Newsvine
  • Welcome
  • Help
  • Report Bug
  • Conversation Tracker
  • Your Column
  • Replies
  • Friends
Type Comments Since You Last CheckedArticle Source Last Checked Stop Tracking All Clear Tracking All
Advertise | AdChoices
Log In | Register
Close the Login Panel
Existing users log in below. New users please register for a free account.

New Users:

Existing Users:

E-Mail:
Password:
Forgot Password?
Please enter the e-mail address or domain name you registered with:
E-Mail/Domain:
Back to Login
Log Out
  • Top News
  • Local News
  • World
  • U.S.
  • Sports
  • Politics
  • Tech
  • Entertainment
  • Science
  • Business
  • Health
  • Odd News
  • More
    • Arts
    • Education
    • Environment
    • Fashion
    • History
    • Home & Garden
    • Not News
    • Religion
    • Travel
What is Newsvine?

Updated continuously by citizens like you, Newsvine is an instant reflection of what the world is talking about at any given moment.

Get a Free Account
Help
Fun Stuff
  • Your Clippings
  • Leaderboard
  • E-Mail Alerts
  • Top of the Vine
  • Newsvine Live
  • Newsvine Archives
  • The Greenhouse
  • Recommended Articles
  • Wall of Vineness
Put a Seed Newsvine link on your own site

'Green' jobs — hope or hype?

Wed Apr 22, 2009 10:35 AM EDT
technology, environment, only-on-msnbc-com, jobs, green, solar, industry, united-airlines, turbine, weinstein
msnbc.com News — Miguel Llanos, msnbc.com - Only on msnbc.com

Carissa Ray / msnbc.com

Advertise | AdChoices

SEATTLE — TLE - For Alla Weinstein, the ocean's not dark blue, it's green — as in profits, jobs and environmental friendliness.

As CEO of a company developing an offshore wind turbine, she's busy trying to line up investors and permits, and envisions a day when her industry provides electricity to millions of homes and jobs for tens of thousands of Americans.

Weinstein is among 1,300 people who responded to msnbc.com's latest Gut Check question: Do you support President Barack Obama's push for "green jobs?"

Some people are skeptical that government will be able to lead the drive to create green jobs, even with billions of stimulus dollars at its disposal. Others are afraid there won't be opportunities to train for the jobs, or that the emerging industry will fail, leaving workers who invested in new skills among the millions of Americans already unemployed.

But others are as bullish on green jobs as Weinstein. People like David Bass, who pursued such a job after leaving the Army. And Jeff Schwede, who was laid off by United Airlines and is starting a new career in the renewable energy industry.

In truth, the prospects for green industry are as complicated as these diverse views. Despite the hundreds of millions of dollars the government wants to pour into the infant industry, not everyone starting a green company will qualify for money. And skills don't guarantee a job.

Obama's task force on improving the lives of America's middle class defines green jobs by three criteria: They help the environment; they pay better than service jobs; and they are available to anyone with the right training.

But a task force report says that right now, two obstacles are dogging potential employers and workers: financing and training.

Finding funds
Weinstein, who co-founded Seattle-based Principle Power Inc., knows all about financing issues. To her disappointment, she's discovered she might not be eligible for any of the $6 billion included in the federal stimulus package to help banks finance green companies.

The money will be used as a guarantee that banks will recoup their investments if they lend to clean energy projects, a strategy the Obama administration estimates will leverage $75 billion in new investment.

Weinstein was excited about the loan guarantees until she read the fine print. To qualify for a share of the money, companies must have a working prototype of their product, which Principle Power does not yet have. "Oops, we don't fit in," she recalls telling her staff.

Weinstein laughs at the prospect of finding a  private investor in this struggling economy. But she says strategic investors — companies that make components for larger projects like the wind turbine her company wants to manufacture — have shown interest.

So startups like Principle Power face a huge challenge in moving from research to production.

"How do you breach that valley of death?" Weinstein asks.

Building skills
The federal government has not done any recent studies on the growth or potential for the green industry. In a report, the American Solar Energy Society said the industry grew steadily through 2007, when jobs related to energy efficiency and renewable energy stood at 9.1 million, 600,000 more than in 2006.

The report predicted that by 2030 those two sectors will employ 16 million people, and that aggressive government policies could boost the number to 37 million people — 17 percent of the total U.S. workforce.

Some American workers have embraced the potential, but, like many companies, they also face challenges.

Schwede of Medinah, Ill., a Chicago suburb, was laid off from United Airlines last year after nearly 24 years on the job, most recently managing 1,200 people as cargo operations manager at O'Hare International Airport.

But change came easy for Schwede. "I jokingly advised my co-workers that I would be raising free-range chickens and pursuing geothermal energy," he said.

Schwede wound up taking classes on selling and installing solar, wind and geothermal products. Now he expects to venture into geothermal, managing crews that install pumps in backyards to heat and cool homes using the stable 58-degree temperatures just below the surface of the Earth. "I feel like I'm riding a wave," he said.

But not everyone is convinced that a green industry will provide the opportunities so desperately needed by America's jobless.

"I would relocate for a green job; however, I believe employers are going to take the same attitude on age and previous work experience," wrote Daniel Reichlen of Bradenton, Fla. "I'm 56, out of work since 7/08."

Reichlen said he's exhausted his jobless benefits and is on the brink of losing his home to foreclosure. "Where is my bailout or opportunity to work?" he asked.

With help from $500 million in stimulus money, community colleges and vocational schools have stepped into the breach to provide training for the thousands of new jobs the environmental industry is expected to create — from wind turbine technicians to solar panel installers.

While there are no firm numbers, more schools across the country are offering training for green jobs, said Norma Kent, a spokeswoman for the American Association of Community Colleges.

"Some jobs, like training for wind turbine technician, are new and growing," she said, "but in many instances, the colleges are incorporating green elements into existing programs; i.e., horticulture becomes greenscaping; construction management incorporates green approaches; HVAC (heating and air conditioning) includes training on how best to make the systems energy conserving, etc."

At Wilson Community College in Wilson, N.C., electrical students assembled, wired and installed solar panels and a small wind turbine on a roof at the school, Claudine Brown, the coordinator for classes on sustainability, wrote to msnbc.com.

Now the college is working with a wind turbine manufacturer to apply for a grant to create a training center for renewable energy technologies, she said.

But some green companies, such as Pacific Solar Radiant of Santa Cruz, Calif., say they need those workers now, not in the future.

"Our phone is ringing off the hook," marketing director Beth Shady told msnbc.com. "So what's our problem? Not enough qualified employees to install our systems."

The company, which installs solar home heating systems, has 14 employees and hopes to have up to 100 within five years.

"We look for qualified workers through the building community, the plumbers union and we advertise on CraigsList," Shady said. "Our field workers need to have the skills of a journeyman plumber."

But for some, skills don't guarantee jobs.

But there's another side to the job story, and Bob Brown of Loveland, Colo., can tell it. Brown wrote msnbc.com: "I was laid off a year ago in November and went to work for a 'green' company," only to be laid off again, this time by a company that sprays foam insulation into homes.

"People were not willing to spend an additional $5,000 on a $500,000 home" to properly insulate, he said, "when the additional investment would pay for itself in three-four years and continue to generate return after that."

"I truly feel that people are so worried about the economy that they won't buy anything 'better' if it does not cost less," he said.

Paul Handley said he works for a construction company that has adopted standards set by the U.S. Green Building Council, but that potential clients are balking because the criteria, which range from using recycled material to lowering energy use, add to costs.

"I do know that if we as a society don't make the effort to embrace a new way of thinking and approaching the way we do almost everything, that it won't matter what Obama does," said Handley, of Palm City, Fla.

Scared about shifting jobs
For some, the current economic uncertainty makes it risky to choose a green job at a startup over a traditional job.

David Bass of Auburn, Calif., said he took solar installation classes before leaving the Army "to be part of the green technology revolution."

But then, with concerns about job security and stability for his family, he passed over a job with a biodiesel startup to work for a county water district.

Bass hopes to help buy cleaner vehicles for his new employer so he feels he's still making a difference.

"My son deserves a better world, our vets deserve a job that elevates them, fulfills their patriotic spirit," he said. "Americans are ready to keep the money at home and not send it overseas. Hopefully everyone, including those still refusing to believe, will participate in this revolution."

Despite the funding challenges and other uncertainties of starting a new company, Weinstein remains undaunted.

She said people who will succeed in a new industry such as environmentally friendly jobs are risk-takers.

Weinstein spent 20 years in the aviation industry before the uncharted territory of green jobs beckoned.

"For me it is a necessity — I thrive on the unknown," she said.

  • Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.

Back To Top | Front Page

Published to:

  • Miguel Llanos's Column, All of Newsvine
  • Groups: none
  • Regions: Seattle/Tacoma
  • Public Discussion (545)
Jump to discussion page: 1 2 3 ... 8
bizone

The latest estimates are that to create one "green" job will cost over $700,000.

This waste and these nuts have got to be stopped

  • 28 votes
#1 - Wed Apr 22, 2009 1:58 PM EDT
Livingwill

Agreed, for every job it creates it will destroy at least 2 or 3. Besides its expense to government that has to be paid for its inefficiency will drive up electricity rates. This Green nonsense has to stop before it totally destroys the world's economy'

  • 19 votes
#1.1 - Wed Apr 22, 2009 2:11 PM EDT
Dave-267754

It's a total joke!!

  • 14 votes
#1.2 - Wed Apr 22, 2009 2:17 PM EDT
Carl W

I'm all for improving the environment, but let's drop the silly pretense that it's going to be cheap to do so, or that it's going to magically boost our economy instead of being a tax on it.

If it's more expensive to produce and maintain expensive wind turbines than to burn cheap coal, then our economy is taking a loss--a worthwhile one if you want clean air and care about climate change, but a cost nonetheless.

The number of green-collar jobs our nation can create is limited only by the amount of money we can borrow from China to pay for them.

  • 11 votes
#1.3 - Wed Apr 22, 2009 2:22 PM EDT
mike from florida-535075

u 3 are wrong. its a bit of both. green energy usually does take a larger initial investment but in the long term , it is worth it. im an environmentalist, but i dont think we should destroy jobs we currently have just to make green jobs. grandfather the green jobs in a little at a time while slowly phasing out the ones that create mega pollution.

surely america can look towards the nation of germany to see how green technology and jobs can go hand in hand with a decent economy. half of the german citizens create their OWN electricity and many sell their excess back to the government for a small profit. works out good for everyone involved there

  • 6 votes
#1.4 - Wed Apr 22, 2009 2:23 PM EDT
avg-joe

My question is this:

What exactly is it about green jobs that makes them pay more, or makes them less offshorable?

I'm envisioning wind turbines with software written in India and parts manufactured in China getting installed by low-paid technicians in the United States? Is there something I'm missing?

Maybe green scientists are what they're imagining? It seems that no matter what our kids achieve in terms of education, they can't find a job these days.

As soon as salaries in a certain profession (e.g. nursing and IT) start growing, companies cry to congress about how broken our education system is, then lobby them for more H-1B and L-1 foreign worker visas to "close the skills gap".

Obama: Like it or not, this depression is not going away until we start controlling immigration and end our so-called "free trade" policies with China, India, and the rest of the developing world.

  • 21 votes
#1.5 - Wed Apr 22, 2009 2:24 PM EDT
Patriot-535132

The costs for green jobs will bankrupt any company that goes into it once the government Handouts (our tax dollars) are done. People need to wake up and quit letting the Government brainwash them. The Earth will be going strong long after we are all gone.

Green and global warming are hoaxes to make the idiots feel good as the government steals more of their money. The folks in Washington must spend most of their time in back rooms laughing at us. HA, HA, HA, HA, HA,

  • 11 votes
#1.6 - Wed Apr 22, 2009 2:27 PM EDT
ur1bella

'Green Jobs" - hope or hype?

HYPE, HYPE & MORE HYPE!!!

  • 18 votes
#1.7 - Wed Apr 22, 2009 2:41 PM EDT
NBBSBC82

It is all wonderful, not practical or efficient, but wonderful. Then when we start wearing out the stuff that does get made we will have a bigger mess with all the junk it creates. Batteries, circuit boards, plastics (other than #1 and 2), and more will be piled high in your garages, oceans, and warehouses. Then the govt will be back to sell you on another brain-fart to save your planet from itself and the natural flow of climate. But you keep paying like the fools you will be and the planet will save itself.

  • 6 votes
#1.8 - Wed Apr 22, 2009 2:48 PM EDT
charles0390-1Deleted
Gus-393033

"I truly feel that people are so worried about the economy that they won't buy anything 'better' if it does not cost less," he said.

This is the bottom line truth. Unfortunately, the gap between the traditional energy and green energy is something that has not been adequately measured. That is the reason that there is so much of a problem with the Obama administrations direction. This is not to discount the possibilities of "Green", but reality tells us that we have been struggling with this environmental problem for many years.

