I agree with much of what you say. I have empolyed six of the stadigies you mention.
Here is where i disagree with you. I think it our right and duty to worry when our things such as this. Our government is speaking of making change and even taxing us for using unsustainable energy and still dancing to the same old environmentalist NIMBY tune. If we are serious about cutting emissions and creating a sustainable future, projects like this should get government blessing not resistance.
d/dx+d/dy+d/dz2010-01-06T22:44:21Z
Favorite Answer
I don't think that Sen. Feinstein is being helpful. There needs to be a balance between the need for energy and the need to protect the environment. The developments that produce energy with the least harm to the environment should go ahead. The environmental impact of solar is small compared with the alternatives. Renewable energy is a strategic asset that reduces the deep US dependence on foreign energy supply. Solar energy in California has more value to the US than an oil field in Iraq.
It was not an unknown fact that if we didn't change course back then chances are civilization as we know it would not make it past the year 2120. Well, by that year any new civilization that may sprout someday will be dependent on whoever survives on a planet that may be inhospitable for human life if any life at all. Perhaps another ten or twenty thousand years. The planet will be a sustainable source for a long time. But that does not mean we have learned how to make that work for us.
That is a problem easily solved by voting out the dinosaurs in congress and California's legislature.Old school thinking is holding us back.We need people that are looking ahead.As long as we have too many people using not enough resources nothing will change.Look at the problem of a little 2" fish holding up water to farmers driving the cost of food up and forcing farmers into bankruptcy,doubt we could eat the the little fish and sure can't eat dirt.vote these people out and fund research in solving our energy problems.And do pick the right people regardless of party,should be "for the people",not for the party.
Easy. Don't worry so much about projects like this.
Do the things that you do have total control over. How about reducing your driving by a sizable number and getting rid of the over-sized SUV (I do not mean YOU but all of us in general) when you do drive? How about super-insulating your home so it uses less energy? How about planting a small garden for yourself? How about being a better recycler? How about giving up your gym membership (that you drive to anyway. There are less energy intensive ways to burn calories after all)? How about simply going around and turning off things around your home that do not need to be on. How about helping your neighbor weather proof their home? How about changing out your light bulbs to lower energy use ones? How about installing solar on your own home? How about simply picking up a trash bag and then going for a walk and pick up all the trash you see?
There are a million things each of us COULD do, if we decided to. Instead, we just complain when someone *ELSE** doesn't do what we think they should while we do little to nothing ourselves...and in the end, nothing gets done.
It has to start at home folks with simple little things that each of us take for granted everyday.
>I actually agree with your point totally. I find any organization or person that says one thing while doing the opposite totally unacceptable. I was just trying to point out that we can still bring about substantial change by our own actions, since we can not always control what others do<