This won't be popular but I'm posting it anyway. Popularity ani't all that great anyway.

[flamin lib]

The definition of clean coal is coal burned in such a way that mercury, sulfur, lead and a host of other nasty things are removed. CO2 remains and is a green house gas.

Look, there’s no free lunch, okay? Every energy source has a downside. EVERY ONE OF THEM.

Hydro-electric power destroys rivers, both upstream and downstream of the generating dam and they pose the hazard of breaking.

Wind turbines impede migratory bird routes and are simply unsightly. Yeah, they’re visual pollutants and the older ones are noisy as hell. They also pose a great hazard to life and health of those who build and maintain them.

Solar panels can change the reflective properties of the Earth’s surface and who knows what that will mean long term and manufacturing them is not particularly clean.

Petroleum is finite in source, available from countries we are not friends with and dirty with green house emissions.

Coal, even clean coal which means the mercury, lead and other particulate contaminants are scrubbed, is dirty with green house emissions.

Nuclear is expensive to build, dirty and, at present, impossible to clean up for tens of thousands of years.

Even if we could sequester all the green house gases from all the fossil fuels, the half-life would be at least as bad as nuclear waste because carbon is a pretty stable element. Just as dangerous as nuclear waste but not as quick.

It’s like this; you’re standing in the mall in front of that map with all the stores on it and a little arrow that says, “You are here.” We know where we are and we think we know where we want to be. The question remains, “How do we get there?”

The shortest route is to jump over the banister, land three stories down right in front of the store you want. That’s what we’re doing now, the first three stories are great but the last foot is a bitch.

The next solution is to walk half a mile one way to the store you want. You’ll be too tired to shop once you get there, spent all your money at the food court and have given up half your day. That’s going 100% renewable immediately.

You could go back to your car and drive to an entrance closer to the store you want. Not the best solution either.

Finally you could consider not going to the store; be like Thoreau and simplify, simplify, simplify by living in a hovel in the woods. What, no DU? Agggggg!

We are here by dent of past generations not knowing the repercussions of what they did and an incessant want of “the good life” or at least a livable one. We are doing things now and will do more in the future with other unforeseen consequences to pass on to our progeny.

Sustainability of both our life style and the environment is a thorny issue and there are no simple answers. Some answers may be better than others but frankly nobody on this board will live long enough to know if we choose the right answer.

All we can do is to honestly look at where we are and examine the various options to get where we want to be which is, I assume, a livable life with at least moderate comforts and conveniences and leaving a world that our children and grandchildren can enjoy even if they have to keep tweaking it.

Let the unrecs begin . . .

[texastoast]

1. So what you are saying is

Our culture is not sustainable.

Funny how Native Americans were smart enough to know to limit their numbers and have the foresight to provide for the generations to come. The simple Amish too.

Not us SUV-loving Americans who set the bar for the rest of the world. Fuck no.

[SoCalDem]

4. Village-life was sustainable

what we have now..with our ever-increasing population , is NOT..

[jaksavage]

34. I lived in a village

for two years and still believe they were the best years of my life. We all had meager means and lots of community and happiness. Peace Corps, Tuvalu @ 1980.

[SoCalDem]

36. and where you lived is likely under water now

:(

[jaksavage]

37. Yes the life

is in drastic decline.

[flamin lib]

8. Native Americans didn't limit their population.

The environment did. If they had the ability to manipulate their environment as we do (and they would have eventually) they'd be standing in front of that mall map next to us.

I suspect the Amish maintains a small population because nobody wants to live that way. No proof or sources to cite but seems I read about a lot of youthful Amish deserting the traditional life.

[Political Heretic]

16. Actually the exact opposite is true.

All Amish youth are sent out into the world when they are 18 to experience everything and later make a choice. The overwhelming majority of them, according to NPR, end up going back.

[flamin lib]

20. Thanks, like I said, no sources or links on my part. nt

[proudohioan]

31. I thought the age was 16; I might be mistaken.

However, you are correct about the Amish being sent out into the world; it's called Rumspring (?).

The Amish were probably laughing all the way to the bank when we were bitching about $4.23 per gallon gas prices......

