An Internet hub with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, indies, centrists, moderates, and right
There are many reasons. It is not economic, NIMBYism, short term thinking are just a start.
If people want to give up fossil fuels then they have to say what else they are willing to give up. To run a country on solar (including wind), geothermal, and hydro-electric, the U.S. would have to give up most of our standard of living.
The answer is that there must be an alternative form of energy that exists in sufficient quantities that can achieve similar or better end-to-end energy yields.
To imply their are no ‘legitimate’ excuses for still being dependent on fossil fuels simply ignores science and economics. Any criticism can be made if you want to start from fantasyland.
If attitude counts for anything when it comes to weaning ourselves from acute oil addiction, then we are in trouble. Too many excuses, too many people willing to wimp out before half trying.
I don’t think we have to find a complete and total replacement for fossil fuels. As is stated often, carbon dioxide itself is not a pollutant; it is the vast amounts of CO2 which are damaging. As such, we can start by simply reducing the amount of fossil fuels we use. Replace 5% with wind; 10% with solar, increase MPG by 10%, etc., and then all of a sudden, you end up with a nice 35% reduction. Because we cannot go from 99% to 0% in the next five years is no reason to do nothing.
The political carton stated that there were no legitimnate reasons for the U.S. to be dependent on fossil fuels. The reasons that the U.S. is dependent is taht there is not way places like Manhatten San Francisco, or any large urban area can exist in the U.S. without fossil fuels or a huge expansion of nuclear power.
to maintain NYC with solar power would mean covering New Jersey with solar panels. Since that is not going to happen, he was dependent on fossil fuels.
There are many reasons. It is not economic, NIMBYism, short term thinking are just a start.
If people want to give up fossil fuels then they have to say what else they are willing to give up. To run a country on solar (including wind), geothermal, and hydro-electric, the U.S. would have to give up most of our standard of living.
The answer is that there must be an alternative form of energy that exists in sufficient quantities that can achieve similar or better end-to-end energy yields.
To imply their are no ‘legitimate’ excuses for still being dependent on fossil fuels simply ignores science and economics. Any criticism can be made if you want to start from fantasyland.
A GREAT extra controversial plan:
muahahahahahaha lol
Oh yeah, I’m a participant in this simulation too. Enjoy.
If attitude counts for anything when it comes to weaning ourselves from acute oil addiction, then we are in trouble. Too many excuses, too many people willing to wimp out before half trying.
I don’t think we have to find a complete and total replacement for fossil fuels. As is stated often, carbon dioxide itself is not a pollutant; it is the vast amounts of CO2 which are damaging. As such, we can start by simply reducing the amount of fossil fuels we use. Replace 5% with wind; 10% with solar, increase MPG by 10%, etc., and then all of a sudden, you end up with a nice 35% reduction. Because we cannot go from 99% to 0% in the next five years is no reason to do nothing.
pacatrue,
The political carton stated that there were no legitimnate reasons for the U.S. to be dependent on fossil fuels. The reasons that the U.S. is dependent is taht there is not way places like Manhatten San Francisco, or any large urban area can exist in the U.S. without fossil fuels or a huge expansion of nuclear power.
to maintain NYC with solar power would mean covering New Jersey with solar panels. Since that is not going to happen, he was dependent on fossil fuels.