If we have the solutions to pollution, why are we not using them more, like wind farms, electric cars, etc.?

Question

For instance, yeah a nice mean looking car, that goes over 150mph sure is nice, i guess, but is not the planets well being more essential to our childrens future, why should they clean up our mess, would it better ro do it now and save alot of pain and suffering. So there is the full question, why do we not start making more of an effort, and why do some countries continue to pollute and at such a high level? Saying that Nuclear is green and there is no risk, we all know that nuclear is dangerous and the waste from it is just as lethal.

Answer 1

-----------
You can do something. Drive an electric car. You don't have to wait for the latest technology to get cheap - there are small entreprenuers right now making inexpensive electric car conversions that do freeway speeds and look and drive like any other car.
*
The best news is that an electric car conversion can be had for as little as $5000. I drive one of these cars, and it saves me well over $100 per month in gasoline costs. More details here:
*
http://www.squidoo.com/cheap-electric-car/
*
---------------

Answer 2

The answer is that the will is not there - the technologies are available, but they are often more expensive currently than conventional technologies. This means that businesses lose some of their profit margin if they produce 'greener' products instead of conventional. As profit is king, this is a big demotivator.

An example is refridgerators and freezers - high efficiency models are available, yet the low efficiency ones are still on the market, cheaper to make and cheaper to buy. If these were phased out, the high efficiency model could be made in higher numbers. Economies of scale would mean costs, and prices, could come down. But the phasing out is unlikely to happen off the backs of the manufacturers - this needs government intervention (in the same way as catalytic converters on cars were made a legal requirement).

As David M says, we need to focus on efficiency - and in the long run, this will save us money - if you turn off the lights in rooms of your house that you're not using, that saves your electricity bill. Think about it!

Pollution isn't the only problem - oil supplies will eventually run out, it makes sense to a) stretch those resources further by increasing efficiency, and b) look for viable alternatives and bring them onstream sooner, so we don't get caught short, or caught in a bidding war for the fuel that remains - as seems effectively to be happening to Georgia at the moment.

The problem is pressing, as small rises in sea level globally will cause many river flood plains to be swamped. These are where the majority of the world's food is produced, and also happens to be where large parts of the world's population live.

The problem has been, and remains, a lack of awareness, and lack of will.

Answer 3

The U.S. holds less than 5 percent of the world's population but produces nearly 25 percent of carbon emissions. There is the place to start!!!!

Nuclear power Supplies a sixth of the world's electricity carbon-free. So without it where would we be?

Claus Rolfs, a physicist at the Ruhr University in Bochum, Germany, has shown that radioactive half life can be reduced using metals. Modern nuclear reactors are safe and the ones being built now simply cannot melt down or go critical.

Without nuclear power the world cannot reduce carbon emmissions in any meaningful way!

Whilst there are many alternative enrgy sources none are as yet capable of scaling up to any usefull degree so they will continue at the present to provide only a few percent of world energy needs.

Bio fuels are coming along but have significant problems for the world too. Sugar cane has doubles in price and corn prices are rising due to biofuel production. Afforestation is growing to grow the crops!

The single most useful thing at present, after nuclear power is Innovation & Efficiency. Hundreds of power plants are not needed today because the world has invested in much more efficient refrigerators, air conditioners and motors than were available two decades ago. Hundreds of oil and gas fields have been developed more slowly because aircraft and car engines consume less fuel and the windows in heated homes leak less heat.

What would really help though is for greens to stop pushing an agenda and look at the down sides as well as the up for many of the things they espouse. We need good science backed up by honest and open debate.

Answer 4

sometimes the people incharge including politicians don't want to get their job opportunities gone. Plus it's expensive to start something new. it's not so easy you know. I feel what you want to say but there is so much more consider. I feel like the next generation kids are going to take the full grunt of what our current generation is doing in terms of pollution damage.

There is a rule of thumb. Ecological technology is something that is required or available for the specific area. Say you can have hydrogen powered cells in the US or any developed nation because they have the $$$$$. In a third world country, you need to focus on the people not technology. So don't get your hopes down yet. people are really creative creature and we can survive anything. i fear we may just find out the hard way.

Answer 5

It's a nice idea, but, as ever, it's just not as simple as it sounds.

For example, take wind farms. You would need a farm of 1500 turbines to replace even a small conventional power station. Where are you going to put such a huge thing? And remember, when the wind doesn't blow, you get zero power!

Similarly, electric cars have problems. I'd be happy to drive one, but it's just not practical at present. I park out on the road, about 30m from my house. How do I recharge the darn thing?

I'm all for doing things in a greener way (I have solar heated hot water, for example - not that it's much use at this time of year!), but we have to be practical and realistic about it.

Answer 6

I think (at least in the U.S.) the government is lazy and cheap. I'm big into the environment, but my biggest problem is that the electric cars, the windmill powered electricity, etc. is overpriced. Believe me, I would rather use the stuff that is better for the environment. I sincerely do wish that I could afford to. I try my best to do my part by conserving and recycling and those sorts of things. It's sad when the average working class person can't afford to save their own planet!

Answer 7

In the UK the government make it almost impossible to do anything green due to all the legislation.

I am starting a business producing biodiesel, an environmental diesel made from vegetable oil with little polluting effect. It has taken us 6 months up to now and we still do not have all the licences etc required to start legally. The government need to make it easier to start this sort of business and not obstruct everything.

Answer 8

It's easier to spend money on what you know than what you don't know. Many people don't know how these "green" things work, so they chuck the ideas and keep the pollution going. Besides, once the wind farms are built, the electric cars charging up, where and how will the petroleum producers make money?

Answer 9

Ask your government... especially in the United States where everything is based on the GNP or Gross Domestic Product and capitalism is king.

About nuclear.... think about it..... spent plutonium rods in hydrochloric acid... plutonium 239 half life is 24000 years.....how long before it is no longer considered to be dangerous? hmmmmm, longer than what most of us are going to be around. Bury it at Yucca Mountain? ( an inactive fault line) Now there is a great idea. Another joke of the government

Answer 10

UK gov survey gives sme answers, eg: - "Green" energy saving options are seen as making you look poor;
and: Don't rely on people's concern for their children's future
Research suggests that people with children are no more likely to be concerned about the effects of climate change on the lives of future generations than people without children. Arguably, parents have more pressing short-term concerns than non-parents with fewer commitments and higher levels of leisure time and disposable income.
- Don't even rely on people's concern for their own future
The human instinct for survival is strong. But evidence suggests that it only really works in the immediate term, and rarely works collectively. Think about how many people smoke, even when they know the harm they are doing themselves in the long term – and how much harm they do to others."


People don't like their behaviour being challanged - and wind farms are a reminder that fossil fuel is finite.

as for electric cars, see www.whokilledtheelectriccar.com