[pitohui]

32. they go back because their formal schooling ends at 8th grade

they have no genuine choice, it's all a cruel hoax

sort of like in the 70s when we girls were told we could do anything to get us to spend big money on education but "anything" didn't really mean "anything" -- it meant, we'll let you be the low paid public defender and the usual white males will be the million dollar wall street corporate lawyers and so on

so the individual blames herself for her crummy life because she was given the appearance of a choice that never, truly existed

you're an amish kid w. an 8th grade education, once the year long drinking party is over, what job can you get off the farm? i mean really?

not sure what any of this has to do w. clean coal but since you asked...it's well known that amish kids go back to the farm but that doesn't mean it's a positive choice

[Political Heretic]

46. Not according to the kids themselves. That's a neat theory, but unsupported.

[texastoast]

27. Oh, yes, Native Americans

have many tricks to limit their populations. I've learned a bunch of them.

Perhaps you are right about the Amish. My point is that Americans have no wisdom when it comes to looking out for the future generations. The Amish certainly do.

[Kaleva]

58. What are these tricks?

The Mayan civilization collapsed because they outstripped their resources.

[texastoast]

59. The ones I know about are herbal

And very effective to inhibit fertility and to end pregnancies when a pregnancy's timing was not convenient for the village.

And for me, the jury is still out as to what happened to the Maya civilization. There is much yet to be discovered.

[Kaleva]

69. What are those herbs?

[texastoast]

74. ...

I'm not comfortable discussing those in the forum. You can PM me.

[Chiquitita]

66. latest theories hold the maya

annihilated each other's city states through constant warfare.

[Kaleva]

68. And the warfare was for control of resources

[blindpig]

15. It is primarily our economic system which is not sustainable.

A rational production system where things are produced to meet people's needs and not to generate profits would go a long way towards lessening our load.

As per population, capitalism begets poverty for the majority and poverty begets higher replacement rate.

[flamin lib]

22. Ohhhhhhh, don't get me starte on our "marketing society"

That's a whole 'nother OP. From time to time I think I may be a Luddite . . .

[MellowDem]

61. Ever heard of the Mayans?

Actually, I'm sure there are many many cases of Native Americans not having foresight at all and suffering for it, but they didn't keep records very well. But seriously, the problem is humanity, not "Americans". And there are many Amish Americans.

[timtom]

2. One rec for intelligent discussion.

(Why the 1 unrec I saw -- escapes me.)

Very pithy and accurate observations.

[mdmc]

9. 1

more for the discussion..

[Uzybone]

3. governing requires making tough choices...

too many people on both the left and right; want to have everything for nothing. Good post.

[intheflow]

5. So you're saying you support clean coal?

Just because every other energy source has a downside? :shrug:

[flamin lib]

14. Not so much. Just wanted to "clear the air" on what clean coal means.

Coal was once the worst polluter of sulfur and mercury. Unfortunately it still is because of grand fathered coal burning plants. The same was true of fuel oil, used heavily for heating in the NE during the '60s & '70s. Sulfur di-oxide plus H20 = sulfuric acid and acid rain that killed a lot of forest before it got filtered out of the fuel and emissions. Sulfur isn't an issue anymore but mercury still is with one in three wild caught fresh water fish in the U.S. unfit to eat.

If the coal was "cleaned" of particulate contaminates it wouldn't be any worse than natural gas or petroleum. We still have to solve the issue of CO2. The only answer currently posed is sequestering and as I said, that's not such an easy or safe thing to do.

[intheflow]

33. Good. Because I was going to go off on your ass about it!

:rofl:

I agree that the newer technologies reduce the impact from coal burning, but I'm still against coal for the mining practices which result in land blight (mountain top removal, for instance) and higher local toxicity levels (from airborne dust and metals, affecting water supplies and respiratory systems) than, say, natural gas extraction or wind turbines.

[eppur_se_muova]

63. Actually, even "clean" coal is worse than natural gas.

Natural gas is mostly CH4, with a high H/C ratio. Coal is mostly C, very little H, so produces more CO2 for the same energy output.

[dionysus]

18. i think the main point is, that until the day when we can meet the runaway energy demands of the

planet with renewable energy, which is a while off, it has to come from existing sources, all of which have huge downsides. but people sure as hell aren't going to go to the trouble of limiting their comsumption. therein lies the problem. no one's going to voluntarily go without electricity and fuel. meanwhile demands continue to increase exponentially.

the electricity powering the computers we type away on DU with are most likely powered by a power plant burning coal.

