Is anyone else for banning say manufacturing plants, pet stores, restraunts, printing devices or computers for that matter?
How should we live to stop all this %26quot;global warming%26quot; I am curious.
Additional Details
6 months ago
I want people to explain why they want to ban SUVS and if so why not everything that pollutes.6 months ago
LMurray be more specific. %26quot;come together? 30 bucks a gallon. surcharges? Do you not realize all of these charges will passed on to the consumer so if effect you are paying the surcharge?6 months ago
Ok should people live in smaller houses than we do today then? My parents grew up in a house that was 800 square feet would this help any? Big Gay Al has a mansion that was built to look like the White House does he need such a big house for him and Tipper. His kid uses his Prius to smuggle drugs so does he need the car for that purpose? Talk to me people should we ban everything that pollutes to protect a fragile earth? Hidden Costs of OIL%26quot;The total of all oil-related external or “hidden” costs of $825 billion per year. This
total is nearly twice the figure authorized for the Department of Defense in 2006.
To put the figure in further perspective, it is equivalent to adding $8.35 to the price
of a gallon of gasoline refined from Persian Gulf oil. This would raise that figure to
$10.73, making the cost of filling the gasoline tank of a sedan $214.60, and of an
SUV $321.90.%26quot; (about $11.35 per gallon now)
U.S. oil imports: $309.4 billion in 2006, over three times the 2001 level.
Cost of oil-related defense expenditures: $137 billion in 2006.
Loss of current economic activity outflow: $117 billion in 2006.
The money Americans spend on oil imports is not repatriated through international trade.
· Loss of local, state and federal tax revenues: $43 billion in 2006.
· In 2003 it was estimated that our import dependence deprived the U.S. economy of
828,400 jobs.
· Economic toll of periodic oil supply disruptions over the past three decades: between
$2.3 trillion and $2.5 trillion.
· Amortized costs of supply disruptions: $133 billion annually.%26quot;
Since we%26#039;re not paying for that at the pumps, then we are paying for it in taxes.
With 1/40 of that much tax money we could have a 65% solar powered electric grid by the middle of the century and almost entirely solar by 2100. The spending would be about $400 billion over about 20years; or about $20 billion per year.
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=a-so...
Scientific American article-- then we could have all electric cars.
Solar companies are already to begin. They are already building plants in California. And building factories to mass produce components for the plants, which are solar thermal so far. Meaning they use the heat of the sun to boil water, and steam generate electricity.
Ausra is starting to build a plant in California now.
GreenWombat has several articles on these companies.
http://blogs.business2.com/greenwombat/
Construction on two other solar thermal plants are to begin, in the Mojave desert.
%26quot;Solar is one the most land-efficient sources of clean power we have, using a fraction of the area needed by hydro or wind projects of comparable output. All of America%26#039;s needs for electric power – the entire US grid, night and day – can be generated with Ausra%26#039;s current technology using a square parcel of land 92 miles on a side. For comparison, this is less than 1% of America%26#039;s deserts, less land than currently in use in the U.S. for coal mines.%26quot;
%26quot;Solar thermal power plants such as Ausra%26#039;s generate electricity by driving steam turbines with sunshine. Ausra%26#039;s solar concentrators boil water with focused sunlight, and produce electricity at prices directly competitive with gas- and coal-fired electric power.%26quot;
from their website:
Anybody want to stake the fate of future generations on R.M.G!%26#039;s opinion of whether global warming is manmade? He says we might waste some money. Does he mean waste more than we are now with our oil economy?
It seems kind of obvious, that we are doing and have done enough damage to the earth%26#039;s ecosytems globaly to warrant taking the exact same steps as if for global warming.
Here%26#039;s a thought
What are we going to make all the synthetic materials from when the oil is gone? Fabrics, plastics, chemicals, drugs, paints, lubricants etc
That%26#039;s something I%26#039;ve wondered about. Then I wondered how long the world supply of oil would have lasted it we had only made things with it instead of burning it. 7% 3 Votes
Is it %26quot;happening%26quot;? YES. Can we stop it? NO. Why not? Because it is a %26quot;naturally occuring phenomena%26quot;. Throwing %26quot;money%26quot; at it, only wastes financial resources, that could be better invested in matters that we actually MAY be able to %26quot;deal with%26quot;. 2% 1 Vote
-
Answer hidden due to its low rating
Because GW is an earth problem we need to come together to fight it. I think a pollution surcharge is best. Because we are running out of oil, we must have renewable resources for energy. Cars will be around for a long time, but when gas is $30 per gallon can you buy it? If we want that time to be more than 30 years from now we have to make changes today. 4% 2 Votes