What's Wrong with Environmentalism Today

[Cruentus]

"Creating" energy is not the problem, because that is neither created nor destroyed. So it is not using the energy that is the problem, because the energy is already there whether we use it or not. It is how we use it. If we burn petroleum, we change it from a useable source to a non-usable (as it stands right now) pollutant; not a very effective or clean way of using that energy. If we could only harness our waste, and let the unharnessed waste go back into the environment without harming it, then we would have a cleaner world. We come closer to that by utilizing things like ethanol or solar energy. But this has nothing to do with reduction. The solution lies in "how" rather then "how much." We can all ride our bikes more or work from home if companies would allow it; but that all only goes so far. It isn't enough. Transforming the "how" rather then the amount is the key to solving the crisis.

And if you can't wrap your head around that, then your falling into one of the key mistakes that I mentioned in my first post on this thead.

 

[Makalakumu]

My suggestion is that we take half the money we spend on our military and invest it into alternative energies, the infrastructure to support them, and mass transit. If we do this for 20 years, we may find ourselves in a situation where we really don't have to sacrifice that much.

 

[CoryKS]

My suggestion is that we take half the money we spend on our military and invest it into alternative energies, the infrastructure to support them, and mass transit. If we do this for 20 years, we may find ourselves in a situation where we really don't have to sacrifice that much.

Or we could ask Iceland to get off its keister and do something about it, since they can't be bothered to even have a military.

 

[Cruentus]

My suggestion is that we take half the money we spend on our military and invest it into alternative energies, the infrastructure to support them, and mass transit. If we do this for 20 years, we may find ourselves in a situation where we really don't have to sacrifice that much.

I say that we eek corporations towards profitable environmentally beneficial ventures through both positive and negative incentives (that can't simply be bought off), while investing in the infastructure to harness these ventures. Keep in mind that a lot of these infastructural changes need to happened at the state level. So everyone, pay attention to who your state governor and representatives are and what they are doing.

 

[Phoenix44]

I tend to agree with Elder999. I had solar panels installed on my roof earlier this year. The array generates 100% of our electricity, and after I pay back the loan, I'll be paying nothing for electricity. My "standard of living" hasn't changed. I flip the same old light switch, the lights go on. My solar installer's standard of living certainly isn't suffering either: he's doing a very nice business.

I drive a Honda Civic, 36 mpg, and I'm holding out for the resurgence of the electric car, so I can charge it by plugging it into my solar house.

Yes, the gas guzzling SUV's with the "Support Our Troops" magnets bug me. But I find it even more disturbing that our troops are in Iraq dying for a fuel people use to blow leaves off their lawns. I doubt a rake would lower their standard of living. And I'm baffled by all the shingle roofs I see without solar panels.