[hfojvt]

39. some people will limit their consumption

I certainly always have, which is not to say that I am living like a 3rd worlder or an Amish. Although the Amish who hire drivers may be putting as many miles on as I am. Sure I am using electricity and natural gas, but what are they heating and cooking with - wood? Doesn't that have environmental impact?

But you cannot count on the majority of people to be conscientious.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[PinkoDonkey]

11. I think they're kinda pretty...

Sure, they have their downsides, but for me the visual isn't one of them...

[harun]

17. In terms of all the other man made crap visually polluting everything

I wouldn't even include wind farms in the list. They look cool to me. Sleek, neutral color's, no soda or beer adds on the side, etc.

[11 Bravo]

21. What a well-thought out and cogent response. Thanks for sharing.

You have obviously spent a great deal of time studying the matter.

[PinkoDonkey]

48. Thanks, Bravo

I appreciate all that you've contributed to the thread too.

[flamin lib]

19. Nice comment. Yes, I think they can be a visual pollutant. The difference

between seeing a pristine prairie with waving grasses and one studded with huge towers stacked like orchards of steel and aluminum is one that bugs me.

Is it enough to disregard the offsets of wind energy? Depends on the location and the amount of degradation of the scenery.

It's one of those NIMBY things that has to be worked out.

There ARE trade offs to be made.

[harun]

23. Isn't someone buying that prairie, turning it in to a shopping mall

or worse heavy industry or a coal plant MUCH worse?

I mean billboards are horrendous, neon signs can be annoying, I could go on about a hundred other "pollutants" yet none of them are brought up as such yet wind generators are? Why do you think that is?

[flamin lib]

29. Why? Familiarty breeds indifference. We're used to them. Plus

They are where people are and wind farms are showing up in distant and pristine places.

Let me re-iterate, all alternate energy sources have a down side. Some bigger than others, the difference being in the eye of the beholder. It's all open to negotiation and needs to be approached with an open mind.

[hfojvt]

42. when I was in Deutschland

I took these pictures of the countryside or of quaint villages. I always made an effort to include the power lines in the picture. Just to make the point that it seemed that whenever I went to take a picture there would be power lines or something intruding on the otherwise lovely scenery.

[Gold Metal Flake]

7. No such thing as clean coal.

"Solar panels can change the reflective properties of the Earth’s surface"

Not proven. But even if so, it would simply have a tiny offset for the proven loss of reflectivity caused by the melting of the polar ice cap.

[flamin lib]

38. "Not proven" ???? And the effects of global warming and climate

change weren't proven in the 1950s when we were punching holes in the ground and burning everything in sight to provide the American Dream.

That was one of the points in the OP, that we are in the shape we are because nobody foresaw the effects of what they were doing at the time. The same goes for everything we do today.

Case in point:

Malaria was a major disease in the '40s-50'. The widespread use of DDT killed the mosquito vector and virtually cured Malaria. At the same time it almost wiped out more bird and fish species than I have fingers and toes. Was it a mistake to use DDT? If we had known the effects of DDT on wildlife would we have still used it in the face of a deadly disease outbreak?

We eventually cleaned up the DDT and most of the species have recovered but what of the short term loss of human life? Was it worth it?

Too big a question for me . . .

[Gold Metal Flake]

49. Well, you managed to fire a shotgun at a post form. My statement remains.

You could try to actually support your claim. I doubt you will but you could.

[flamin lib]

52. Well, I thought I did but I'll try again.

"Not proven. But even if so, it would simply have a tiny offset for the proven loss of reflectivity caused by the melting of the polar ice cap."

Sorry to cut & paste, I know it's didactic and might be considered a "talking down to" but please accept that that isn't the case.

In the '50s there was no thought of or consideration of global climate change.

Now we're doing other things without the temporal ability to see into the future.

The OP was about choices and downsides.

To simply say that a current or soon to be current technology has no down side is short sighted.

EVERY ENERGY SOURCE has a down side, the size of which may or may not be obvious now or catastrophic now

It's just worth discussing, that's all.

Fifty years from now you can argue the wisdom of solar with our progeny.