Bill Ford of the Ford Motor Companywas excitedly talking to Larry King about the new Ford Green Cars that are going to be coming out. He mentioned that he has been interested in Green Cars and fuel efficient cars for many years. I ask the question... "why has Ford been so backwards about Green and environmentally friendly cars for all these years that he was at the helm?" Only now... when we are in crisis... has he stepped forward with some solutions. And I wonder what the price tag will be for the new generation vehicles that will be introduced. I find his interest that he claims in this new area to be somewhat dis-ingenuous since the problem has been in our face for quite awhile, and he has been in a position to do something about it for quite awhile. (I still wish Ford the best) As for fuel efficiency, the model T had better gas mileage than many of the cars that are on our streets today! Tell me why?

Until the technology is there... and we can make the transition... what are we doing with the energy that we can use today? We are making it harder for those suppliers and having to be reliant upon foreign imports because roadblocks to domestic production are being thrown into place.

There is much hoopla in the air about the new direction... but little in the way of technology to back-up the cause. That is the rub! And that is why transitioning into Green Jobs is hard for us. Where is the infrastructure?

The first Earth Day was celebrated in 1970... almost 40 years ago!

  • 3 votes
#1.10 - Wed Apr 22, 2009 2:57 PM EDT
fubar-874514

It's not about the environment or being GREEN, it's about money and greed! The media is promoting the governments program and it will likely only produce another type of Madoff's that are looking to get rick quick selling untested and inadequate expensive crap. It's all about pay backs for the election. Bush did it for the oil companies and the Dem's have their own backers that need to get paid.

The carbon tax and this GREEN movement will effectively double or triple utilitiy costs, sound familiar? Just like the price of gas!

That's the story the media with it's so called investigative reporters should be covering. But they won't, the media (the fourth branch of the government) is bought and paid for just like congress and obama.

MSNBC and the rest of the media needs to stop advertising for their employers (the government) and start being REAL journalists. But that's just wishful thinking!

  • 10 votes
#1.11 - Wed Apr 22, 2009 3:03 PM EDT
Carlos Toadvine

I don't know what the coast of the green jobs will be but I doubt they will be the answer to the changing economy. As we become more energy efficient job categories will of course change but I don't see them growing just changing. I also expect the cost will be much higher than the advocates claim. This has become a feel good project and as such we will proceed no matter what the cost and impact on our economy. The green movement is not all about green jobs its about world politics.

  • 3 votes
#1.12 - Wed Apr 22, 2009 3:16 PM EDT
Fred G. from N.C.

Anything that lessons our dependence on foreign oil and burning fossil fuels is a good thing.That said it has to be within reason.Conservation and developing domestic resources of energy are the best bets.Also we need to build nuclear reactors to supply the power needed for high speed rail and increased amounts of electric cars.Ignoring reality (by not developing nuclear energy and restricting drilling ) just postphones solutions that can help provide energy and protect our environment.

  • 4 votes
#1.13 - Wed Apr 22, 2009 3:18 PM EDT
awfton

If not green jobs, what? Unless we can somehow get back those jobs lost to cheap labor markets we have no future in heavy manufacturing in the USA. Every avenue discussed some one finds an obstecle. Again, for those who are so adamant in dis-ing green jobs, what alternatives do have to offer? I think most of you simply don't want Obama to succeed with his promise to clean up the mess that was created by 30 years of "get government off the backs of business". Green works for those who work to make it a success. Naysaying is a hallmark trait of cowards and other conservatives.

  • 3 votes
#1.14 - Wed Apr 22, 2009 3:45 PM EDT
Tim Pheil

It cost so much because there isn't the infrastructure there in the first place. Some one said we would lose jobs because of Green jobs. Huh? Lets look at green jobs. Power: Wind, Solar and Nuclear. How are jobs lost? If anything they are created, this stuff isn't going to build it self. Anyone see us needing less electricity? As it is were buying from Canada. Especially with the advent of electric cars. Maybe if we got real good we could get rid of some of the old coal plants and build more efficient new ones. If we made our houses more efficient do we lose jobs or just gain the installing jobs? Waste management requires more hands one separating versus dumping it in a hole. More jobs. A new electrical grid means more jobs. We might lose some jobs that way because we wouldn't need as many lineman to take care of the old cranky one, but I heard we don't have enough already. I'm pretty sure switching to green vehicles would bring a lot of jobs. High speed rail would mean less vehicles but a whole industry based on the trains. I just don't see any job loss. Oh, wait we would lose Detroit executives since building a green car or actually any car that gets beyond 20 MPG is beyond them.

  • 2 votes
#1.15 - Wed Apr 22, 2009 3:46 PM EDT
justice fleeting

So we are going to put up visually intrusive windmills off the coast, but can't build oil platforms to drill for oil. Terrific, lets also build cars built out of lettuce and homes out of mussel shells too and pay for it the next 50-75 years. I'll let my kids and grand kids know!

  • 7 votes
#1.16 - Wed Apr 22, 2009 3:54 PM EDT
A REPUBLICAN

I bet there's not a wind farm blocking Kennedy's view (at least for now)!

  • 4 votes
#1.17 - Wed Apr 22, 2009 4:20 PM EDT
Nullgrav Corporation

There are ways being developed as we speak that will change the way we consume energy and at what price we are able to do so.

We figured yesterday without having a product yet we have helped to at least sustain over 300 jobs. That's something isn't it?

As we show off our new generator technology and the Nullgrav Corporation we meet so many people who can help change the world and we hope to gain your support. We are dedicated to growing this technology.

Our biggest Milestone to date was when the inventor (Rich Rogala) had our initial prototype tested at Lake Superior State University and if you study the test results (available on the website) the prototype generator actually sped up when it was put under a load. This, to us, was huge because it verified what we had been saying all along and now comes the hard part, funding.

On Tuesday March 31st we hit another huge Milestone when the drawings were completed for our second prototype. When the second prototype is built, we can begin to test efficiencies.

We have had a former engineer from GE look at the information and he actually helped us with some efficiency percentage clarifications on units currently available (they would be our competition).

Our key points here are;
#1. Our product The Nullgrav MAG FORCE Generator is patent protected.
#2. As mentioned above our First Prototype was recently tested by Lake Superior State University and their Prototype Development Center to independently verify our claim that the prototype actually speeds up when put under a load.
#3. Our desire to develop this technology could bring huge returns.
#4. Our desire to develop this product to possible production could also bring huge returns.

Thank you for your interest in our company (we would love to have you on board).

You can call me at anytime at the number below. I look forward to hear from you soon. How did you hear about Nullgrav?

Regards,

Ed Janisse - Vice President
Nullgrav Corporation
906-395-2864

    #1.18 - Wed Apr 22, 2009 4:24 PM EDT
    khollo4

    Current estimates are for every 4 "green" jobs "created, you would lose 9 jobs.

    Already there are more clean coal plants than "dirty", and they are very efficient.

    The problem with a lot of the "green grid/smart grid" is that while it some say it will create jobs while of building the grid (though i expect these jobs would be done by people who already build "dumb" grids, so no job created), once the grid is built, where do all these people go? Maintaining takes fewer people than building, and once again, the people who maintain the current grid would either move to the new grid, or lose their jobs. So, where is the job gain?

    The main reason for all the talk of "greening" things is to push through cap and trade, raise energy prices, in order to try to get revenue to pus through more of the obama social (ist) agenda.

    If you really want to get away from foreign oil, the REAL answer is to DRILL here, use our own resources until you get more nuclear plants built.

    • 4 votes
    #1.19 - Wed Apr 22, 2009 4:35 PM EDT
    Gus-393033

    Tim Pheil...

    At this moment you are in a dream world.

    • What electric cars?
    • If Wind, Solar, and nuclear were that great.... what the hell are we waiting for? (By the way... nuclear would probably take 20 years to approve of one plant!)
    • Coal plants? (This administration is doing everything it can to stop coal!)
    • Making our houses most efficient? Which ones? The ones in foreclosure? (Maybe the banks and Fannie and Freddie ought to be forced to retrofit all of "their" new properties with Green technology and have them cleared by the EPA before they can be sold again!)
    • New Electrical Grid? Yes... but what is going to power it? When is this thing going to get off the ground? (This flapping is hurting!)
    • Switching to green vehicles? How is that going to bring more jobs? If we switch that only means that we will be getting rid of others. (Of course... we will also have the problem of those who lost their jobs and houses who will not be able to afford that new vehicle that costs twice as much to buy... let alone figure out the costs of maintaining and operating)
    • I don't see the bridge from one system to the other that is in place... or close to being in place.
    • The "vision" surely exists! But the applications don't.

    Build the bridge first or we'll all be falling into the Grand Canyon!

    (..... it's this tooth doc! How much?)

    • 2 votes
    #1.20 - Wed Apr 22, 2009 4:37 PM EDT
    Brian-595389

    I hate windmills. They are a blight on the landscape. If these things are going to be foisted on a few of us living in the great plains, then make everyone have one. Put em up everywhere. Just because they don't belch smoke, steam or radiation doesn't lessen the fact they are pollution. Pollution of the worst kind. You see them every day. and for some unfortunate souls, every direction you look. I hate windmills.

      #1.21 - Wed Apr 22, 2009 4:53 PM EDT
      Bill-516145

      That is what all the anti NASA people said back in the 60"s yet the moon program paid back over the 40 years a 100 times or more than it cost.

        #1.22 - Wed Apr 22, 2009 5:11 PM EDT
        avg-joe

        Green jobs, blue jobs, pink jobs ... who cares. We need some @$!# jobs. We're losing 650,000 jobs a month, and we need to add 200,000 jobs each month just to keep up with population growth.

        The bottom line is that the jobs we've already shipped offshore are jobs we need back.

        There is no category of jobs these days that is so cutting edge it can't be offshored. While educated white-collar workers have been spared in recessions past, they are certainly not being spared this time around. Thanks to the Internet, many of these jobs are more offshorable than ever. Many people leaving college can't find jobs, including many with advanced degrees. They're ticked, and I can't say I blame them.

        The bottom line is that our labor market will collapse unless we control immigration and restrict trade with developing-world countries like China and India.

        It's already starting to collapse as we speak. Trying to manufacture "green" industries out of thin air won't cut it. There's no getting around it: We need the jobs we're shipping offshore, and we needed the jobs we've already lost.

        Side Note: It's kind of ironic that most of the manufactured "green" products will come from countries like China and India, with virtually no environmental controls in place. The more we ramp up our "green" initiatives in the US, the bigger the yellow toxic clouds eminating from China and India will continue to grow. Apparently, according to the hippies driving our environmental policies, pollution in China and India isn't really pollution. What a joke!!!

        • 1 vote
        #1.23 - Wed Apr 22, 2009 5:18 PM EDT
        No Party Affiliation

        Sorry to hear that Brian. I, for one, have no problem with wind turbines and solar panels if they get us off dangerous fossil fuels. Besides, which is more of a pollutant, a wind turbine you don't like seeing or an oil spill? The oil ruins the soil, gets into ground water, kills animals, sickens people, etc..

        To others - No one said it would be cheap to go green, but fossil fuels are a finite resource. We are already running out in various places in the world. Your kids and certainly your grandkids will live to see the day that oil is no longer available or economically feasible to drill for, so we'd best get the infrastructure for renewable fuels going now. To do nothing would be to doom these future generations to have to do it much faster and much more costly. To me that is as criminal as the deficit that Bush created that we are handing them.

        • 2 votes
        #1.24 - Wed Apr 22, 2009 5:20 PM EDT
        Arthur-379160

        bizone,

        You must have gotten the $700,000 from your buddy Rush. You are smoking something. Looks like you want to keep the world dependent on oil for terrorists nations.

        I've already deployed some solar panels, and looking at installing more. $700,000 would deploy panels on all my neighbors houses too, and keep several people employed for installation alone, not counting manufacture.

        • 1 vote
        #1.25 - Wed Apr 22, 2009 5:28 PM EDT
        Gus-393033

        Yeah Arthur...

        Congratulations!

        Which friggen' gated community do you live in? Pat yourself on the back while jobs go down the sewer. You're above it all. Ridin' high I'll bet with your "deployed" solar panels! Only $700,000 for all of your neighbors? Forgot to tell us how many houses you're talking about. Oh, and which ones will you help finance?

        That hole you took your head out of is getting cold!

        • 3 votes
        #1.26 - Wed Apr 22, 2009 5:37 PM EDT
        Shrub the War Criminial

        Would you like to provide a little documentation?

          #1.27 - Wed Apr 22, 2009 5:38 PM EDT
          Honest Spud

          This solar and wind crap is a joke. It will never, never supply enough RELIABLE energy for the US. Just an obama bureaucratic BS. Go nuclear and develop technology for clean use of coal and oil.

          • 2 votes
          #1.28 - Wed Apr 22, 2009 6:01 PM EDT
          No Party Affiliation

          Spud, there is no such thing as clean coal or oil, and if something that happens every day (the Sun shines and/or winds blow) isn't reliable, then nothing is. I signed up 5 years ago go get 80% of my power from Solar and Wind via Power New Mexico's alternative initiative, and I have never had any trouble with getting my electricity, so please explain how it is unreliable. I also invest in stocks (EFTs) that deal with green energy and have done very well, so companies out there are making money on these power sources. You see i put my $ where my mouth is, and so far have come out ahead every time. Even though I pay more per kilowatt hour, by conserving my energy use, I now pay less for my electric bill than I did before my switch. So I ask again, how are these sources unreliable???

