No.
We can't simply snap our fingers and fix global warming. It's going to take hard work to do it and still keep things going.
We need to conserve energy. That doesn't mean not doing things, it means doing them more efficiently.
We need to develop alternative energy sources, nuclear, solar, wind, bio fuels. It's going to take time and what we'll do is gradually replace fossil fuels over many years.
Done right we can do it with minimum disruption of our lives. What you propose is both impossible as a practical matter and politically. It's utterly unrealistic.
2007-03-27 11:28:22
·
answer #1
·
answered by Bob 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
You'd have a pretty difficult time defining the term "green" as even enviornmentalists cannot agree on such technologies.
Biomass takes up an enormous amount of land on large scales and generates greenhouse gases (though some consider it "balanced".
Wind turbines are unsightly and pose a threat to avian wildlife. Not to mention they only work when there is wind.
Solar is the best green energy, but doesn't work at night. The batteries to store the energy for nightime use are terrible for the environment.
Ocean turbines, like wind turbines, would be unsightly and potentially pose a threat to marine life, migration patterns and may get damaged by ocean traffic and storms, requiring frequent repair.
Even straight hydrogen burning can sometimes get a bad rap as the water vapor could potentially trap more heat than CO2.
I would support a pure solar and hydrogen infrastructure, but that's about it.
2007-03-27 17:13:14
·
answer #2
·
answered by Dave M 2
·
2⤊
1⤋
You can't ban whole industrys for one thing thousands of people would be put out of work,towns would dry up and more people would be on unemployment and welfare.
To go 'green' you would be taking corn from 3rd world mouths to feed gas tanks. Plus green anything is not economic and slows down everything and everyone. If you like to stop using cars and start walking everywhere, aside from not being able to power up your computer ,go green now and see how far you actually can get.
2007-03-27 17:13:02
·
answer #3
·
answered by Tapestry6 7
·
2⤊
1⤋
NO MY GOD
To supply all the world with solar, we would need 8 times the present glass industry (to give them their coating)...
It would represent a 1000x1000 km area ideally located in the Sahara...
Suppliers of windmills also can´t face the demand... and even for gas turbines (lower carbon intensity) there is a waiting list..
Well, just to give you an idea... we´re not totally ready... we´re working on it but you might have to wait till 2050 probably
2007-03-27 17:13:00
·
answer #4
·
answered by NLBNLB 6
·
1⤊
1⤋
Would you support the death of millions of people on life support, whose life depends on those *baaad* fossil-fuel power plants, and diesel-burning backup generators?
Would you support the fall of every major world economy and throw the whole world back into the dark ages?
I think not.
It's a nice sentiment, but there isn't nearly enough green energy around, so until that day, we are stuck with fossil fuel.
.
2007-03-27 17:08:42
·
answer #5
·
answered by tlbs101 7
·
3⤊
1⤋
No. It makes no economic sense to do so.
2007-03-27 17:05:39
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
1⤋
YEAH!!!!!!
2007-03-27 17:44:55
·
answer #7
·
answered by Eli R 1
·
0⤊
2⤋