What if it's a big hoax...?

[Bravus]

[SivartM]

Wouldn't that be a shame?

[phkrause]

Hey bravus, shouldn't this be in the humor section? hahahahaha

pk

[phkrause]

PKRAUSE

YES I agree with you that this should be

in the humor thread

dgrimm60

I'm joking dgrimm.

pk

[Woody]

This is beyond humor. It is comedy.

[Guest]

Originally Posted By: Bravus

This is beyond humor. It is comedy.

Yes it is Woody, but some take this stuff seriously. They don't take into consideration that the policies they would put into place for nothing, would bankrupt the nation. If they want to go back to the days of horse, buggy, and candle light, let them do it. But don't try to force it on the rest of us.

[Dr. Shane]

The green agenda is very vast and for the most part is not controversial. Let me give some examples of building green.

• Build on a previously developed site.
• Dedicate a significant portion of the site to landscaping.
• Landscape with native plants to reduce need for irrigation.
• Build within walking distance to existing services like barber shops, grocery stores, restaurants, banks, medical clinics, etc.
• Use water saving fixtures in development.
• Use energy efficient fixtures, heating and air conditioning.
• Use porous pavement to reduce storm run off.
• Use reflective roofing to reduce heat island effect.
• Use products made from recycled material.
• Use cradle-to-cradle products (those are products made from recycled materials that will be recycle again at the end of their life)
• Provide desired parking spaces for hybrid or electric cars (under canopy or near entrance)
• Install solar panels or wind turbines for supplemental energy.
• Build with materials extracted and fabricated within 500 miles of the site.
• Build with quickly renewable resources.

As one can see, these are not controversial issues and they all make our world a better place.

[olger]

Let the "greenwashing" begin !!!

[Dr. Shane]

Aren't those green roofs you put on?

[olger]

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

Build on a previously developed site.

Like a mine? There are literally hundreds of homes in Illinois that I know of that were built over the tunnels of old coal mines. My aunt had a clause written into her land deed for her home that states the home was built over such a site. She also has insurance to cover any damage that might occur to the property due to the underground abandoned mine tunnels.

Personally, I wouldn't want a home built over an old mine tunnel. My earthquake insurance for my property is enough.

[Dr. Shane]

Originally Posted By: Shane

Build on a previously developed site.

Like a mine?

I don't think building above a mine would qualify. If the land above the mine is undeveloped, the idea is to leave it that way. Previously developed property refers to property that has already been built on before. Many cities have abandoned downtown areas and old industrial parks sitting empty. These are areas where we should be building instead of spreading out and using up forests or farm land.

[karl]

]

I don't think building above a mine would qualify. If the land above the mine is undeveloped, the idea is to leave it that way. Previously developed property refers to property that has already been built on before. Many cities have abandoned downtown areas and old industrial parks sitting empty. These are areas where we should be building instead of spreading out and using up forests or farm land.

I just did this in lovely downtown Ola, Arkansas. Sorry I started the project.

It is much more expensive to tear out and build in already developed space. Asbestos, soil inspections, utility translocation, tearing out and disposing of existing building/foundation/slab, etc, etc.

But nobody except me cares because it wasn't their money getting sucked down.

People in the community are delighted that there is something attractive there instead of the falling-down, boarded-up buildings.

[lazarus]

MR. BROKAW: In three seconds, which is all we have left, what do you say to those skeptics who say, "You know, I just don't believe climate change is real." There are even some scientists who say it's based too much on computer models, not enough on empirical evidence.

MR. FRIEDMAN: What I say is if climate change is a hoax, it's the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the United States of America. Because everything we would do to get ready for climate change, to build this new green industry, would make us more respected, more entrepreneurial, more competitive, more healthy as a country.

MR. BROKAW: Tom Friedman. Book is called "Hot, Flat and Crowded." It really is a textbook study of what's going on in the world today and some real possibilities of dealing with it. Thanks for being with us, Tom.

[karl]

MR. FRIEDMAN: What I say is if climate change is a hoax, it's the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the United States of America. Because everything we would do to get ready for climate change, to build this new green industry, would make us more respected, more entrepreneurial, more competitive, more healthy as a country.

Pure, unadulterated, hot air.

Wind turbines cannot pay for themselves without gov subsidies. Hybrid cars are a bust without gov subsidies.

Green jobs are just another drain on the economy unless they are involved in nuclear energy development.

In order to be more competitive, you have to produce more product. What product are greenies going to produce? Energy that's twice as expensive as everybody else? Check out this article below:

Who could object to wind power?