          • 2 votes
          #1.29 - Wed Apr 22, 2009 6:10 PM EDT
          Tim Pheil

          Gus-393033

          The electric cars are everywhere but here. All over Europe and India. In France they have CAVs (compressed air vehicles) which are electric, instead being stored in batteries the energy is stored in air tanks. You can go 180 and recharge at a service station in 3 mins. They're making them as fast as they can at 40000 a year for under 20K.

          The question should really be where aren't the electric cars other than here. http://www.zapworld.com/ in a small company Santa Rosa Ca. Can make a sedan that can go 40 miles for under 13K. S o far the chevy volt has doubled in price and halved the range. So there are many electric cars http://www.greencarsite.co.uk/electric-vehicles-cars.htm just nothing the morons in Detroit can figure out.

          I don't get the foreclosure job paradox. The bankers screwed everyone despite GWB 800 Billion going away gift. If we save those homes does it give anyone a job? Or does retrofitting the other 90% to be more efficient?

          The new electrical grid will be powered by the same electricity. Just if something happens it won't require someone dangling out of a helicopter over a million volt lines. It will also be there to provide the electricity for highspeed trains. And if a substation goes down it won't take down a whole coast.

          Do you not get that we are transferring wealth out of the country everyday for oil. Instead of green think of it as only using the fuel we produce. Natural Gas (CNG Vehicles, any vehicle can be retrofitted) Coal and Nuclear (electric and CAV) If we started switching over do you not think that first the gas stations would jump on board (they already have natural coming to them, just need new equipment) Electric ( if we all of sudden needed alot more electric you don't think the power companies would start building plants?)CAV (they would just need compressors and tanks).

          The administration isn't choking down on coal. There chocking down on emissions. In other words making the old plants retrofit to the new standards and scrub better.

          The bridge for autos is CNG. Mom and Pop garages are retrofitting cars every day. Its just a mater of fuel tanks and fuel injection. With a $400 appliance in your garage you can be your own fueling station. 90% of buildings either have NG or its near by.

            #1.30 - Wed Apr 22, 2009 6:16 PM EDT
            DB-755213

            Green Jobs are a mixed bag. Wind, Geothermal will create jobs initially for 5 - 10 years - with federal subsidies (at cost of higher taxes or more unpaid debt), but when the country reaches saturation, the manufacturing and installation jobs go away.

            Because their is limited resources to install, early program costs will be higher, those who get in initially will make high profits. Then as saturation takes place, the discount services will jump in cause the cost to drop and make profits minimal. The person is able to gain to benfit from installation, and not all can, will enjoy low sustainable costs for him. What will be lost will be to the jobs in power generation, energy transportation, energy exploration. Income will be lost to landholders who get royalties for fossil fuel found on their properties. The result will be a net loss of jobs.

            Insulation is funny. Every building built since 1977 have been required to meet building code insulation values. Homes had to change stud sizes from 2x4 to 2x6 to accomodate the required insulation values. The only place that more insulation can be added is in the attics because that value was increased a few years back. Much of the uninsulated homes have already been insulated because of the energy increases of the last 5 - 10 years. My 50+ year old home was nearly maxed on insulation 3 years ago. Point is, there is less work here than we are lead to believe.

            One last note! Studies done every decade say the same thing - wind , solar, geothermal can only make up to 17% of our energy needs.

              #1.31 - Wed Apr 22, 2009 6:27 PM EDT
              Rick in BH

              While Obama has been working to open int'l markets recently ignored by or closed to the Bush administration, the wave of GREEN JOBS & TECHNOLOGY is nearing the point of critical mass.

              Industries to municipalities have already begun the change from fossil fuel based energy production to renewables. Young people with fresh ideas and an understanding of CORPORATE & PERSONAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSIBILITY are taking the lead in these next generation businesses.

              (The world's second largest solar cell manufacturer is in the next county...)

              Meanwhile, it is apparent the GADFLIES, DETRACTORS & NAYSAYERS will all continue to huddle 'round the campfire till the wood burns out...

                #1.32 - Wed Apr 22, 2009 7:06 PM EDT
                avg-joe

                I agree with some of the above posts re: natural gas and nuclear. Unlike solar, wind, geothermal, etc. options, these have the real potential to start replacing foreign oil. (I personally think we should keep burning coal for what it's worth, but these could replace coal too.)

                If we do go to natural gas and nuclear, we could create some real jobs. If the plan is to rely solely on solar, wind, and geothermal to save our environment and economy, we might as well kiss our economic butts goodbye, and hope that Obama's successor has a real plan.

                • 1 vote
                #1.33 - Wed Apr 22, 2009 7:20 PM EDT
                Rick in BH

                avg-joe, the problem with NG/LNG is you're still dealing with a heat exchange; nuclear has severe waste storage issues.

                The reason you don't see a strong lobby coming from the renewable producers is that they have consolidated. Oil industry conglomerates better control their message, lobbying dollars and legislation passed. It will take a little time, but soon the renewable industries (solar, geo, wind, etc.) will come together and better present the mechanics and vision of their methods.

                Heck, from a Federal support point of view, we've only been looking at this for less than a 100 days. The oil industry has been around for a century. Give it time; patience.

                  #1.34 - Wed Apr 22, 2009 7:29 PM EDT
                  avg-joe

                  Well, nuclear has waste storage issues, but they're not as bad as people think. Nuclear power plants have not had the luxury of a designated waste disposal site since its inception. However, the actual volume of waste produced to date is in fact small and quite manageable. It would probably be better if it was consolidated in one more secure location, but political issues prevent that from happening.

                  Bottom Line: Nuclear energy is a very practical, environmentally-friendly source of power, and there's a reason nearly 90% of France's electricity today comes from nuclear energy.

                  As for natural gas, it is a lot cleaner than burning gas, and would go a long, long ways towards eliminating our dependence on foreign oil. I have to confess that I have serious doubts about prevailing global warming theories, but it would also reduce CO2 emissions a great deal as well.

                  Bottom Line: The technology doesn't exist to replace oil with wind, solar, and geothermal, but we could do a lot for our economy and trade deficit by doing more with natural gas.

                  • 1 vote
                  #1.35 - Wed Apr 22, 2009 7:59 PM EDT
                  Rick in BH

                  Sorry Joe, you're wrong...

                  Nuclear does have waste storage issues "as bad as people could ever imagine" due mainly to the fact it will continue to exist for a no less than a millennium. And although it's funny how folks use France as a shinning example when it's convenient, the country has no natural energy resources and went nuclear long before renewable technologies came about, particularly to the point of critical mass.

                  You're right that NG is less harmful than heavy oil machinery spinning turbines, the fact remains it requires heat exchange and mitigation measures. What you need to know is the technology for cost effective renewable energy production does exist. The problem is we've been on track with fossil fuel methodologies for over a century - and it's hard to modulate large industries that simply don't know any other way.

                  But I have hope: If you look at the BP and Exxon renewable programs, you will see that they see the sun on the horizon and understand the future of successful energy production on this planet can only be found through renewable technologies.

                  If you don't believe me, check out their sites... Easy peasy.

                    #1.36 - Wed Apr 22, 2009 8:16 PM EDT
                    avg-joe

                    Both nuclear power and natural gas involve mature technologies, and utilize natural resources that we have in ample supply here in the USA.

                    We can use them extensively today to both improve our environment and reduce our dependence on foreign oil. They are not perfect technologies, and inevitably must serve as a bridge to better energy technology in the future. However, these technologies have great potential given our current situation, and I think it would be completely foolish to ignore them.

                    That said, I'm all for renewable technologies. These technologies have improved over the years, and we should promote their growth to the extent possible. The fact still remains that they are a long ways from proving themselves as replacements for fossil fuel technology in all of the ways it is currently applied in the US.

                    Solar, wind, and geothermal energy will become an ever larger of our energy picture over time, but we have massive energy needs now that these technologies are unprepared to satisfy.

                    I think many environmentalists tend to consider the problems in a vacuum, and like to operate under the presumption that the United States will automatically remain a leading economic power for the foreseeable future. However, implementing only the unproven and prohibitively expensive technologies GreenPeace pushes would be as quick a path to ruin as any other I could think up.

                    Remember, too, that we compete not only with Japan and Europe, but with China, India, and the developing world as well. China and India are places almost completely devoid of environmental protections, and the environmental policies of developed countries (including the US) will only give companies more reasons to relocate there.

                    This leads me to the related question:

                    How is relocating toxic industries to China and India somehow good for our country or the environment?

                    Promoting trade restrictions with countries devoid of environmental protection laws doesn't seem to be a part of most environmentalists' agendas. Could someone please explain this to me?

                    • 1 vote
                    #1.37 - Wed Apr 22, 2009 9:12 PM EDT
                    ROY WILSON-336103

                    Obama has touted Spain as an example of a country that has successfully promoted "green" jobs, but a recent Spanish study concluded that, for every "green" job created, 2.1 regular jobs were lost. And 90% of the "green" jobs were temporary, not permanent.

                    The real problem is economic viability. Banks don't want to lend on a project unless it generates a positive cash flow sufficient to repay the loan and return a reasonable profit to the investor. Since wind and solar are 3-5 times as expensive as traditional energy sources, they are not competitive, and a poor lending risk.

                    How do you make them competitive? Simple. Just make the traditional sources 3-5 times as expensive. This is where "Cap and Trade" of Carbon emissions comes in. If the government can force utility companies to pay huge new fees (which they pass on to consumers as higher utility bills), then they can make alternative energy competitive. Unfortunately, it's the consumer that gets stuck with the real cost. How would you like your utility bills being tripled or worse.

                    You can feel good, however, that you're helping the planet. Never mind that China will add 10 times more carbon into the atmosphere than we'll ever cut back. China likes cheap energy from coal to fund their growth (which is 3 times our growth rate). Meanwhile, we become less and less competitive in the world because of our increased costs for energy.

                    Way to go, Obama.

                    • 1 vote
                    #1.38 - Wed Apr 22, 2009 9:17 PM EDT
                    Rick in BH

                    "Both nuclear power and natural gas involve mature technologies, and utilize natural resources that we have in ample supply here in the USA..."

                    Actually Joe, NG is finite. Although it's abundant now, it is indeed finite. Nuclear power is not a natural resource.

                    "I think many environmentalists tend to consider the problems in a vacuum..."

                    Au contraire. Every environmentalist I've done business with - typically looks at the broad view. They may tend to ignore the immediate costs, but when you shake out the numbers and run a long range cost-benefit analysis, it typically becomes a non-issue. Industry worldwide is getting it.

                    "We have massive energy needs now that these technologies are unprepared to satisfy..."

                    Our domestic energy needs are being drastically reduced. Examples include, but are not limited to: 1) conservation, 2) reduced growth both internally and int'l migration to the US, and 3) large (in the megawatts) commercial renewable facilities coming on-line.

                    The slowdown of this technology is largely due to siting approvals and interconnection as the grid is about to be updated (i.e. Pickens' Energy Plan).

                    "How is relocating toxic industries to China and India somehow good for our country or the environment?"

                    "Promoting trade restrictions with countries devoid of environmental protection laws doesn't seem to be a part of most environmentalists' agendas. Could someone please explain this to me?"

                    Hopefully, the US will join within 5 year what will emerge from the original Kyoto Agreement via IPCCC guidelines. And that means cap & trade. China and every other economic super power will have to conform as ignoring C&T dollars will be financial suicide. It's not putting a gun to anyone's head, but it will be effective and help to provide impetus environmental responsibility on a world-wide basis.

                      #1.39 - Wed Apr 22, 2009 9:37 PM EDT
                      oi812

                      Why not use all the oil/gas/coal that we have while we develop wind/solar/Nuclear I guess that makes too much sense. So we can cap/trade ourself to the poor house

                      • 4 votes
                      #1.40 - Wed Apr 22, 2009 9:56 PM EDT
                      Rick in BH

                      "Why not use all the oil/gas/coal that we have?"

                      I'd like to take a crack at that: Because fossil fuel energy production contributes to global climate change. Energy plants create more green house gases than automobiles in this country.

                      That was easy...

                        #1.41 - Wed Apr 22, 2009 10:08 PM EDT
                        MotorCity RockDeleted
                        Gus-393033

                        Tim Pheil....

                        Interesting thoughts....

                        Still brings up too many questions that need to be answered. European ideas have not set well in the Big United States picture. The Smart Car is unusual.... but get in an accident and your history.

                        I tend to lean towards Derek-35149's opening comment below....

                        We have no money! Don't you get it?

                        Nuclear energy would be fine.... but the Sierra Club and The EPA make it impossible to consider seriously.

                        We need to always keep in mind that we run on fossil fuels and the best way off of them is not cold turkey! A weaning process is more apt! In fact... a "long" weaning process would be in order.

                        I don't buy that we are in a global warming change! Just a whole bunch of old hippies still feeling the effects of the mushrooms they used to take daily!

                        I do know this.... retraining for new Green Jobs is not really out there because there is no clear cut technology that can be put into place right now.

