Thatcher. People who will invent automatically driven cars, rather than raise the punishment for drunk driving.

These people must be elected in a system by which nobody can vote for himself or promote himself. Let's say all citizens gather themselves into local groups of about 100 people. Every 100 people choose someone else from their group, whom they trust the most. These chosen form other local groups, of the second level and they vote again for someone else. It takes only several levels to get the most trusted and appreciated people to the top - or get them back to a certain level, by voting on that level which elected them. Any time, not just during the elections. 

When we have such a system, then any solutions can be invented, tested and applied. All these "fun facts" that (not) using this or that technology would cut American power consumption by 40% and so on. And if we need more nuclear reactors, then instead of building new ones, we can stop fighting and hook up all these aircraft carriers and submarines.

 

Edit: I see now that IBM essentially uses the RBE philosophy too! Their Smarter planet project offers digital cooperation and organization of city's infrastructure, institutions and public employees. This system is now used in many cities, including my country's Pilsen, which is surprising, considering how everything is so backwards here. But there is a city entirely built like that, Masdar in Saudi Arabia. It's a commercial project to create a digitally administrated city with zero carbon footprint. (which means burning the plentiful Saudi oil is not an option there) Of course, all with the best technologies and I suppose lots of them will be developed in the process and used elsewhere. If the Saudi Arabian fundies with their batman wives can make that work, there's no reason why civilized people couldn't.
 

I'll answer you as soon as I get my hands on a time-traveling delorian... easy enough problem to fix in the past.

 I saw this today I found his proposal toward the end very interesting.

 

Things to think about.

Guy

My future is so bright I have to wear shades. 

If solar is supplying all of your power why would you worry about reducing the number of panels? Is there a shortage of solar panels? Or the materials to make them? 

 

Explain how we are going to cycle back to the dark ages and provide evidence please. It seems to me that you want us living closer to a dark ages standard of living...It is one thing to say we should use new technologies to limit our environmental impact, I can be all for that. But when you proclaim the end of the world is coming because we are polluting so much we are going to destroy earth and or civilization unless we live like upgraded Amish, well call me a skeptic. 

Hi OPie,

It is impossible for a rational solution to occur if one uses irrational methods and presuppositions based on a absurdity. Since all atheists are not capable at logical discourse in  reference to reality and the practicle, then logically atheism is just a spiral of infinitie problems with no solutions in sight.

The only way for this to happen is if you are a Chrisitan and actually have understanding in science, philosophy, logic, mathematics, etc.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

No, never! With Internet for all times and never otherwise! 

I had actually  read some scary things about rare earth elements, that are so popular with modern ecologic and microscopic technologies, maybe including solar panels, not sure here. There are few places to mine neodymium and stuff, they will deplete soon and it takes a long time to build new ones. So meanwhile there might be a significant shortage and China with its vast territory is there to make an advantage of it. Chinese mines might save the day, but for a price. People say China never sells raw materials to anyone - they'll sell you a product, they'll manufacture your product for you, but they'll never sell you the materials so your people could have a job.

So basically, the less of the stuff we use, the better. 

It doesn't have to be like that exactly. It is meant to allow anyone to be a candidate and remove self-propaganda. In my country, which calls itself "democracy" but really really isn't, people can't vote for who they want, a party makes a list of their candidates and people vote for the party, which usually means a guy on top of the list. The parties are 100% corrupted by business mafia, which proves itself by countless  scandals every year. Even the new party, Public Affairs - led by a man who did a detective or publicistic show on TV for years, turned out to be one businessman's private project and the candidates had to subscribe what are they going to do when they get into the parliament, which is de facto a high treason. 

And once the right people get there, the plan is to take them down any time, if the people who electronically voted for them take the votes away and give them to someone else. And even while they're up there, they must be responsible to law and must have their property strictly supervised. I believe people on top of the society should not be paid much money. They should be materially secure and their families, but with a limit and supervision on the amount of property they can own. I also believe that artisans and other workers deserve their weight in gold. But in high places people can't be in it for money. I believe that separation of money and state is just as necessary as church and state. Your founding fathers missed that one.

^Again contributing nothing to the conversation. lol

I stopped driving years ago. That alone drops my footprint far below average. I don't have an air conditioner, though the way things are going I may have to get one just for my health in a couple years.
I never turn the heat on in the winter, though I'm not sure we actually have a winter anymore, so I guess that isn't saying as much as it used to...

It happens. I think the 'powers that be' are moving MySQL tables back-and-forth from the main server, in hopes of getting an upgrade to the forums' software, Graphical User Interface (the thing you use to read the stuff on the site) and possible other features that haven't been divulged yet.

When MySQL is moved around or data is being edited by one of the Site Admins, the server stops responding.