So you are in favor of a guy who advocates ONLY green options? And not to let people have a choice amongst them all? Because that's what this guy pushes. He wants all 50 states to go total "green options only". Sorry but that is authoritarian when right now the conclusions are well, inconclusive. Right now I think we need to make ALL options available. Until we know something definitive and concrete.
WHERE are you getting this from the video I posted? It's not there. I don't know what this guy may have said in other forums, but it's simply not in the video. AND EVEN IF HE DID say that in other forums, that doesn't make ANYTHING he said in this video untrue or REQUIRE that the technology he is describing here to completely and immediately REPLACE your precious coal and oil.
Just as an aside, isn't this the guy that consults with Mark Ruffalo on this stuff?
I don't know or care. Not relevant at all.
You also have to understand he works for a research university. He gets grants. And gets paid to have this view. The mission statement of the dept he works for is to "understand why we have environmental issues such as climate change and ways to solve it". Not to see IF we have them.
Well, first of all, scientists know it to be scientific fact. Just because you're not convinced doesn't mean people who actually understand this shit aren't. They're working toward a solution to the problem because the problem is settled science. Secondly, your first sentence is bitching about him working for a research university and getting grants to do so, and then every subsequent statement is bitching that WE JUST DON'T KNOW ENOUGH YET. Do you fail to see the irony in that?
And what exactly do you take issue with? 22 million new jobs? Typewriter manufacturers close shop causing people to lose their jobs, while PC manufacturers open up hiring double. Same with coal and clean energy.
The efficiency? "A gasoline car, only 17-20% of the energy in the gasoline goes to move the car, the rest is wasted heat. An electric car, of the electricity that goes to the car stored in batteries, 80-86% goes to move the car." Explain to me why that's bad? Why is it bad to move forward with technology and do things better when we have the technology to do so? Even if there was NO environmental benefit at all, let alone if there was even only a 1% chance it could allow us to breathe cleaner air and possibly stove off world destruction if even for an extra minute, why would that be bad? Except it's not a 1% chance, we scientifically know this to be true like we know the Earth revolves around the sun.
You're sitting here saying you're open to alternate renewable energy to compete in the open market while simultaneously bashing this guy for simply talking about introducing it to the open market. Explaining why it is better than the energy we currently rely on. For some reason that PISSES some of you off and you PREFER energy that is going to be more expensive, less efficient, is guaranteed to eventually run out, and we know as scientific fact to be causing irreparable damage to the planet. WHY?
186 Replies
51491 Views