                        • 1 vote
                        #1.43 - Wed Apr 22, 2009 11:46 PM EDT
                        drylinesupercell

                        Wake Up! We are on the verge of what has been prophecised for thousands of years. Green or Black? Who cares, we cannot expect our ecosystem to withstand the amount of pollution that the billions of people on this (Once Beautiful Earth) create every year. If you really want to make a difference stop driving your cars, stop burning your coal, stop killing your rain forest! Stop dumping waste into the oceans, rivers, streams, and lakes. Bodies of water once used simply just to get a drink of water. Now many can't even be swam in for risk of cutting yourself on a rusty peice of metal and losing a limb to severe infection! But who wants to give up all of the luxuries we have today? Who would dare risk their job to save our enviroment. Who has the balls to put there foot down and say NO MORE! Nobody...............shhh. Theres more.

                        I have a green job, I took a $5 an hour pay raise to come to this job. This job that costs $700,000 to create, paid by a (local man) in North Central Kansas. From the moment I signed onto a construction crew to help build this Job! To this job I am at this very moment, typing this message. Most of the people in my hometown would die to have this job. Most of them survive off of a little more the mininum wage and Im sitting here making $30,000 with nothing but a high school diploma. How can you diss green jobs?

                        Especially since we obviously can't survive like the amish!

                        What would your forefathers do? Have more babies?

                        Then when those babies get older and realize what a dung hole their forefathers left them. Maybe they will have (balls), unlike these bible belt thumpers out here. Maybe they will have the balls to ( Legalize Marijuana )

                        There is your solution to cheap green jobs! There is your billions of dollars in taxes! At least a half dozen new jobs in every city and town. Take in mind not only for potheads to be satisfied, but a boost in the textiles industry and much more. Hemp is a versatile material, and also when compressed burns hotter than coal. Dank weed is also very relaxing and medical for those suffering with terminal illnesses, ptsd, etc. So think about it. Like it or not, that Is my two cents. Thankyou!

                          #1.44 - Wed Apr 22, 2009 11:47 PM EDT
                          NONEYA-382584

                          I have a green job for you all, blow your nose in a tissue and look at it. I say burn more fossil fuel that's what its there for.

                            #1.45 - Thu Apr 23, 2009 12:02 AM EDT
                            DANNY-818942

                            If Obama really wanted to help the American Power problem then he would have put money towards research. Why can't America build what they need after they design it? Why? No lobbyist to pay for it.

                              #1.46 - Thu Apr 23, 2009 4:37 AM EDT
                              Reply
                              clarke ong

                              If we are to have any hope for a truly sustainable future then green jobs MUST beome the norm. It all depends on whether or not we have the cajones to go for it.

                              • 3 votes
                              #2 - Wed Apr 22, 2009 2:05 PM EDT
                              Derek-351419

                              We have no money! Don't you get it? We already have a huge deficit, so you want to let the government take over another industry? Do they do anything right?

                              • 22 votes
                              #2.1 - Wed Apr 22, 2009 2:09 PM EDT
                              Cookie-550686Deleted
                              oi812

                              Cookie-run the numbers green energy cost too much it is not worth it-we do not have the money to throw at this feel good industry

                              • 13 votes
                              #2.3 - Wed Apr 22, 2009 2:19 PM EDT
                              kit-744420

                              Cookie, and how are you going to get people to CHOOSE? By government force? LOL.

                              • 10 votes
                              #2.4 - Wed Apr 22, 2009 2:22 PM EDT
                              Carl W

                              Some of the naysayers on this board didn't pay much attention to the last election.

                              America elected Hopes & Dreams in November, not Financial Reality.

                              Optimism can conquer physical and economic reality if we just believe hard enough!

                              Green-collar jobs that benefit the economy instead of sucking away resources--Yes we can!

                              • 3 votes
                              #2.5 - Wed Apr 22, 2009 2:26 PM EDT
                              Patriot-535132

                              Pull your head out of your ass and come up for some air you gullible fool. Quit listening to the liberal lying media and look around before it's too late.

                              • 8 votes
                              #2.6 - Wed Apr 22, 2009 2:29 PM EDT
                              Livingwill

                              Why? There is no real greenhouse effect and we have more than enough natural resources. When we really start running out of oil the price will go straight up and we will be forced to build nuclear power plants. Solar and wind are a waste of money pure and simple.

                              • 2 votes
                              #2.7 - Wed Apr 22, 2009 2:30 PM EDT
                              clarke ong

                              To any and all of the above. A question. What is the basis and foundation of ALL economy? Can any of you actually think past next paycheck?

                              • 3 votes
                              #2.8 - Wed Apr 22, 2009 2:31 PM EDT
                              George-313012

                              You greenies are insane

                              • 5 votes
                              #2.9 - Wed Apr 22, 2009 2:42 PM EDT
                              Lucky13-830759

                              Many people elected "hopes and dreams" over financial reality because they were incapable of grasping the fact that without a strong, workable financial reality, all you'll ever have is "hopes and dreams".

                              • 4 votes
                              #2.10 - Wed Apr 22, 2009 2:43 PM EDT
                              charles0390-1Deleted
                              SirWerd

                              The nation is still split on what to do. Obama was elected in a statistical tie and thinks that gives him power to "change" things. The problem is that all the so called change is more than most folks bargained for and nobody has the money to fund them. We can't afford to keep borrowing money from China. Look back in history... This road never leads to good things except for in the short run... Then things go bad.

                                #2.12 - Wed Apr 22, 2009 2:55 PM EDT
                                James O'Hara

                                We have to obey the paths of desire even FDR knew that. Obama does not understand green enough to be its champion... maybe that is a good thing as his fits and starts from failed and obselete proposals will just be more added churn to the economy... for the worker it is a roller coaster ... very hard to know what will be the next big thing.

                                • 1 vote
                                #2.13 - Wed Apr 22, 2009 3:03 PM EDT
                                spider-737231

                                But Lucky, you are forgetting that

                                "optimism can conquer physical and economic reality if we just believe hard enough".

                                I mean, it got Dorothy back home from Oz didn't it?

                                  #2.14 - Wed Apr 22, 2009 3:06 PM EDT
                                  Kvothe

                                  Some of the naysayers on this board didn't pay much attention to the last election.

                                  America elected Hopes & Dreams in November, not Financial Reality.

                                  Optimism can conquer physical and economic reality if we just believe hard enough!

                                  Green-collar jobs that benefit the economy instead of sucking away resources--Yes we can!

                                  ROFL.....Someone needs to perform the heimlich manuever on you, because you are definately choking on the Kool-Aid.

                                  • 1 vote
                                  #2.15 - Wed Apr 22, 2009 3:08 PM EDT
                                  Lucky13-830759

                                  Spider-737231

                                  I'm never going to put on any ruby slippers. I'll drive to Kansas like the other times...lol!!!!

                                  The only way we're going to be able to get out've "OZ" is at the ballot box.

                                  • 3 votes
                                  #2.16 - Wed Apr 22, 2009 3:14 PM EDT
                                  Cookie-550686Deleted
                                  clarke ong

                                  Again, can anybody answer the question, What is the basis and foundation of all economy?

                                  • 1 vote
                                  #2.18 - Wed Apr 22, 2009 3:22 PM EDT
                                  kimmmmm

                                  "Going green" is what happens to the government when they take all of the taxpayer's money.

                                  • 2 votes
                                  #2.19 - Wed Apr 22, 2009 3:22 PM EDT
                                  clarke ong

                                  O.K. slowpokes here's a hint. The economy is a subsystem of..............

                                  • 1 vote
                                  #2.20 - Wed Apr 22, 2009 3:40 PM EDT
                                  awfton

                                  "Growth" is so ingrained in the American psyche that it is all but impossible for us to even consider anything but growth. It's growth for growth's sake. It's growth because growth means money, money, money. It's growth because it's a sin not to grow.

                                  But, like it or not we live on a planet with limited natural resources, and mankind is working toward the limits of what the planet can endure and continue to support life as we know it. Recycling has to be made mandatory, and "growth" has to give way to sustainable "development" that works in tune with the environment.

                                  The technology to make this transition to a cleaner, greener world is readily at hand. That is the least of our problems. Over coming the established economic order, and simply breaking old habits is the greatest obstacle.

                                  Climate change is an established fact and the future holds many changes that we may or may not be ready for. But, the handwriting is on the wall. Nature will continue no matter what, we just might not be a part of it. This not to scare us all, it's just time to recognize the fact that "business as usual" is going to stop regardless of if we choose to do so or not.

                                  • 1 vote
                                  #2.21 - Wed Apr 22, 2009 4:20 PM EDT
                                  justice fleeting

                                  This "Green Jobs" euphoria is an invented west coast and east coast line of crap. If you can capitalize on it, go for it. But the use of tax payers money to subsidize it is robbery.

                                  • 2 votes
                                  #2.22 - Wed Apr 22, 2009 4:32 PM EDT
                                  clarke ong

                                  awfton

                                  Thank you for clearly explaining to all that economy is based on the earth's ability to sutainably provide. Once people link the health of the planet to their pocketbooks they usually jump on board pretty quickly. But the powers that be keep the tyranny of the urgent in front of their faces, so they are numbed to the effects of their actions, distracted to the point of ineffectiveness. And they call US the sheep.

                                    #2.23 - Wed Apr 22, 2009 4:39 PM EDT
                                    khollo4

                                    cookie

                                    No one has "proven" global warming yet. Did you miss the news a few weeks ago that the "experts" you speak of are now saying global warming isn't happening now, climate change is, but, "... we don't know when for sure, but global warming will probably return in 20-30 years..."

                                    Without sun spot activity (and we have been in a quiescent period), the earth cools, as it has been doing for the last ten years.

                                    The real experts, climatologists, (the people who actually study the climate), say global warming, as hyped by Gore, is baloney. They will tell you the earth goes through cycles of warming and cooling, and that we are headed for a period of cooling.

                                    But those are just the facts, not the theories of the "global warming scientists".

                                    • 3 votes
                                    #2.24 - Wed Apr 22, 2009 4:48 PM EDT
                                    VAGuy

                                    khollo4

                                    amen! Did you see that even NASA's Hansen (an internationally recognized global warming expert) now admits that simple diesel soot is responsible for as much as 25% of global warming! That's right - the elitist "unquestionable" global warming science and computer models are wrong - straight from the most recognized expert on the planet. This is the way science works - Newton thought he was right until Einstein proved him wrong. So too is the notion that CO2 is the most important contributor, or that limiting CO2 the best way to solve the problem. What other "surprises" are the experts going to find next? Global warming science is about as mature as medicine was in 1400 - except the powers that be are bloodletting our entire economy in a futile effort to fix a problem them haven't a clue where it really comes from, if it's even a real problem, or if the fix will really work.

                                    Eliminating soot is easy and cost effective with modern technology, it doesn't require us to drive econo-boxes, and it doesn't force massive new cap and trade taxes and government intervention that kills prosperity. Better yet, soot is purged from the atmosphere in months, not decades. The impact of removing it is like shutting down the entire US and we get that right away.

                                    Just google for "global warming diesel soot" to see what I am talking about.

                                    Even more surprising - do you know under whose administration laws were passed to reduce soot emissions of new diesel vehicles in the US by well over 90% and to reformulate diesel fuel to allow the new clean diesel pollution controls - George W. himself!

                                    My prediction - now that Bush's clean diesel initiative took effect in 2007, we will see a decline in global warming. The pseudo-science of "unquestionable" global warming science will finally face reality.

                                    • 2 votes
                                    #2.25 - Wed Apr 22, 2009 5:23 PM EDT
                                    ToxicChemist

                                    Khoolo4, I'm a scientist, I've taken college courses in climatology, meteorology, historical geology, in addition to all of the chemistry classes needed to get a degree. I've specialized in air quality for well over a decade, ran air quality samples at ground zero, worked with the dept. of environmental protection (DEP) developing air quality testing methods for acessment, I've had samples sent to me for analysis from all over the world, and I agree with you. Some state global warming as a scientific fact, but it is not. It is hype. The data used to back up claims of global warming is bogus. First of all, alot of the temperature measurements have been at ground level, not at atmospheric levels. The data that they are comparing is primarily the recent century. What do you think has happened over the last century? urbanization. Green pastures have been replaced by concrete, artificially elevating summer temperatures. In fact, the winters have been getting colder, but that fact is erased by the artificially higher summer temperatures. Anyone who has studied the history of the planet knows that the earth's environment is always changing, and any scientist worth his/her weight knows that to compare one set of data with another while the experiment is not "in control" or consistant is just bad science. You also state that the sun may play a role, and this may be true. Sunspots happen in a cyclical pattern. There are times when the sun's activity increases and other times when the sun's activity decreases. This would explain periods of warming and periods of cooling. In addition, one might consider the earth's electromagnetic field can fluctuate as well. The magnetic field helps shield us from some of the effects of the sun's solar radiation, thus possibly contributing to temperature fluctuations as well. Nobody asked me of my opinion about global warming. This may just be a way for the government to install a "Carbon Tax" to take money from your paycheck.

                                    • 5 votes
                                    #2.26 - Wed Apr 22, 2009 5:25 PM EDT
                                    Cookie-550686Deleted
                                    ToxicChemist

                                    Here's your plan Cookie:

                                    Invest in renewable sources of energy like solar, wind hydroelectric WHILE drilling for oil domestically. While we improve the newer technology we won't have to sit in the dark waiting for the new sources to come online. They have to develop better/more efficient solar panels, come up with wind farms and harness the power found in the tides. In places where it is applicable, use geothermal sources. Try to develop clean affordable way to get energy from coal, which we have much of. The trouble there is scrubber technology - currently too expensive, but we have innovative people still in this country right? Finally, we might want to consider nuclear energy, if it can be safe.