Trust me, there's a down side. The question is how big is it.

[Gold Metal Flake]

55. Another empty post.

"Sorry to cut & paste, I know it's didactic and might be considered a "talking down to" but please accept that that isn't the case." The cut and paste copy of a portion of my original post was not, but the above statement was.

Now, you DO know that solar cells have anti-reflective coatings, don't you? And you DO know that solar cells are designed to be anti-reflective as a means of increasing their efficiency, don't you? And you DO know that the most efficient solar cells, multi-junction cells under lenses that concentrate the suns energy many hundreds of times, also have glass covers with anti-reflective coatings which increases their efficiency even further, don't you? You DO understand the phrase "anti-reflective", right?

I'm guessing that you don't. But if one keeps things vague, foggy and unfocused one can fool oneself that one does not have to admit to being ignorant.

[flamin lib]

57. Well, at least I tried, twice, Sometimes it's hard to be "bi-partisan". nt

[Gold Metal Flake]

73. You mean it's hard for you to be factual. You are entitled to your own opinion...

..but you are not entitled to your own facts.

You know nothing about photovoltaic power generation. You posted bullshit in your OP that you made up. When called on it you weaved and dodged. You still refuse to admit that you don't know what you are writing about.

You tried? Yes, you tried to pass off bullshit as fact and failed spectacularly.

Not sure what your "bi-partisan" comment is about, except that it is another lame attempt by you to take a little of the focus off of your bullshit slinging by slinging more bullshit. What a piece of work you are.

[flamin lib]

76. I know they cast a shadow. I know that shadows change the temperature

of the ground they fall on. I also know that to supply the needs of only our country we would need very large surface areas casting very large shadows.

What I don't know, and neither does anyone else at this point, is how that might effect the earth and it's climate over time or the species that live in that changed environment. It might be nothing or it might be that single butterfly wing that changes everything. That was all I was referring to, that any change in the way energy comes into and out of an otherwise closed system changes that system.

That's only one aspect of the issue. Any manufacturing process has the potential to be pretty nasty and the larger the production the nastier the outcome might be. Considering that at this point all large scale manufacturing is done in China which doesn't view the environment as anything other than a convenience place to stash pollutants building all those whiz bang non polluting solar panels just might do as much damage as their clean energy prevents.

An attitude of superiority that allows one to dismiss others as fact less buffoons is what got us to this point. Our fathers and their fathers didn't worry about all the fumes and gasses produced, they just built taller smokestacks. They thought the wind was all they needed to clean the air. They didn't know any better. They were ignorant of long term consequences that they had no way of foreseeing.

Now you tell me that there are absolutely no downsides to Solar as if you know the future and everything in it.

[Gold Metal Flake]

77. Oh, another empty post.

Why don't you admit that you don't know what you are talking about? Ignorance is not a sin. Faux-intellectualism is.

Maybe if you could get some science behind what you are prattling on about we could have a conversation. Until then, it's nothing more than evangelist-grade myth and fear.

[flamin lib]

79. You win. Enjoy it. nt

[cutlassmama]

44. Agreed. Solar is the way to go.

[liberal_at_heart]

10. The oil, coal, and nuclear power industries have brainwashed the public

just like the insurance companies have. It doesn't take much to brainwash the American people. Just a little public relations, a few commercials and bam they got you. The environment is just another issue that the democrats will abandon. The industries have already gotten the people to believe that Global Warming is not as big of a threat as people use to believe. Look at the polls. The industries own the media. The media sells it and we buy it. It is so easy to brainwash the American people.

[BeFree]

12. Clean coal? Nah, but...

...cleaner coal is possible.

And Thoreau had a bunch of books. Probably more than most. He had his consumptive moments.

[Soylent Brice]

13. as always, technology will provide the "third option". check this out:

http://www.foresight.org/impact/whitepaper_illos_rev3.pdf

[flamin lib]

26. Oh! thanks for that link. A bit long to read for this thread but I

swear I'll read it and digest it. Technology has always provided an unexpected turn. Hell, in 1870 the streets of Boston were so clogged with horse manure that some people thought the city would be completely buried! Along comes the internal combustion engine and one pollutant was exchanged for another.

That was one of the points in the OP, that there are unforeseen consequences to all our actions. Whatever we do some youngster in the far future will bitch about it!

