Liberals, please explain this to me: you want third world countries to modernize with things like?

Here's one source:

Here's three surces:

Wind: currently cost competitive with other forms of enrgy. Wind now suplies 20% f Demmark's power. It is the fastest growing powr source in Texas--already supplying 2% of the states power.

Tidal-limited to coastal areas. Currently proposals, includeing a system underwater in Sann Francisco Bay, will provide up to 10 gigawatts of power. Still underdevelopment but has reached the stage wher e it has been proven practical.

Solar. Using the same figure--10 gigawatts (enough to power the entire state of Massachusetts). This would require about 70 million square meters (given an efficiency rate of 10%). That's less than 10% of the rooftop area in Boston. Currently expensive to install--but the cheapest form of energy now in terms of operating expenses. And the cost is expected to drop enough to make it among the cheapest systems to install within 10 years. India is already making extensive use of solar power to bring electricity to rulral villages.

Transport--the US is unique in this regard. Not because of our many cars--though tht is an extreme--but because we are the only developed country that does not give people the opportunity to choose alternative forms of transportation--mass transit, etc. And automobile travel is the single most expensive way to travel in terms of passenger-miles. and the least fuel efficient. Itis unlikely that any other country will make the same mistake in not developing good public transport in conjunction with other development--and this can be entirely electric, with current technology.

Individual transportation--electric cars are entirely feasible for urban/short distance transportation. Currently a top end model now going into production--the "Tessla_" roadster--can reach 130 mph in 4.0 seconds with a range of 200 miles. It is intended as a high-end "flagship" model--a variety of inexpensive, if less sporty, models are also headed to market. The "economy" versions are comparable in price to gasoline powered cars--and are likely to be cheaper as volume builds.

The amount of power required to run a home/business is falling. The best known example is the "compact flourescent bulb"(CF bulb) now widely available. It cuts enrgy use by 75-80%.

New structures (especially relevant in evloping countries) can be built, including homes--that are well insulated and energy efficient. By way of comparision, such techniques, in conjunction with CF bulbs and similar technology, can reduce the energy consumption of an American home by 60-70% WITHOUT sacrificing lifestyle--and the savings pay for the modifications.

If you think this is simply "pie in the sky" think again--almost all of this is available on the market NOW. The rest is in advanced development stages. In the "Silicon Vally" area alone, new capitalization/research from private sources this year is around $3.5 billion. That money is being invested in order to make money-not to be "green." The investors already know what the above items make clear: we do not need to drill for more oil. Or dig more coal. Or pump more natural gas. Thse technologies date from the 1800s--and are obsolete. It really desn't matter if we "go green" or not. Fossil fuels are simply outdated and no longer cost-competative.

YOu wanted specifics. You got 'em. There is absolutely no reason why American consumers--or third-world nations--should continue to begger themselves jsut to keep some oil company executives in caviar and hookers.

FACT: A solar farm located in Death Valley 1 mile X 1 mile (check the maps, this isn't as big as it sounds) supplies enough power for all of the US, Canada, and Mexico. There is a specific study that has already been done and filed. It isn't supposed or maybe it could be. We already have the technology to do it. Not even hard. What if there were 100 such farms dotting the globe, or a thousand? Not so much really. And I believe the report was in 1985 or thereabouts. So by now, surely the technology is even better. There is one of probably a thousand solutions out there to the energy problem. This is not a liberal issue. Just look at it like this. Fresh clean air is nice, for all of us. Not having to find places to hide nuclear fuel rods where they won't cause our kids to be monsterously deformed and retarded is good for all of us. If we could get off of oil then the mid East 'crisis' is a thing of the past. If we aren't digging up coal, then we have many more pretty things to look at. Why does this have to be anything to do with liberal vs. conservative? It has to do with science and common sense. Time to move forward and stop being afraid to move into the next phase of human history. Why on earth would a person choose a dirty, old fashioned fuel source over a clean renewable free one? It's like taking a dump in your own bed dude.

Why are you focusing on liberals?

Don't conservatives want the third world to modernize, too. Is that going to require more energy no matter who wants it to happen? That is going to require other energy sources besides oil and coal. Fact. I happen to think that should include nuclear.

But there has to be a good technological solution to nuclear waste. That is not a partisan issue. Neither Conservatives nor liberals in Nevada don't want the stuff being carted through their state to Yucca mountain.

How cowardice and dishonest of you to peg something like that on liberals. If you believe the Republican line then your President has spent the last eight years, hundreds of billions of our dollars, and almost four thousand lives doing exactly what you're talking about; all with strict opposition from liberals all over the country, one of who, John Kerry, asked in 2004 "why are we building firehouses in Baghdad when we could be building more the America"? Unless you're finally willing to admit that the war is about securing the future oil market for the U.S. and not China or India or the E.U.

We waste three times as much as we need so we can start helping immediately. Geothermal and solar are virtually unlimited sources in the long run. Who made you czar-no drilling?? That is as logical as quit driving.

What does this have to do with solely liberals? Or solely conservatives?

These are humanitarian acts the UN helps perform for third world nations.

I said i wanted third world countries to modernize? I dont remember saying that.

I do remember saying that what the world needs is more contraception. You know, that stuff the conservatives fight tooth and nail to keep out of the schools?

And the supply of oil is exhaustible.

Oh my! Marx was right and global capitalism will implode through endless wasteful expansion. Oh noooooooooooo.

make the ignorant be spayed or neutered world population reduction= less demand

I just want them to be able to eat,clean drinking water,have a home, have birthcontrol and not die from aids.

Is that asking too much?