                                    • 1 vote
                                    #2.28 - Wed Apr 22, 2009 5:38 PM EDT
                                    ToxicChemist

                                    Va Guy, I would think that diesel soot would be found mostly at near ground levels (similar to the bad ozone,smog etc..), not at high altitudes. That would explain how it gets purged by rainfall. One thing I would agree on is that the debate over the science should continue.

                                      #2.29 - Wed Apr 22, 2009 5:47 PM EDT
                                      east coast

                                      Can anyone here produce any reasonable source for the claims they're making on either side? I see a lot of numbers and a lot of name dropping but everyone here can't possibly be right and that means someone is making something up.

                                      How can we make an intelligent decision if there is no facts that we can believe in?

                                        #2.30 - Wed Apr 22, 2009 6:26 PM EDT
                                        DB-755213

                                        Toxic Chemist, my sympathies. I am certain, you have been given pressure at times to toe the line. My favorite line from a glacier scientist, we have analysed 3 more ice cores from the Vostock glacier and none show conclusively that carbon rises first, but we'll find it!

                                        The other from a Climate modeler in 2008 "What we found out was that the climate is much more complex than we thought. The only way we will be able to prove AGW is by a computer model, and we haven't yet, but in time we will."

                                        Of course there is the NASA Carbon heat gain study from April 2008, peer review completed June 2008, that shows that as carbon doubles, the heat gain decreases at a logarithmic rate. Hansen won't ever talk about that one!

                                        Who knows, maybe they will, but they have already had since 1872 when the theory was first germinated.

                                          #2.31 - Wed Apr 22, 2009 6:44 PM EDT
                                          Neg

                                          DB, in an article I read the other day, scientists in Australia have found that the ice on the west? side of Antarctica has actualy increased.

                                          • 1 vote
                                          #2.32 - Wed Apr 22, 2009 9:09 PM EDT
                                          Cookie-550686Deleted
                                          Reply
                                          Derek-351419

                                          Just another way to work the system for more green, as in money. The government can't do anything right, so why let them do this. Ethanol has been a boom for farmers and a bust for everybody else. We subsidized these farmers and now we're paying more for food. Let private business make business decisions.

                                          • 10 votes
                                          Reply#3 - Wed Apr 22, 2009 2:06 PM EDT
                                          Stacey-400053

                                          The government subsidies for ethanol go to the blender, not the producer. The oil companies blend oil and ethanol so they get the credit--not the farmers or the ethanol producers.

                                          Ethanol did not cause the increase in the cost of food. The high cost of oil used for transportation and packaging had more of an impact. It also keeps the price of our gas down.

                                          The U.S. Department of Energy estimates that for every one billion gallons of ethanol produced, 10,000 to 20,000 jobs will be added. Hundreds of thousands of Americans are already employed thanks to the 10 percent ethanol in most of our nation's gasoline.

                                          Ethanol use reduces the price of gas by as much as 20-35 cents/gallon (DOE estimate), saving the average American household $150-$300/year. Iowa State University researchers found that ethanol use may take as much as 40 cents off a gallon of gas.

                                          • 1 vote
                                          #3.1 - Wed Apr 22, 2009 2:52 PM EDT
                                          gday67

                                          Hey Stacey, who funded that study? I know when i goto the pump that e85 gas isn't much cheaper than the higher octane gas. It's also a lie when you say that farmers selling their crops to produce ethanol instead of food doesn't drive up the price of food. Any time you have less product with high demand means the price is going to go up.

                                            #3.2 - Wed Apr 22, 2009 3:10 PM EDT
                                            Stacey-400053

                                            Any time you have less product with high demand means the price is going to go up.

                                            The US has a 2 billion bushel surplus of corn this year. The price of corn has drastically dropped--why haven't food prices dropped as well--if the price of food is so closely correlated with ethanol production?

                                            • 1 vote
                                            #3.3 - Wed Apr 22, 2009 3:19 PM EDT
                                            ToxicChemist

                                            Have to agree with gday, increased demand for ethanol does drive up food prices, and I don't seem to remember cheaper gas last summer.

                                              #3.4 - Wed Apr 22, 2009 5:30 PM EDT
                                              east coast

                                              It might cost more but it's worth the price to wrestle the sword of power out of the hands of the idiots who are in control of the world oil reserves today.

                                                #3.5 - Wed Apr 22, 2009 6:29 PM EDT
                                                Stacey-400053

                                                Please read the testimony given by Sen. Grassley concerning the smear campaign and false information contrived by the Grocery Manufacturers Association.

                                                http://finance.senate.gov/press/Gpress/2008/prg051908c.pdf

                                                I said it reduces the cost of gas--it can't affect the price of oil needed to produce the gas. Gas prices would have been even higher last summer without ethanol.

                                                • 2 votes
                                                #3.6 - Wed Apr 22, 2009 6:36 PM EDT
                                                dmac225

                                                Stacey- So only the blenders get a gov. subsidy? That is incorrect. Farmers are being paid a subsidy for growing corn to be used exclusively for the production of ethanol. This has resulted in much higher prices for cattle feed which in turn drove up the price for beef. This same cause and effect has occurred for every food of which corn is a major ingredient. The US could not even meet the quantity of corn it had promised poor nations around the world last year because so much of the corn was used for ethanol production.

                                                Your claim that using ethanol lowers the cost of fuel is also incorrect. How much would E-85 gas cost without the government subsidies? But even that is a mute point because guess who is paying these subsidies? You and me. So even if you don't use or have access to E-85 gas, you are still paying for it.

                                                  #3.7 - Wed Apr 22, 2009 8:19 PM EDT
                                                  Neg

                                                  dmac, "Farmers are being paid a subsidy for growing corn to be used exclusively for the production of ethanol."

                                                  Can you prove that?

                                                  • 1 vote
                                                  #3.8 - Wed Apr 22, 2009 9:16 PM EDT
                                                  Stacey-400053

                                                  Please consider this an open invitation to come visit the central third of the US sometime. Regretably, I think you will be disappointed to discover there are not giant bins marked 'please keep this for the cows' or 'this corn reserved for ethanol -- thank you'. If you are in fact from the midwest, please kindly ask around tomorrow and learn "It's all the same corn". If farmers are growing more corn for ethanol, which they are, that same corn is available to cattle farmers and corn syrup producers and exports to China or India or wherever - and it is. Farmers planted less corn in 2008 than in 2007, so there simply wasn't as much corn to go around. But, if you look at the 'crop year' for 2008-2009 (planting of corn in 2008 to planting of corn in 2009), you'll see than China (and others) have used the first part of this calendar year to make up for all the corn they didn't buy last calendar year. There is no way of keeping track of how a farmer's corn gets used. The best the USDA can do is estimate how much total corn was used for different segments -- sorry, no 'corn for ethanol' bonus for your local Farmer John.

                                                  Now for Ethanol Lowering the Cost of Fuel. This is very simple supply-demand economics. As ethanol increases the total fuel supply at a rate faster than demand is growing, it keeps the larger oil companies from managing the market 'for maximum profit extraction'. Simply put, more fuel available (no matter what it is) equals a lower price for gas. What you really need to sit down and answer for yourself is, where do you want that $40 you spent on a tank of gas to go? If you buy ethanol, that money goes right here to US employees and farmers and land owners. If you are so bent on gasoline, please consider how much of your money goes to foreigh countries -- and, please also consider how much of your tax money the government spends on fighting those countries to keep our oil supply stable. Ultimately, the facts are out there. You might have to study a little more to learn what the oil companies don't want you to hear. At the end of the day, I think you'll have a hard time finding a story about a soldier killed while defending a corn field.

                                                  The price of ethanol today (Chicago Board of Trade) was $1.54/gallon. I'm guessing that's quite a bit less than you paid for gasoline. The problem for those ethanol plants is a problem for you as well. The ethanol plants HAVE to sell their product to the oil companies to get it blended into gasoline. So what really happens is: the ethanol plant produces ethanol for about $1.50/gallon and sells for a very small profit (if any) to their competitor (the oil companies), the oil companies get the highly-touted 'ethanol subsidy' because it is, in fact, a 'blender's credit', they pocket the $.49/gallon credit and mark the price of ethanol up to sell at an additional profit to the uneducated public -- all the while pumping the public's mind full of fun little pieces of mis-information to make the average news junkie hate ethanol and love the status quo.

                                                  Please share with your friends. There is a lot of learning to do.

                                                  • 2 votes
                                                  #3.9 - Thu Apr 23, 2009 12:18 AM EDT
                                                  Reply
                                                  smitty63

                                                  Obama's campaign...was it hope or hype...there you have your answer...

                                                  • 5 votes
                                                  Reply#4 - Wed Apr 22, 2009 2:08 PM EDT
                                                  Not a Sheep anymore

                                                  If "green technology" is so necessary, why does it take the Libs in government to fund it? Unlike coal, natural gas and petroleum, the government has propped up all of the "renewable" energy companies.
                                                  If 'green' energy was truly the answer, the utlity companies would all jump at the chance to develop and sell it instead of being forced to by our Socialist government.
                                                  Sounds a lot like the Liberals' agenda taking presidence over sensible business practices. Come to think of it, this is par for the course for our recent goverment! :)

                                                  • 12 votes
                                                  Reply#5 - Wed Apr 22, 2009 2:09 PM EDT
                                                  Carl W

                                                  What is "economically profitable" is not always what is "morally right".

                                                  We should be supporting policies that benefit our environment and mitigate climate change and dependence on foreign oil, but doing so is expensive, not cheap.

                                                  • 1 vote
                                                  #5.1 - Wed Apr 22, 2009 2:27 PM EDT
                                                  mike from florida-535075

                                                  i dont think it has anything to do with "liberal agendas" or "socialist governments". thats just cheap fox talking points (and im a conservative liberatian). its about companies not wanting to make the initial high investment needed for green jobs or even green energy.

                                                  the reason america doesnt jump ship at green energy? because of a couple of reasons. 1) our current outdated infrastructure and energy needs are dependant on non renewable resources like oil. 2) as for as consumer options, there are not many green options out there for the average consumer. until the average cost to make windmills or solar panels decreases enough, it will not be present in large enough quantities to make a difference.

                                                  like i mentioned earlier in a post, we should look at germany as an example of how green energy can work. the government supplies the nessessary parts and equiptment at little or no cost to the homeowner. the home owner can then create their own energy and even sell the excess energy back to the energy corporations. it works out well for everyone. high initial cost but in the long run it saves and profits everyone

                                                  • 4 votes
                                                  #5.2 - Wed Apr 22, 2009 2:31 PM EDT
                                                  George-313012

                                                  Carl and Mike - You pay for it - fools

                                                  • 1 vote
                                                  #5.3 - Wed Apr 22, 2009 2:44 PM EDT
                                                  steve-686481

                                                  What is "economically profitable" is not always what is "morally right"

                                                  Carl, your statement above though desirable and often times acheivable, will not work for a global condition. If one country takes up the cost of restructuring their economy to go "Green", we will bear ALL the up front (which is the most expensive) development costs while Other Countries come back in a few years and steal our tech and then what do you think we will have?

                                                  And if you think I'm making this up. Just ask anyone in High Tech. As an example, I will pick on China. China's intellectual property rights laws are geared to benefit China and only China. Try doing business in China. All the partnerships I've been involved in where 51% min for China along with access to sensitive tech data (this last part rarely willingly.)

                                                  So let play if forward now. Instead of having an economy that the rest of the world can look on with envy, we will be the laughing stock with our economy in tatters while the rest of the world bask in the benefits of our work.

                                                  This already occurs in drugs and medicine.

                                                  • 2 votes
                                                  #5.4 - Wed Apr 22, 2009 2:47 PM EDT
                                                  kimmmmm

                                                  Why did the term "global warming" get changed to "climate change?" BECAUSE they were WRONG about it!

                                                  • 3 votes
                                                  #5.5 - Wed Apr 22, 2009 3:34 PM EDT
                                                  zigmund

                                                  Good point. As you said the energies were not funded by the goverment . Kindest Regards Joe

                                                    #5.6 - Wed Apr 22, 2009 4:10 PM EDT
                                                    Stacey-400053

                                                    There are many industries, including the energy sector, that receive government funding of some type. The private industry sector funds the vast majority of the renewable energy industry.