[Soylent Brice]

41. nanotechnology is the future.

a lot of good info in that pdf.

i would suggest reading as much as possible on nanotech.

the coolest thing about nanotech, IMO, is the potential for utility foglets:

Nanotechnology is based on the concept of tiny, self-replicating robots. The Utility Fog is a very simple extension of the idea: Suppose, instead of building the object you want atom by atom , the tiny robots linked their arms together to form a solid mass in the shape of the object you wanted? Then, when you got tired of that avant-garde coffeetable, the robots could simply shift around a little and you'd have an elegant Queen Anne piece instead.

http://www.nanotech-now.com/utility-fog.htm

the applications are limitless.

[Robb]

24. K&R. I like this post a lot. nt

[Union Yes]

25. Nice post! knr.. Our addiction to energy consumption fuels this...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7733612

[cherokeeprogressive]

28. Here's a novel idea... Turn off the fucking lights.

Seriously. My little burg only has 6,000 residents. You'd think though when you drive down the street at night that you are in Las Vegas. Every business open or closed has lights on inside and out.

The Von's is directly across from the Stater Bros., and their outside lighting is on all night long. Their parking lots are brightly lit even though the businesses are closed. It's the same with nearly every other business in the City of Big Bear Lake. Even the city offices and buildings that have been empty since 4:00 in the afternoon.

Turn off the lights and if you need them for security purposes, install motion sensors. Imagine how easy it would be to spot a burglar if there was only one light on up and down the whole street and he caused it to be that way.

[flamin lib]

35. I like that! Particularly the motion dectors on street lights.

Still, turning the switch off isn't as easy as it sounds. Almost every new piece of electronics has a vampire aspect to it, using power even when the device isn't in use. How many of us leave the PC on so we don't have to reboot every time we check email or read DU? How many of us have a cell phone charger plugged in 24/7 because it's hard to reach the plug? Almost all new devices have a power supply that is active even when the unit itself is "asleep" so it boots instantly when activated--TVs in particular.

It wouldn't be that hard to build a shut down circuit into every device, not a sleep loop in the software but a genuine shut down of power consumption. Only thing is you'd have to wait 45 seconds to a minute to see the TV come on or the VCR to activate. You'd have to program current time and the brew time into your coffee pot every time you wanted coffee waiting for you in the morning.

Most homes consume more now than they did in the '50s even with every item turned off.

[blue neen]

30. I appreciate your well-thought out post.

You have given me a lot to think about. I live in the heart of coal country (both mining and coal-fired energy plants). A lot of us here live with mixed emotions.

My father worked at one of the local nuclear plants (low-enriched and high-enriched uranium) that has been since shut down, and huge amounts of money were spent on the clean-up. One of the sites is just being cleaned up now. It's finally getting done because of the stimulus package, thank goodness. The towns have not attracted any new industries, so there are few jobs. The biggest question is, who knows what we were exposed to growing up here in the 1960's?

[flamin lib]

40. It's trite, but I feel your pain. What, exactly are the coal producing

states to do? There are a lot of downsides to coal but at least one of them is the human toll of completely shutting down an industry. Not a business, not letting Toyota die and having GM & Ford take up the slack, but an entire industry?

Yeah it may be nasty and it may be ugly but dammit, it's how I feed my family.

Everybody can bitch and moan about clean coal but how do we handle the economic fallout of closing down that whole industry?

[Festivito]

43. Worse than solar and wind, but I hope at least campaign money comes.

I think you had to pile on in order to jump over wind and solar, but, so be it. We don't pay for our own elections and so, some money will come from the nuclear lobby next.

Ugly world we live in.

[earth mom]

45. Sorry but I'm not buying this self serving disinfo you've posted.

The excuses you've made for petroleum, coal and nukes are simply unacceptable to the point of being laughable if it wasn't so damn serious.

There is NO comparison in the kind of pollution that petroleum, coal, and nuclear power spew compared to solar and wind!

To put solar and wind in the same category as petroleum, coal and nukes is a total joke!

Unsightly wind turbines? Reflective properties from solar?

Are you seriously comparing the visual look of wind power and a hypothetical theory about solar power to the ABSOLUTE FACT that crap petroleum, coal and nukes spew TOXIC pollution?!

