Third highest carbon emitting country...

Originally posted by Merk
Well, if it's all the saem to you I'm still going to try to get the greens to tel us what kind of energy we can use between now and when fusion may become widespread in another century or so.

You produce a fair amount of hot air. Can that be harnessed in some way?

Originally posted by Squelchbelch
You produce a fair amount of hot air. Can that be harnessed in some way?

Anyway, it's nice of you to not contribute to the thread.

Originally posted by uzless

That's like ridiculing a person who is eating food when they are trying to lose weight. They still have to eat!

No uzless, the analogy is a fat person telling you that you must go on a diet (whether you need it or not) while stealing food off your plate.

Originally posted by kirksey957
Birth control.

No no, make as many babies as possible the planet will die we will
go away with its death, and then low and behold no one will be here
to care, so no problem.
Kelly

Originally posted by Wajoma
No uzless, the analogy is a fat person telling you that you must go on a diet (whether you need it or not) while stealing food off your plate.

That's stretching the analogy a bit...
As for what alternatives exist, well, wind, tidal, solar, nuclear and bioconverter. Nuclear tends to run into difficulties, but whattever the kneejerk reaction most greenies have to it, it's a safe technology nowadays. An added side benefit of having a widespread energy portfolio should be obvious as well, less dependancy on one source.
Also, bring the punitative taxes on SUVs in line with other vehicles and the carbon of the US from personal transport is estimated to go down to 1980's levels. (that's lower, about 25% if I remember correctly). Meanwhile the extra revenue allows fossil fuel stations to be upgraded to higher efficiencies. General Electric is doing some great research into natural gas generators whose efficiency verges on the fantastical (from what I recall, it's in the mid 80% mark!).

Originally posted by agryson
That's stretching the analogy a bit...
As for what alternatives exist, well, wind, tidal, solar, nuclear and bioconverter. Nuclear tends to run into difficulties, but whattever the kneejerk reaction most greenies have to it, it's a safe technology nowadays. An added side benefit of having a widespread energy portfolio should be obvious as well, less dependa whose efficiency verges on the fantastical (from what I recall, it's in the mid 80% mark!).

It's not ideal unless we can find a credible way (making sure everyone follows through) of handling the waste without wrecking up the environment. It's also not ideal for a lot of countries, which can and will cut corners on safety, and nearby countries will also feel the effects.
In principal I agree it's ok, as long as everyone everywhere does it safely, and disposes of waste so as not to effect others. Kinda like sex 🙄

Originally posted by Merk
In one thread, we're supposed to get off oil and onto renewables, but in another thread, we're supposed to reduce our usage of this renewable or that other one because the poor Mexicans can't make tacos or whatever.

Is their any fuel source that the greens are okay with?

Burning republicans ?

Originally posted by huckleberryhound
Burning republicans ?

Contrary to popular belief, they too are carbon based.

Originally posted by mrstabby
Kinda like sex 🙄

That is quite possibly the most effective analogy for nuclear power I've ever heard.

Originally posted by Wajoma
No uzless, the analogy is a fat person telling you that you must go on a diet (whether you need it or not) while stealing food off your plate.

Haha, not quite there Wajoma.

But answer the question. If not a worldwide conference where people come from all across the world to meet face to face and discuss the issue, then what?

Tell us what you kind of event you would organize where a few thousand people could participate in? Mass emails? A teleconference where everyone just talked at the same time?

Dude, conferences are neccesary.