                                                      #5.7 - Wed Apr 22, 2009 4:15 PM EDT
                                                      Not a Sheep anymore

                                                      Here's how global warming/climate change works. There is a sect of people that wants to apologize and feel guilty about theirs and other people's actions. Obama is doing it in every country he visits. "America is wrong, and since I have a higher moral value than any other President, I am sorry for America's failings. Even though they aren't failings, the other coutnries want to hear it and Obama wants to say it. Global Warming is no different.
                                                      The people that want to hear how bad things are want to do something about it. In the case of Global Warming, carbon is the bad guy. Regardless of the contradicting stats that show man cannot possibly create enough carbon to fluxuate the climate and its temperatures, the paid scientists came up with carbon as the culprit. Why? Because there is NO possible way to eliminate it. We all emit it when we breathe, our vehicles emit it when we drive to work to feed our families, etc. Carbon is right up there with death and taxes. Regardless if green plants need it to grow and give us more oxygen, they don't vote and will never give the Libs money. So, if Al and Co can get those people that want to fix something into believing that carbon is the problem, those people will pay any amount of money to make it better. The plus is that Al is the one getting rich off his own propaganda! How cool is that? You are bad, you feel guilty, you want to correct your past. Pay here, I am the answer.
                                                      And how do I know that Al's companies are all a part of a huge scam? What do they do with your money? When you pay your "carbon credit", what do they do after they deposit your check? Oh, that's right, research to see how they can further your guilt and enforce their policies. Now that's genius!
                                                      Just send me the money and I'll send you a picture of a huge smile on my face every month until your money runs out. At least this way you'll get something for your cash! :)

                                                      • 2 votes
                                                      #5.8 - Wed Apr 22, 2009 4:53 PM EDT
                                                      Desertgirl

                                                      We can (try at least) to go as green as grass on energy. The government can subsidize it up the @55, but it will prove useless, utterly and completely useless, if the country with the largest emissions (not to mention a growing coal industry) does little to nothing about those emissions.

                                                      That being said, increasing solar and wind power generation has proven somewhat inefficient in relation to cost. It will also not work just anywhere (though where I live in Nevada it would be a good fit--strong desert winds, lots of sun). It's not unproven, but at the same time, it's unproven.

                                                      We have an energy source, that will cost much in terms of infrastructure, but IS viable and would be cheap. More than that we have plenty of examples from around the world. That Holy Grail of Nations, France, has been using it for decades. Recently I read somewhere that it generates 75% of France's power. And it's clean (that argument about waste is BS and a total red herring. Our laws could be changed to allow us to deal with it the same way France does)

                                                       

                                                        #5.9 - Wed Apr 22, 2009 5:26 PM EDT
                                                        Arthur-379160

                                                        Not a sheep anymore,

                                                        You just keep buying your oil from nations that foster hate and terrorism, which is most of them.

                                                          #5.10 - Wed Apr 22, 2009 5:32 PM EDT
                                                          jtriggsDeleted
                                                          Reply
                                                          Sigurd Rohwedder

                                                          The Green revolution will always fail when it comes to the $green$$. No one is going to want to pay more just for the warm fuzzy feeling of doing good for the planet. People just do not have the surplus income to do that.

                                                          The other problem is that it just doesn't work. You will never get enough power out of wind/solar to live with. I have been trying to get a design for a house that will be completely energy self sufficient in an extremely rural environment. I have a piece of property that's 50 acres. To get the wind & solar power I would need to power a small 2 bedroom houe (750 square feet of living space) I would have to chop down all the trees and put up windmills and solar panels at a cost of over $1,000,000., and even then I'd be out of luck on a rainy day or a windless day. I finally gave up

                                                          Give it up. Build the nuclear power plants, use coal. Put pollution scrubbrs on the stacks.

                                                          "Green"-- is a mirage.

                                                          Not going to happen.

                                                          • 5 votes
                                                          Reply#6 - Wed Apr 22, 2009 2:10 PM EDT
                                                          George-313012

                                                          All with an IQ above -10 agree with you

                                                          • 2 votes
                                                          #6.1 - Wed Apr 22, 2009 2:45 PM EDT
                                                          Svenolafson

                                                          Too bad you don't have a stream running through your property. Hydro Electric would work. I researched it years ago. In a perfect world everybody would have a stream running downhill with enough elevation to push a water wheel on their property. i agree Green is a mirage.

                                                          Another way to look at it is this way. Ever been at a job where you got one guy that has all the ideas but wants nothing to do with implementing them? Same thing with this. You get a bunch of Left wing nuts sitting around wondering what would make this world perfect and they come up with this Green ideology. Then they talk it up like it is the second coming and anyone they disagree with is vilified. How can you be against Green technology? It's like a politician saying he's against murder. What candidate running against him is going to disagree?

                                                          What a Crock!

                                                          • 5 votes
                                                          #6.2 - Wed Apr 22, 2009 2:48 PM EDT
                                                          Sigurd Rohwedder

                                                          Dear George and Sven Olafson.

                                                          I'm a big "green" advocate myself. That's why I bought the 50 acres way out in the woods and in the wilderness. I've always been a conservationist and an outdoorsman, and have been investigating all these schemes since they first came around in the 1970's. Followed them all. Now I've got the house I want picked out (prefab, super insulated, super green) but the power design always falls short. I'm on a moutain top, got lots of wind, will have lots of sun. Every time I went to the engineer and asked the question.

                                                          "Ok, what do I have to do to keep this house off the grid (for the tax breaks) and what do I have to do to power up this thing so I can live normally. At that point they all kind of got waffly and trailed off and said "well you may be able to have a 60 watt bulb going in each room....if its not calm.. if you have sun... by the way the battery packs cost $1000 a piece and burn out after a year or two.

                                                          This was AFTER I accepted using a wood stove and conventional oil for heating!

                                                          Sorry-- can't do that.

                                                            #6.3 - Wed Apr 22, 2009 2:58 PM EDT
                                                            tony-268769

                                                            Sigurd....

                                                            What about the applause Mr. Obama received on the Jay Leno show... when he talked about people who don't drive that far during the day going home and plugging in their green vehicles and selling the power that they didn't use that day "back into the grid"...as Mr. Obama stated it ???

                                                            And what about the speeches Mr. Obama gives about his plans for our "green" future, that will create "4 million new jobs"..."3 million new jobs"..."5 million new jobs"...or whichever number of jobs Mr. Obama determines will be created on any given day, by spinning his "How Many New Jobs" big wheel mounted in his office ???

                                                            Tell me, Sigurd....can we not see the forest thru the green ??? Or is Mr. Obama full of hooey for the way he builds up this planned GreenJeans universe of his and tries to sell it to the masses who will pay the GreenJeans bill that Mr. Obama will tabulate and hand to us all ???

                                                            And finally....should Mr. Obama take his message to the 'Ellen', 'Oprah', and 'Tyra' shows and work on getting higher ratings on the applause-o-meter and great big smiles from the hosts ???

                                                            • 4 votes
                                                            #6.4 - Wed Apr 22, 2009 3:30 PM EDT
                                                            kimmmmm

                                                            LOL on your "How many new jobs" wheel!

                                                            • 1 vote
                                                            #6.5 - Wed Apr 22, 2009 3:41 PM EDT
                                                            JEff-NC

                                                            Sigurd,

                                                            I don't know which engineering firm you've been talking to but I can assure you that your case isn't unique and that many around this globe have been relying on solar/wind and other unconventional energy systems.

                                                            You can probably get a few solar panels installed on your roof for your water heating with a collector/tank system (2 bedrooms: ~80 gal tank). That system has been around for decades and has been proven cheap and efficient.

                                                            You could also combine wind and photovoltaic energy with a diesel powered generator that could provide enough electricity for your refrigerator and other appliances.

                                                            The technology is there. It's been done for years in small undeveloped countries and regions like in micronesia where entire communities use that system.

                                                              #6.6 - Wed Apr 22, 2009 4:32 PM EDT
                                                              DB Akron

                                                              Most rivers and streams useable have been already tapped. Those that remain are blocked by environmentalists. YUP, one branch of the green says do this and another says no you don't. No you don'ts win in court most times.

                                                              • 2 votes
                                                              #6.7 - Wed Apr 22, 2009 7:30 PM EDT
                                                              Neg

                                                              DB, you've got that right! Tree huggers not only want to have their cake and eat it too, they want it served on a Government provided platter! At our expense.

                                                              • 2 votes
                                                              #6.8 - Wed Apr 22, 2009 9:25 PM EDT
                                                              Reply
                                                              watch dog

                                                              It sounds like a great idea, but who do we sell these products to. We need private industry to make this go not the obama(Mao) reign. I have no problems with Americans creating a good energy program, but it will not save our economy. There is no proven data that obama can use to back up his plan. I will say that many people are dumb enough to believe all that propogada that the press and White House put out. Let's not put all our eggs in this basket and count on this going anywhere.

                                                              • 4 votes
                                                              Reply#7 - Wed Apr 22, 2009 2:11 PM EDT
                                                              Livingwill

                                                              The world's temprature has slowly begun to start moving downward since 1998, I don't know why people think there is Global Warming when winters have been so cold recently.

                                                              • 3 votes
                                                              #7.1 - Wed Apr 22, 2009 2:15 PM EDT
                                                              smitty63

                                                              Livingwill...they believe what they are fed from the government media troughs;MSNBC, CNN most mainjor media outlets. They are simple ignorant sheep who take the government at it's word because it's easier than researching the truth....how else do you explain the incompetent, bumbling fool currently occupying the White House??

                                                              • 4 votes
                                                              #7.2 - Wed Apr 22, 2009 2:27 PM EDT
                                                              Carl W

                                                              The economy has been shrinking for several quarters--I suppose that means you don't believe in a long-term economic growth trend either.

                                                              Or do you believe that whichever nine years worth of data points in a multi-decade trend you want to be accurate will be accurate?

                                                              • 1 vote
                                                              #7.3 - Wed Apr 22, 2009 2:30 PM EDT
                                                              smitty63

                                                              Carl...step away from the media trough...you've had your fill and it's affecting your ability to reason, just as they had hoped....

                                                              • 2 votes
                                                              #7.4 - Wed Apr 22, 2009 2:36 PM EDT
                                                              mike from florida-535075

                                                              living will.... it is supposed to be cold in winter. and no, there hasnt been warm winters lately. im an avid ice fisherman and i can tell you for a fact that overall, ice has been forming later than normal on lakes and melting quicker in the spring. essentially, the ice fishing season (minus this winter) has been relatively short.

                                                              but most facts and data do prove that the earth is warming. wheater it is man made, natural, or perhaps a combination of both still needs to be proved i believe. but the earth is warming. and its going to be our job to cope with the results of such warming. it can mean everything from more snow in winter, numerous strong hurricanes, and more patterns of drought/ floods.

                                                                #7.5 - Wed Apr 22, 2009 2:40 PM EDT
                                                                mike from florida-535075

                                                                one more reply living will. i really like how u took the truth and distorted it. you are correct when u say that the earth is cooler now than in 1998. partly true

                                                                thats because 1998 was the warmest year ever recorded. so of course every year that does not beat it will be cooler. but that doesnt mean the overal temp or mean temp globally did not continue to go up.

                                                                  #7.6 - Wed Apr 22, 2009 2:47 PM EDT
                                                                  Svenolafson

                                                                  mike,
                                                                  how did the Earth cope with all the other warming and cooling trends before man made his evil internal combustion engine? If you want to make a difference I would suggest protecting the coastal areas where there is a potential for flooding due to whatever. Nobody can stop or slow or reverse what old Mother Nature wants to do so just deal with it and stop trying to enslave the people of the world with fantasy. This is just another grab for power over the people. If you don't think so do a little thinking on it.

                                                                  • 4 votes
                                                                  #7.7 - Wed Apr 22, 2009 2:54 PM EDT
                                                                  mike from florida-535075

                                                                  sven,

                                                                  the earth coped with it with mass extinction events. and your responce suggests that human activity has little or no effect on things like the environment and nature. is this correct?

                                                                    #7.8 - Wed Apr 22, 2009 2:58 PM EDT
                                                                    SirWerd

                                                                    Man does have an impact on the environment but every time we try to correct things we put something else out of wack. We don't have the ability to do the quick corrections we try... we don't have the time to try all the things we want... we don't have the money to do all the things we can. What a mess.

                                                                    • 1 vote
                                                                    #7.9 - Wed Apr 22, 2009 3:20 PM EDT
                                                                    Svenolafson

                                                                    mike,
                                                                    the Earth didn't cope with anything. It's not alive. Animal species coped by evolving and in some instances dying off. Just with your first sentence you proved my point. What you're saying is if we don't do anything about so-called "Climate Change" (which happens with our without us), can't use "Global Warming" anymore cause that paints us into a box, that we or a million animal species will go extinct. Give me a break. You should have just posted; fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear. See how that works? I've been an environmentalist all my life. That's cause I enjoy the great outdoors and have seen nature do some pretty amazing things. I have the perspective of a realist not a altruistic dreamer with an ego so big as to think we, the human race, can change the climate. Oh, and we were talking about the climate, not the environment or nature. Man can change their environment very easily. So can many other species of animals. Big difference between that and changing the climate. Give me a break.

                                                                    • 1 vote
                                                                    #7.10 - Wed Apr 22, 2009 3:35 PM EDT
                                                                    clarke ong

                                                                    The earth is not alive? You are out of your tree dude. All things that you might consider alive consist of the things you would not call alive. The planet acts like a single organizm with systems that work together to provide equilibrium. The cog in that wheel is this thing we call free will or choice. If any part of the system is out of whack, the whole system suffers. Elimination of trees causes desertification which affects the entire climate not just in the deserts, but everywhere. Learn some facts.