:wtf:

Let's be honest here: you have a VESTED interest in coal being a source of energy which you did NOT state in the OP, but admitted down thread.

The severe threat of global warming that is killing our precious mother earth is far more important than your self serving interests!

What you posted is in a nutshell what is wrong with this country.

People always looking out for themselves-ME ME ME-instead of caring about the bigger picture.

We see it in our politicians, our corporations-every fucking where!

The reason this country and planet is in the situation it is in right now is that people do NOT care enough!

Why don't you get a god damn job in the solar and wind industries, instead of making excuses for killing off our planet with your selfishness?!!!

:grr:

[flamin lib]

53. Oh please! Ad hominem doesn't count for much here.

How about thinking about the OP and what was posted there?

Critique my post, not me.

"self serving disinfo" Nope, just observations.

"There is NO comparison" Yeah, there are they've been made here on DU.

"you have a VESTED interest in coal" You don't know me. I think the next word is supposed to be beyach, but I'm not going there ;-) Really, that was a joke.

"The severe threat of global warming that is killing our precious mother earth" Mother Earth will be just fine. Whether we as a species get to ride around on her is another matter. We can't destroy Mother Earth, only our option to live on her.

"Why don't you get a god damn job in the solar and wind industries, instead of making excuses for killing off our planet with your selfishness?!!!" And you work where? For free to forward your love of the Earth?

Look, just read what's there and comment on the content, not my intent. Peace and let's be nice, okay?

[earth mom]

72. You work in the coal industry. That is a FACT you stated on this thread.

Which is why the "content" of your OP is biased, self serving and complete bullshit.

All you've tried to do is pretty it up, but it's still shit served on a silver platter.

[flamin lib]

78. I work in the coal industry? Really? I said that in the thread?

I'm sorry but you seem to misread something. I do not now and never have worked in any of the energy industries. I've said elsewhere in the thread that I don't like coal and that it is still responsible for most of the mercury in our fresh water. So much so that one in three wild caught fresh water fish in the U.S. in unfit to eat.

Had a brother that once worked as a rough-neck in S Texas and I supplied electronic component samples to a firm building solar generators but that's as close as I've gotten to any energy producing business.

I'll request again that you be nice. All that anger isn't called for.

Edit to correct subject line from "I said that in the OP" to "I said in the thread" so it would reflect what was actually written.

[gleaner]

47. I don't think there has been enough use or research into ...

solar and wind power to make them a less than viable ave. The birds manage to get back and forth between here and Palm Springs where they have a very large wind field with windmills to harness power from a mountain pass where it is always, always windy. To a certain extent we have tinkered with solar power here in LA and for the technology of the time and what it was being used for it performed well.

Coal I know one way. My uncle was a coal miner. He suffered a long slow death from Black Lung. He literally choked to death over a period of years from an accumulation of coal dust. He left my aunt a widow who had to work as a barmaid at an age when she should have been able to retire because that was the only work she could find in the little town they lived in. He left five children fatherless. Whether you remove certain chemicals from the coal or not does not make it clean, inexpensive or ease the demand on fossil fuels which are finite. And those who mine it get sick and die, because the companies they work for will not spend the money it would take to keep them safe, supposing that could be done. Uranium miners? I don't even want to think. There was a post remarking about the horrible illnesses those who mined uranium had to deal with. That is why I want to try, just once, full out researching and using free renewable energy like solar and wind power.

[flamin lib]

54. My heart goes out to you and those close to your uncle.

My OP only dealt with the ecological aspects of various energy sources. I am aware of the costs to families in the coal mining country.

One of the things that pissed me off about the immigration debate was the "jobs that Americans won't do" bull shit. When pipe fitting gets to $2.50 an hour Americans won't do that either. Yet men walk into holes in the ground miles deep knowing that they may not ever walk out again and knowing that the stuff they breath into their lungs will kill them slowly and painfully. They do it because it is how they feed their families.

The costs of coal go beyond green house gasses. The same is true of all the other sources and should be weighed as a part of the discussion.

