Printable View
Can you elaborate, please?Quote:
Originally posted by kestra
You better be careful with that opinion , it's an antique. Please Papa Homer, I want to learn more.Quote:
As a corollary to this, the problem with most green parties is they are actually communist parties hiding behind the "green" banner as a way to subvert society. That is why they aren't truly supportive of any real solutions. If we solve environmental problems, their smokescreen goes away.
Quote:
Originally posted by Snrrub
We've already figured out what to do with the waste - bury it underground. Unfortunately, our current leaders lack the political will to make it happen.
Oh? I didn't know that. But then, I don't follow these things much, to be honest.
Absolutely; but that doesn't mean it doesn't have its uses. Unfortunately the ideal place for wind turbines (the crest of a hill) is the very worst place in terms of "eyesore factor".Quote:
The biggest problem with wind power is it's poor power density.
People are willing to spend money on "carbon credits", which are basically just today's version of the Middle Ages concept of "indulgences" (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indulgence - a major part of the Reformation was getting rid of that concept). You spend some money and then you have the right to feel warm and fuzzy because you've "done your bit" for the environment. Companies will go to great lengths to become carbon neutral (or to approach that status), usually by paying for someone to plant trees on the other side of the world. (Simon Travaglia did an article on it...) So maybe pushing for wind power needs to be done the same way. Where real estate agents will currently advertise "Water views" or "Within walking distance of shops", they could start advertising something about "carbon neutrality points" or something, which means that you can see the wind turbines from here. It's all in the marketing... if a wind turbine makes your house more valuable, it's an advertisable feature!
Now, someone needs to make people buy on that basis. Sigh....
I'd like to see the evidence to support this claim; which seems better suited in the 1950s than today. Calling someone, something, or some organization communist was a common scare tactic by Joe McCarthy to marginalize and silence opposing voices and opinions. Ultimately, McCarthy's tactics and his inability to substantiate his claims led to his being discredited and censured by the United States Senate.Quote:
As a corollary to this, the problem with most green parties is they are actually communist parties hiding behind the "green" banner as a way to subvert society. That is why they aren't truly supportive of any real solutions. If we solve environmental problems, their smokescreen goes away.
I came across this interesting company that manufactures huge sails that in essense tow ships with wind power.
http://www.skysails.info/index.php?L=1
I am all for alternative power sources, so keep that in mind. I actually am pretty enviromentalist. That being said...
I was in Upstate NY in the Finger Lakes region this weekend and got to witness these wind turbines first hand. Our family has a cabin in the Finger Lakes and we have come to love the region. My father-in-law actually writes books about the Finger Lakes. It has beautiful rolling hills, blue lakes, vineyards. The landscape in that area is stunning. We drove by where they are installing these HUGE wind turbines. It IS an eyesore and totally ruins the asthetics of the natural beauty of the region. I, for one, would be pretty pissed if they started putting them up near our cabin, so I can relate to both sides of the issue.
I see your point there (although, as stated above, aesthetics means little to me); but what about in urban or suburban areas? Most people complaining about the view being disrupted are in cities.Quote:
Originally posted by Ismenia
I am all for alternative power sources, so keep that in mind. I actually am pretty enviromentalist. That being said...
I was in Upstate NY in the Finger Lakes region this weekend and got to witness these wind turbines first hand. Our family has a cabin in the Finger Lakes and we have come to love the region. My father-in-law actually writes books about the Finger Lakes. It has beautiful rolling hills, blue lakes, vineyards. The landscape in that area is stunning. We drove by where they are installing these HUGE wind turbines. It IS an eyesore and totally ruins the asthetics of the natural beauty of the region. I, for one, would be pretty pissed if they started putting them up near our cabin, so I can relate to both sides of the issue.
Kestra, fascinating link. It's not the same as turbines, but more a matter of a deployable device to hybridize a ship and save fuel - seems to me like a good idea with little or no downside.
People have mostly stopped calling it 'communist', it's now called 'socialist' but it means exactly the same thing. I'm not very well up on American politics (hey, I hardly follow Australian politics... although I do at least know who our Prime Monster is), so I'll let Ari answer you in the specifics, but if environmentalism is used for leverage to create a government that's taxing more and giving more to the people, then that's more communist. One hypothetical example would be a tax on every carbon dioxide producing industry/product/etc that gets put towards carbon credits. Is it hypothetical? Or is it true?Quote:
Originally posted by kestra
I'd like to see the evidence to support this claim; which seems better suited in the 1950s than today. Calling someone, something, or some organization communist was a common scare tactic by Joe McCarthy to marginalize and silence opposing voices and opinions. Ultimately, McCarthy's tactics and his inability to substantiate his claims led to his being discredited and censured by the United States Senate.
I agree Ismenia. We only have very few wind turbines in Israel (in Holland it's a big deal), but I want to touch the issue of hydro power. Presumably, it's a good deal, but I've seen the damage it does to nature and to the landscape, it's just hard to grasp.
Take for example the great dam in China. This thing covered in water such a great area, so much history and archeology is forever lost.
Does? I would have to say "can do". Yes, you can cite examples of how damaging something can be; you can cite Chernobyl as an argument against nuclear, or point to instances where marine life has gotten into strife because of wave power. That doesn't mean that hydro, nuclear, and wave technologies are fundamentally flawed - just that they have the risk of danger.Quote:
Originally posted by Jidoe
I agree Ismenia. We only have very few wind turbines in Israel (in Holland it's a big deal), but I want to touch the issue of hydro power. Presumably, it's a good deal, but I've seen the damage it does to nature and to the landscape, it's just hard to grasp.
Take for example the great dam in China. This thing covered in water such a great area, so much history and archeology is forever lost.
I think the Yucca mountain project in Nevada has already been approved. I'm also on board with nuclear energy. I saw a thing on modern marvels how they ship that waste. It was all about "canning" (I love modern marvels). They mix that crap with glass and inject it into big steel canisters, it solidifies and is just this virtually un-breakable huge tube of glass fill. It's quite safe.Quote:
Originally posted by Snrrub
We've already figured out what to do with the waste - bury it underground. Unfortunately, our current leaders lack the political will to make it happen.