November 25, 2008 in Globe and Mail

Wind power can't survive without massive subsidies, courtesy of you and me. "If these hidden subsidies were taken away, there would not be a single wind turbine built in Britain," says David Bellamy, a well-known environmentalist who has been tramping the Scottish countryside to oppose a massive wind project there. ...When will we stop pouring billions into wind? I have no idea.

[lazarus]

In order to be more competitive, you have to produce more product.

That's rather simplistic, I think. The solution for the American car industry is not simply to produce more cars. The solution for the oil industry is not simply to produce more oil. The future is really about innovation. Developing new technologies to meet the future demands of societies around the world.

Friedman, in his book, doesn't spend much time arguing for government subsidies.

[karl]

Originally Posted By: karl

In order to be more competitive, you have to produce more product.

That's rather simplistic, I think. The solution for the American car industry is not simply to produce more cars. The solution for the oil industry is not simply to produce more oil. The future is really about innovation. Developing new technologies to meet the future demands of societies around the world.

Friedman, in his book, doesn't spend much time arguing for government subsidies.

Unless he is arguing for nuclear power, he is spewing hot air. That is the only energy source that will effectively compete with oil and coal.

In the energy sector, the product is energy, Laz. How can you be competitive producing energy if your focus is on producing expensive energy?

And we need to stop with the "innovative" thing. That is another way of saying "We don't know, but we're hoping." We certainly cannot bank on it.

There is no question that innovation is on its way, but we don't yet know what it is.

[phkrause]

Unless he is arguing for nuclear power, he is spewing hot air. That is the only energy source that will effectively compete with oil and coal.

In the energy sector, the product is energy, Laz. How can you be competitive producing energy if your focus is on producing expensive energy?

And we need to stop with the "innovative" thing. That is another way of saying "We don't know, but we're hoping." We certainly cannot bank on it.

There is no question that innovation is on its way, but we don't yet know what it is.

Well thanks for keeping us straight Karl, because where would we be without you letting us know what's correct and what's not.

pk

[Dr. Shane]

It is much more expensive to tear out and build in already developed space. Asbestos, soil inspections, utility translocation, tearing out and disposing of existing building/foundation/slab, etc, etc.

Building green is normally more expensive. In some areas one will get a return on investment but in other areas the ROI is simply knowing you have made the world a better place.

[Guest]

Originally Posted By: lazarus

That's rather simplistic, I think. The solution for the American car industry is not simply to produce more cars. The solution for the oil industry is not simply to produce more oil. The future is really about innovation. Developing new technologies to meet the future demands of societies around the world.

Friedman, in his book, doesn't spend much time arguing for government subsidies.

Unless he is arguing for nuclear power, he is spewing hot air. That is the only energy source that will effectively compete with oil and coal.

In the energy sector, the product is energy, Laz. How can you be competitive producing energy if your focus is on producing expensive energy?

And we need to stop with the "innovative" thing. That is another way of saying "We don't know, but we're hoping." We certainly cannot bank on it.

There is no question that innovation is on its way, but we don't yet know what it is.

Once again karl, you have spoken wisely.

Signed: Grasshopper

[cardw]

There are some very promising projects.

Bloom Energy is one of them. Their boxes have been powering the Google Data Center for the last 18 months and have saved Ebay $100,000.

It is estimated that two of these boxes (about the size of a brick) will power the average American home. They are hoping to get these down to about $3000.

They can run on natural gas, methane, and a host of other fuels without producing harmful emissions. This allows a distribution of energy production much like a network, decreasing costs because of reduced transmission distance. It also helps move us closer to being less dependent on foreign oil.

Here are a couple of links on this new Tech covered on 60 minutes.

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=6228923n

http://techcrunch.com/2010/02/22/bloom-energy-boxes/

[phkrause]

There are some very promising projects.

Bloom Energy is one of them. Their boxes have been powering the Google Data Center for the last 18 months and have saved Ebay $100,000.

It is estimated that two of these boxes (about the size of a brick) will power the average American home. They are hoping to get these down to about $3000.

They can run on natural gas, methane, and a host of other fuels without producing harmful emissions. This allows a distribution of energy production much like a network, decreasing costs because of reduced transmission distance. It also helps move us closer to being less dependent on foreign oil.

Here are a couple of links on this new Tech covered on 60 minutes.

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=6228923n

http://techcrunch.com/2010/02/22/bloom-energy-boxes/

Thanks for the post, very interesting links Cardw.

pk

[olger]

If it gets rid of telephone poles (power poles) I'm interested.

[phkrause]

If it gets rid of telephone poles (power poles) I'm interested.

Wouldn't that be great. I believe in Germany or maybe all of europe the power lines are underground!

pk

[olger]

Once the bloom gets out of the prototype stage, or development stage I would be interested in buying one. Make no mistake, they are still prototypes as of now.

hmmm..