                                                                    • 1 vote
                                                                    #7.11 - Wed Apr 22, 2009 4:45 PM EDT
                                                                    Neg

                                                                    Mike, I can tell by your typing you are a very young impressionable person taken in by the Liberal school system. Give it some time, and you'll mature enough to realize what Sven has been trying to tell you.

                                                                    Clarke, you're an idiot.

                                                                    • 1 vote
                                                                    #7.12 - Wed Apr 22, 2009 9:37 PM EDT
                                                                    Reply
                                                                    I.M.Curious

                                                                    19 months to the 'massacreee',as Arlo Guthrie used to say,of the Democrats being reelected to the US House and Senate.RIP Libs,enjoy your time until the axe falls.LMAO

                                                                    • 3 votes
                                                                    Reply#8 - Wed Apr 22, 2009 2:11 PM EDT
                                                                    SirWerd

                                                                    Wish we could go independant. This 2 party stuff isn't working... there are too many sheep on both sides. We need to get back to where the fathers had us. JUST enough government to get things done.

                                                                    • 4 votes
                                                                    #8.1 - Wed Apr 22, 2009 3:26 PM EDT
                                                                    Svenolafson

                                                                    Amen brother!

                                                                    • 2 votes
                                                                    #8.2 - Wed Apr 22, 2009 3:35 PM EDT
                                                                    kimmmmm

                                                                    SirWerd, why can't we go independent?

                                                                    • 1 vote
                                                                    #8.3 - Wed Apr 22, 2009 3:45 PM EDT
                                                                    Svenolafson

                                                                    Cause Teddy Roosevelt is dead.

                                                                    • 1 vote
                                                                    #8.4 - Wed Apr 22, 2009 4:10 PM EDT
                                                                    Reply
                                                                    Mike C-901407

                                                                    Not

                                                                    Well said!

                                                                      Reply#9 - Wed Apr 22, 2009 2:11 PM EDT
                                                                      Last

                                                                      While I would love to have alternative energy there are no grants for residental property owners of single family homes unless it's for multifple low income units. How does that help the average middle class family?

                                                                      I did find some information I'll gladly share with people. If you install a capacitor on your electrical panel box, it will save you 10-40% or more on your electric bill. How it works - electric coming into your house is not a smooth flow. It has multiple surges which you pay for but they are totally lost as use. The capacitor absorbs the surges and gives them back into your system at a smooth even flow. Therefore you use what you've been losing and that means less coming through your meter. Call your local electrician or electrical supply and ask about them. They are far less expensive than installing alternative energy and they work. You can find them on ebay too. With rising electricity costs - ours already went up- this will help you save on your bill and reduce the amount the electric company supplies to you.

                                                                      • 1 vote
                                                                      Reply#10 - Wed Apr 22, 2009 2:11 PM EDT
                                                                      Mike H.a

                                                                      Want to stop Global Warming? Here's a plan! Start planting trees! Rationale: Trees absorb large amounts of solar kinetic energy and convert it to biomass potential energy! (for the Co2 morons, they also absorb Co2 as well). Right now "System" leaders want us to spend billions on a rediculous solution to a real problem. The same money spent on a "real solution to a real problem would get "real results". Wake up America! If it sounds like bull, it probable is. The same idiots that brought us the "subprime fiasco" now want to tell us how to solve the "global warming" by taxing CO2 emmissions. WAKE UP AMERICA!

                                                                      • 8 votes
                                                                      Reply#11 - Wed Apr 22, 2009 2:14 PM EDT
                                                                      mike from florida-535075

                                                                      that is a great idea, but where do you propose to place them all? every day, thousands of acres are lost in the us to deforestation. more forest and fields are turning into concrete and asphalt.

                                                                      trees would make a sensible choice. they absorb alot of CO2, emitt alot of oxygen, can supply habitat for wildlife, supply a renewable source of lumber and even food. plus they are cheap and practically raise themselves.

                                                                        #11.1 - Wed Apr 22, 2009 2:44 PM EDT
                                                                        SirWerd

                                                                        Put more in flood plains of the midwest. With all the water they should thrive and slow down water erosion to boot.

                                                                          #11.2 - Wed Apr 22, 2009 3:29 PM EDT
                                                                          Reply
                                                                          monkeybarrel

                                                                          This is so stupid. Obama is trying to push us all into a new technology that isn't even there yet, and spending spending spending. What a waste of money!!! He's a like a child. He wants it NOW, no matter what the cost, and at the expense of people's jobs. If he would just leave it alone, I believe that, over time, there will be a gradual evolution of energy resources as we learn to invent news ways to get our energy. If we are allowed to adapt to it slowly, we can do it without the cost of jobs, and without spending all this money. Let the free market prevail. The sad part is that all of this is based on junk science that is being used to scare us into thinking we need to do this now. What a high price to pay for a big fat lie!

                                                                          • 7 votes
                                                                          Reply#12 - Wed Apr 22, 2009 2:14 PM EDT
                                                                          Desertgirl

                                                                          Actually, the tech IS there. You can go right now and buy wind turbines from companies here and abroad. You can buy many different types of solar panels. You can tap into geothermal energy.And many countries already use nuclear power.

                                                                          The problem is moving us so far so fast on a large scale without regard to cost (financial, job loss and there WILL eventually be job loss which reduces the net jobs added, and such) or even if moving us large scale can actually supply our energy needs.

                                                                          I don't know if it can or not, but from what I've read we simply can't rely solely on solar and wind because of intermittency. Any experts on here who can proved an objective assessment?

                                                                          • 2 votes
                                                                          #12.1 - Wed Apr 22, 2009 5:34 PM EDT
                                                                          Reply
                                                                          Grumpy Old ####

                                                                          I wonder how many environmentalists are digging deep into their wallets and investing in these companies? With all of their donated millions you would think those "groups" would be the first to get these companiies up and running. Don't hold your breath on that. They don't want to pay anything for it. They just want to tell you that it needs to be done.

                                                                          • 4 votes
                                                                          Reply#13 - Wed Apr 22, 2009 2:16 PM EDT
                                                                          Livingwill

                                                                          Most of them are like Al Gore who uses 20 times the electricity of an average American and has the gall to lecture the country on how they should cut back. I guess he thinks cutting back is for "The little people" the same as RFK jr wanting windmills everywhere except where he can see it from his yacht .

                                                                          • 2 votes
                                                                          #13.1 - Wed Apr 22, 2009 2:24 PM EDT
                                                                          justryintogetby

                                                                          these environmentalists are the same liberals who got Odumbo elected to start with...they think someone else should pay for it

                                                                          • 2 votes
                                                                          #13.2 - Wed Apr 22, 2009 2:26 PM EDT
                                                                          mike from florida-535075

                                                                          justtryin.....

                                                                          i didnt agree and still dont agree with the iraq war. yet im paying for it. i bet you were a bush supporter who approved of his actions. so if its alright for me to pay for an illegal war, im sure you can shell up for some green jobs

                                                                            #13.3 - Wed Apr 22, 2009 2:50 PM EDT
                                                                            kimmmmm

                                                                            To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.

                                                                            Thomas Jefferson

                                                                              #13.4 - Wed Apr 22, 2009 3:47 PM EDT
                                                                              Reply
                                                                              justryintogetby

                                                                              Green jobs are all HYPE...HYPE.....HYPE...just like all the bluster and wind that got Odumbo elected...this is a WASTE of US time and resources and misdirection away from the real problems so the idiots can further their Socialist agenda without anyone noticing

                                                                              • 2 votes
                                                                              Reply#14 - Wed Apr 22, 2009 2:19 PM EDT
                                                                              Livingwill

                                                                              Here is a site that shows over 31,000 scientists that think there is not nearly enough evidence that global warming exists to ratify Kyoto. These are real scientists not the 2,500 "scientists" that are in the IPPC report which include Greenpeace advocates as scientists.

                                                                              • 5 votes
                                                                              Reply#15 - Wed Apr 22, 2009 2:21 PM EDT
                                                                              jbavoso

                                                                              Going "green" costs alot of "green", and the average American while saying he or she wants to go "green", the cost of making it a trend would turn people off if they really dig into the information.

                                                                              Look at two (2) "green" products...cars and solar panels. The hybrid car costs more to buy, more to operate and more to maintain, and until the utility plants which provide the electricity to recharge the car's batteries are made much more efficient, the hybrid's operating costs far surpass those of a "normal" vehicle.

                                                                              Solar panels...by the time the user makes his or her original investment back, the panels would need to be replaced. Also, in the Northeast you don't get the amount of sunlight needed to provide all the households domestic hot water needs, so those homes need a backup system, and that backup systems could be electric...the most expensive way to heat water.

                                                                              So the campaign promises of BHO sounded good coming off the teleprompter, but in "real life" are just promises, that if put into effect, will bankrupt this country.

                                                                              • 1 vote
                                                                              Reply#16 - Wed Apr 22, 2009 2:21 PM EDT
                                                                              The Difference

                                                                              even worse the batteries in those hybrid vehicles are very "ungreen" they have to be replaced at the tune of $10,000. The nickle to make them is mined in Canada and shipped to Japan to make the battery and it has a 100,000 mile life. Talk about carbon foot print.

                                                                              • 2 votes
                                                                              #16.1 - Wed Apr 22, 2009 2:45 PM EDT
                                                                              Svenolafson

                                                                              Electric cars make me laugh. You know the ones that you plug in and can go about 40 miles? Yeah, that electricity just walks up and jumps into the battery. That can't be it. Not possible. Oh, that's right. It's plugged into an outlet and the electricity comes from a coal fired power plant and on top of that the grid is about 50% efficient so you lose half the power generated through transmission. It ends up, if you measure stupid stuff like carbon footprints, having a larger one than the gas powered car your neighbor has. But I feel so much better about myself and I'm so much better than everybody else.

                                                                              • 2 votes
                                                                              #16.2 - Wed Apr 22, 2009 3:44 PM EDT
                                                                              James Collier

                                                                              Let me say up front that both my wife and I work in the oil industry, accumulating over 60 years service. For the life of me, I cannot understand why an industry that has survived for over 100 years, fueled the greatest economic century in history, weathered numerous boom and bust cycles, overcome some of the most daunting engineering challenges and political instability around the world, enabled the winning of two world wars against tyranny and is still out there hard at work trying to find more energy sources, is demonized and hated when it actually should be esteemed. This backwards attitude is what happens when politicians turn a benign issue into an emotional, radicalized, populist divisive campaign plank. Divide and conquer. Green energy, based on reversing unproved and highly unlikely human-caused global warming, is another one of these emotional feel-good boondoggles.

                                                                              • 1 vote
                                                                              #16.3 - Wed Apr 22, 2009 5:46 PM EDT
                                                                              Neg

                                                                              James, answer? LIBERALS!

                                                                              • 1 vote
                                                                              #16.4 - Wed Apr 22, 2009 9:43 PM EDT
                                                                              Reply
                                                                              kenton-1045396

                                                                              The Climate Change Hoax will be the next feel good false economy to create havoc across our nation.

                                                                              The current crisis was caused by feel good legislation ignoring the reality of the housing market and demanding that everyone deserved a home regardless of their ability to pay. Wall street using computer modeling to fool regulators sold bogus investments.

                                                                              Even as the idiots in Washington wring their hands and point fingers blaming all but themselves, they press on creating the NEXT crisis of unintended consequences by sponsoring Cap and Trade TAXES based on the fraud oc Climate Change.

                                                                              Wall street is selling GREEN. Science has been captured by religious environmentalist and create "studies" to promote their forgone conclusions. Senators like Rockefeller and Snowe use mafia like tactics against those that resist the schemes.

                                                                              The selling of the GREEN has the ability to damage our country's economy more than the the current crisis. How much more can we withstand before a total collapse?

                                                                              The false econmy of Climate Change will have the same result as the false economy of the DOT COM scams and the current false economy created in the MORTGAGE scam.

                                                                                Reply#17 - Wed Apr 22, 2009 2:21 PM EDT
                                                                                gus-724628

                                                                                Can we somehow just hold our breath until the next election? I think we could stop all the madness with a recall election today. The new motto of the Democrat left should be "help I've fallen and I can't get up." The NBA has a phrase "these guys are good" I have one for the left. THESE GUYS ARE NUTS!!!

                                                                                  Reply#18 - Wed Apr 22, 2009 2:23 PM EDT
                                                                                  justryintogetby

                                                                                  Holding our breath might work....except it will just allow the liberal left to take over....apathy by true Americans is what got us here in the first place...not a left or right thing really.....just people who believe in the Constitution not caring enough to make ourselves be heard and allowing it to be violated like it has....the scary thing to me is how all these leftists are polluting the mind of our young and even educated and wise who should know better with these socialist ideas and making them think they are viable, American values

                                                                                  • 2 votes
                                                                                  #18.1 - Wed Apr 22, 2009 2:34 PM EDT
                                                                                  Svenolafson

                                                                                  just
                                                                                  I wish it were apathy. It is actually stupidity. A bunch of college kids got the idea that it would be great to go vote for Obama. That's what got him in. Ask any of them about the Constitution and you'd probably end up with a vacant stare or asked if that's the last name of the really cute guy with the good voice on American Idle.