[gleaner]

56. Thank you for your reply .....

In the area where Uncle J lived there were only a few ways to make money. The coal mines, the oil fields, farming if you had the wherewithal to run a farm or a ranch and working in small businesses that serviced the little town. They were too poor to live anywhere else and that was their home. One of my cousins lost half of his foot when he was working on an oil rig. It was not fatal, but he walked with a limp for the rest of his life and the oil company would not help with his medical costs. Not even the immediate costs which followed the injury. His brothers had to drive him fifty miles to the nearest hospital and fortunately it accepted payments. Health insurance was nothing but an idle dream to most of my relatives. The oil company fired him because he had to take time off work while his foot healed. He later came to California and got a job in construction like some of my other uncles and cousins. He was able to make a life for his family, but his grand kids couldn't do that now.

That is what is so scary. The work climate is terrible. Jobs have dried up, especially blue collar jobs. You mention immigrants, but I have no problem with immigrants. I live in LA and we are a very diverse city. Most immigrants here are hard working and family oriented. They don't fit any of the standard immigration myths about lazy slackers who come here for some strange and evil purpose. Most of them come here because they want a future which is not possible in their own countries of origin. They want the same dreams as we do. To share not to usurp. Right now they are hurting as much as we are, maybe worse because they are one of the targets of first choice for attrition. A lot of them stand on the streets selling fruit because they have no other way to make money. They don't find any shame in hard work. As you said, most people do what they have to do to feed their families.

[frustrated_lefty]

50. TANSTAAFL!

"There ain't no such thing as a free lunch"---Heinlein

You make good points. "Green" energy alternatives are better than what we have now, but, ultimately, we need to think in terms of creating/finding not an energy source, but an energy cycle. CO2 and methane, for example, weren't problems until post-industrialization, when their production far outweighed their consumption. There's a lot of room for progress in terms of bacterial engineering which might be applied towards balancing the equation.

[Vidar]

51. K&R

[dem mba]

60. rec'd for common sense approaches to tough problems - nt

[MellowDem]

62. Localizing again....

will be key. Making everything within walking distance and all the resources a community needs within a very short distance. This will mean less diversity in food and products in the long run of course, much like back in the day, but it's necessary.

[eppur_se_muova]

64. In the Manhattan Project, the US pursued *every* possible approach ...

not knowing which approach would work. The approach that worked best was eventually scaled up and became the only method used for a long time.

We need to take a similar approach with energy. But we can make a distinction between approaches which will be truly sustainable (eventually) and those which only buy time (such as increased efficiency of coal plants). It may be a good idea to invest some in the latter, but not too much.

Overall, I think what you're suggesting is a balanced strategy, rather than one based on ideological perfection.

It'll never get enough votes.:evilgrin:

[Hekate]

65. KnR. Interesting thread.

[muriel_volestrangler]

67. I think you need to work on that mall metaphor a bit

If you're too fucked to be able to walk the length of a mall (half a mile? 10 minutes, at a fairly easy pace), then you're doomed anyway. I'd walk the half mile, wouldn't be "too tired to shop", and wouldn't need to stop at a food court either. I might be annoyed I hadn't parked at the best entrance in the first place, but it'd be no big deal.

Also, we need a bit of science in here: "Even if we could sequester all the green house gases from all the fossil fuels, the half-life would be at least as bad as nuclear waste because carbon is a pretty stable element. Just as dangerous as nuclear waste but not as quick."

This is nothing at all to do with carbon's stability as an element. The 'danger' cannot be compared to nuclear waste, since this is not about radioactivity. The question with carbon dioxide sequestration is "will it leak as carbon dioxide" (and where might it leak to, depending on where you put it - slow leaks to the deep ocean may not be as bad as leaks straight to the atmpsphere, for instance). Then you have to compare the leak rate with the carbon cycle rates that happen around us anyway (part of which, over the very long term, includes natural carbon sequestration as carbonates subducting under tectonic plates).

You can't talk about a 'half-life' of carbon dioxide. A leak from sequestered CO2 is not a predictable process, so you can't say "it takes X years for half to go, then X years half of the remainder to go", etc.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

70. Mommy, where does overpopulation come from?

a more than 1 child per family (on average) lifestyle is unsustainable too, but if you really want to see a flamewar, go ahead and state the obvious.

[Ron Green]

71. Unless human happiness can be unhitched from economic growth,

we're screwed.

[texastoast]

75. +1 n/t