                                                                                  • 2 votes
                                                                                  #18.2 - Wed Apr 22, 2009 3:46 PM EDT
                                                                                  Reply
                                                                                  Clay White

                                                                                  HYPE....MORE HYPE....MORE LIBERAL DEMOCRATIC SPIN for Al Gore and his idiot followers. These are the ultimate spinmeisters !!! Going green; much to do about nothing and BS.

                                                                                  The minority in this country think they can rule the world. I've got news for them; they cannot and will not. While these idiots worry about going green in this country; you've got China the biggest polluter doing nothing and same is true for Russia. Why should my tax dollars and increased living costs support the rest of the world who doesn't give a damn.

                                                                                  Think it's time for the people of the U.S. to get their heads screwed on straight and start addressing the real issues; national security, wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, unemployment, foreclosures, corruption in Washington DC and Wall Street. It's time for Barney Franks, Christopher Dodd and several others to join Madoff.

                                                                                   

                                                                                   

                                                                                   

                                                                                   

                                                                                   

                                                                                  • 3 votes
                                                                                  Reply#19 - Wed Apr 22, 2009 2:28 PM EDT
                                                                                  sharky.

                                                                                  clay: you forgot to defend torture like the rest of your nut case cohorts

                                                                                    #19.1 - Wed Apr 22, 2009 2:36 PM EDT
                                                                                    gus-724628

                                                                                    One difference between the way we get information and the way the terrorists do is we don't cut Antone's head off.

                                                                                    • 1 vote
                                                                                    #19.2 - Wed Apr 22, 2009 2:42 PM EDT
                                                                                    smitty63

                                                                                    Torture with results that save American lives = "Good". If you could save a loved one Sharky, by torturing someone to get information that would save their life, are you telling me you wouldn't torture that person? If not that makes you nothing but a passive coward....

                                                                                    • 2 votes
                                                                                    #19.3 - Wed Apr 22, 2009 2:42 PM EDT
                                                                                    justryintogetby

                                                                                    hey sharky ...you better be glad there are people out there willing to do what needs to be done to protect you...because you obviously are one of the ones who probably wouldn't even have the guts to pick up a gun and defend your OWN family let alone someone else's rights.....if you haven't heard the people who were waterboarded were fanatical terrorists....NOT VICTIMS

                                                                                    • 1 vote
                                                                                    #19.4 - Wed Apr 22, 2009 2:43 PM EDT
                                                                                    The Difference

                                                                                    They will not be willing any more. The precedent has been set that CIA documents will be released simply to try and embarrass a past administration.

                                                                                    • 1 vote
                                                                                    #19.5 - Wed Apr 22, 2009 2:48 PM EDT
                                                                                    sharky.

                                                                                    just: I'm a vet who was taught to follow the rules of the Geneva convention but thats just me i guess. i'm sure all of you nut cases just know that our constitution is to be ignored when the other guys dont play fair. maybe next time you'll be on a blog defending cutting off genitals of terrorists.

                                                                                      #19.6 - Wed Apr 22, 2009 2:51 PM EDT
                                                                                      smitty63

                                                                                      sharky...if you're such a scholar you know the Geneva convention has nothing to do with terrorists. Nor does our Constitution address such things as torture or warfare...shove your head back in the sand, coward...roll over and just let 'em have at you like the little bitch you are...

                                                                                      • 2 votes
                                                                                      #19.7 - Wed Apr 22, 2009 3:06 PM EDT
                                                                                      SirWerd

                                                                                      Guys... Lets try to kep it civil. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. That's what I served for. Let's also remember that a little discomfort is worth the saved lives. Most of the "torture" done by the US is soft compared to that done by the countries complaining. We don't put splinters under peoples nails, beat their genitals with ropes, whip them on a daily, starve them, or keep them awake for weeks at a time.

                                                                                      • 1 vote
                                                                                      #19.8 - Wed Apr 22, 2009 3:42 PM EDT
                                                                                      Svenolafson

                                                                                      SirWerd,
                                                                                      Well said. It's all a matter of perspective. I served as well and i agree that everyone is entitled to their opinion. They are also entitled to the repercussions of their opinions too.

                                                                                      • 2 votes
                                                                                      #19.9 - Wed Apr 22, 2009 3:50 PM EDT
                                                                                      Rick in BH

                                                                                      Exactly! And when the Shrub, Fat Basturd & Rummy are sitting in a padded cell at Supermax, I will finally feel safer from these terrorists.

                                                                                        #19.10 - Wed Apr 22, 2009 7:44 PM EDT
                                                                                        Reply
                                                                                        Howie-300599

                                                                                        Overall there may be sustainable jobs down the road but the near future, the jobs created will not keep up with the job losses of the past 6 months and those that will be lost over the remainder of 2009.

                                                                                        An entire infrastructure will need to be created to provide the "Green" energy, that will take years to build up. As the "Tree huggers" continue to push for a green energy sources they still have the NIMBY mentality. Ask the people of Massachusetts where Green firms ahve been trying to install wind turbines in Nantucket Sound for years. Even Ted Kennedy doesn't want them.

                                                                                        • 3 votes
                                                                                        Reply#20 - Wed Apr 22, 2009 2:29 PM EDT
                                                                                        Livingwill

                                                                                        Ted Kennedy does want them but only for "the little people" not someone as important as a Kennedy.

                                                                                        • 1 vote
                                                                                        #20.1 - Wed Apr 22, 2009 2:35 PM EDT
                                                                                        gus-724628

                                                                                        Anyone thinking the people have a clue is nuts themselves.

                                                                                          #20.2 - Wed Apr 22, 2009 2:46 PM EDT
                                                                                          Reply
                                                                                          Kate-515777

                                                                                          Green energy is many years away in terms of actually being affordable and efficient. Its a pipe dream that COULD be viable in a very small way and only if there is enough money and time spent on these alternatives. Don't pin your hopes on these!

                                                                                          The ONLY solution to the problem of climate change, dwindling resources, and a slowly toppling global economy is to let go of the fantasy that we can all live like kings- which we have become used to over the last 30+ years.

                                                                                          Small, local economies, locally grown food, low-energy transportation (not Hybrids!) such as bikes, scooters, and full buses, super-insulated and smaller homes, neighborhoods joining together to take care of each other- these are the only way we will make it. We used to know how to live much more simply, and now we have to relearn. Get some practical skills and get ready!

                                                                                          • 1 vote
                                                                                          Reply#21 - Wed Apr 22, 2009 2:31 PM EDT
                                                                                          Livingwill

                                                                                          What climate change? The temprature peaked in 1998, it's been 11 years! How long do we have to be getting cooler until this Global Warming nonsense goes into the trash can where it belongs? We aren't running out of any natural resources at all with the possible exception of liquid oil which can be easily replaced by tar sand, shale oil and coal liquidification.

                                                                                            #21.1 - Wed Apr 22, 2009 2:38 PM EDT
                                                                                            Svenolafson

                                                                                            Livingwill,
                                                                                            The climate is changing. It changed today, yesterday, the day before and I can say, without question, it will change tomorrow.

                                                                                            • 2 votes
                                                                                            #21.2 - Wed Apr 22, 2009 3:52 PM EDT
                                                                                            Reply
                                                                                            Bernie-294418

                                                                                            All the "neeolibs" are for wind turbines.....that is, as long as the wind turbines are not off Ted Kennedy's beach!!!!!

                                                                                              Reply#22 - Wed Apr 22, 2009 2:34 PM EDT
                                                                                              gus-724628

                                                                                              Put them on the White House lawn. If hot air helps they should spin like tops.

                                                                                                #22.1 - Wed Apr 22, 2009 2:48 PM EDT
                                                                                                The Difference

                                                                                                And where is PETA when it comes to the turbines or as we call them at my house. "bird processors"

                                                                                                  #22.2 - Wed Apr 22, 2009 2:49 PM EDT
                                                                                                  Bernie-294418

                                                                                                  The Difference,

                                                                                                  Q. How do you prepare a chicken for cooking?

                                                                                                  A. You tell him he's going to die!!

                                                                                                    #22.3 - Wed Apr 22, 2009 3:40 PM EDT
                                                                                                    SirWerd

                                                                                                    Get yourself over to some of the new turbine sites. There are turbines the can be put up anywhere and not risk birds. Even turbines designed for houses and apartments. Though small they still require capital most do not have.

                                                                                                      #22.4 - Wed Apr 22, 2009 3:46 PM EDT
                                                                                                      Reply
                                                                                                      dogmeat

                                                                                                      The report predicted that by 2030 those two sectors will employ 16 million people, and that aggressive government policies could boost the number to 37 million people — 17 percent of the total U.S. workforce.

                                                                                                      somebody been smokin way too much reefer, to come up with a pipe dream such as this.

                                                                                                        Reply#23 - Wed Apr 22, 2009 2:35 PM EDT
                                                                                                        Svenolafson

                                                                                                        dogmeat,
                                                                                                        That's where all the great ideas come from. World peace is another one.

                                                                                                        • 1 vote
                                                                                                        #23.1 - Wed Apr 22, 2009 3:53 PM EDT
                                                                                                        Reply
                                                                                                        Matt-869261

                                                                                                        Obama's Green crap is going to put us in 3rd world status... why do we always have freaking "math dumb" lawyers in congress or the presidency. The payback period on solar panels is 20 years assuming nothing ever goes wrong.. yeah right. Waste of time.. same for windmills.... All of this green crap is measured in 10'S OF KILOWATTS..... coal and Nuke plants are measured in HUNDREDS OF MEGAWATTS... a MEGA is 1000 times a KILO.... accordingly, coal and nukle plant generate 10,000 times the power. Is OBAMA a math idiot??.. Where does he think our electricity comes from???... COAL mainly... and Nules run 24/7 as our baseline. All of this green @!$%# is garbage and a waste of time and energy. We should be building Nukes and coal plants to reduce electric rates and make ourselves more competitive with China.

                                                                                                         

                                                                                                          Reply#24 - Wed Apr 22, 2009 2:35 PM EDT
                                                                                                          sharky.

                                                                                                          matt: nukes yes, coal plants are not needed, we have enough natural gas to boil water to run turbines.

                                                                                                          • 2 votes
                                                                                                          #24.1 - Wed Apr 22, 2009 2:40 PM EDT
                                                                                                          Reply
                                                                                                          kanewolves

                                                                                                          The only practical source of power is nuclear. We have to get over this fear of things nuclear. Navy ships have been running on nuclear power for sixty years. Wind and Solar sources of power are unreliable and super expensive. America needs an open and honest debate on all sources of energy before we commit to any energy plan.

                                                                                                          • 1 vote
                                                                                                          Reply#25 - Wed Apr 22, 2009 2:37 PM EDT
                                                                                                          sharky.

                                                                                                          nukes are a good alternative but it takes 20 years to get one built and it should. one mistake in location or design can have catastrophic consequences. a better idea is to upgrade the existing nukes with the latest technology . it takes less time and eliminates the NIMBY problem

                                                                                                            #25.1 - Wed Apr 22, 2009 2:43 PM EDT
                                                                                                            SirWerd

                                                                                                            Research the new nuclear technologies. Pellet plants can't even melt down. If we told Greenpeace to shutup we might have a nuclear grid by now and thus the ability to go electric with cars. We might even have fuel cell tech by now. Once again KNEEJERK reactions messing things up for everyone.

                                                                                                              #25.2 - Wed Apr 22, 2009 3:51 PM EDT
                                                                                                              Desertgirl

                                                                                                              One of the reasons it takes so (at least to my understanding) is because of the way our laws are written. I'm not saying that building a nuclear plant shouldn't take time but we shouldn't overlook our onerous regulations on building them.

                                                                                                              Maybe we should take a clue from Obama who at that Latin American summit/conference/convention/whatever said that other countries have good ideas too. Soooo, maybe we could ask the French for some good ideas about nuclear plants?

                                                                                                                #25.3 - Wed Apr 22, 2009 5:39 PM EDT
                                                                                                                Reply
                                                                                                                Jump to discussion page: 1 2 3 ... 8
                                                                                                                Leave a Comment:
                                                                                                                You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead.
                                                                                                                You're in XHTML Mode. If you prefer, you can use Easy Mode instead.
                                                                                                                (XHTML tags allowed - a,b,blockquote,br,code,dd,dl,dt,del,em,h2,h3,h4,i,ins,li,ol,p,pre,q,strong,ul)
                                                                                                                Newsvine Privacy Statement
                                                                                                                As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
                                                                                                                FUN STUFF:
                                                                                                                • Leaderboard |
                                                                                                                • E-Mail Alerts |
                                                                                                                • Top of the Vine |
                                                                                                                • Newsvine Live |
                                                                                                                • Newsvine Archives |
                                                                                                                • The Greenhouse
                                                                                                                COMPANY STUFF:
                                                                                                                • Code of Honor |
                                                                                                                • Company Info |
                                                                                                                • Contact Us |
                                                                                                                • Jobs |
                                                                                                                • User Agreement |
                                                                                                                • Privacy Policy |
                                                                                                                • About our ads
                                                                                                                LEGAL STUFF:
                                                                                                                • © 2005-2012 Newsvine, Inc. |
                                                                                                                • Newsvine® is a registered trademark of Newsvine, Inc. |
                                                                                                                • Newsvine is a property of msnbc.com