Baby Boomers - Are you for or against lowering our CO2 emissions?

Question

Do you think we should rally for everyone to go a low carbon diet?
Alternative fuels, hybrids, walking, etc.

Answer 1

-------------
Wouldn't it be great if we could reduce emissions and pollutants, and save money at the same time?
*
Believe it or not, we can. I know because I do this. I drive an electric car. Yes, they are available. No, most of the oil-industry sponsored disinformation you hear about them is not true.
*
Take a look at this link. It talks about buying an electric vehicle for as little as $5000. :
*
http://www.squidoo.com/cheap-electric-car/
*
Driving an electric car is CHEAP. Electricity costs only about one cent per mile. If you have an old technology electric car, you'll have to replace batteries every 20,000 miles or so. But my battery pack costs $850 to replace, so that's about 4 cents per mile. Added to electricity, my total cost per mile is FIVE CENTS. That's lots cheaper than gas, folks.
*
New technology EVs have batteries that can last much longer. Take a look at a state-of-the-art EV:
*
http://phoenixmotorcars.com/models/fleet.html
*
The Phoenix electric pickup truck - using new, advanced Altairnano batteries (based on research from MIT) - can:

-Travel up to 250 miles per charge
-Carry 5 passengers plus cargo at 95mph.
-Charges batteries in as little as TEN MINUTES.
-Has batteries that last 250,000 miles (never need replacement.)
*
Do EVs cause pollution because powerplants burn dirty fuel? Not very much. EV's are several times more efficient than gas-powered cars, so much less pollution is created, even when dirty fuel is burned. But if this concerns you, put a solar panel on your garage, and drive for ZERO cents per mile, with ZERO pollution.
--------

Answer 2

If I want to be nice I say I'm for. Low carbon diets make no sense though, we need carbohydrates as a source of energy and I don't think the Atkins diet is very healthy. Moreover we are part of a closed carbon loop this way. In the end we emit as much as we take in, Only the burning of fossil fuels, like oil, gas and coal contribute to an increase of the CO2 level in the atmosphere.

Alternative fuel would mean hydrogen. And yes, the development of hydrogen technology and infrastructure should be top priority, but essentially hydrogen technology is only a way to store energy. If the energy used to make hydrogen out of water comes from burning fossil fuels it makes no difference at all. The combination with wind turbines seems ideal, but in practice wind turbines appear to be very demanding in terms of maintenance, especially at sea or along coast lines. But it has been calculated that an area as big as France in the Sahara could generate enough solar energy to supply the entire world. So there are possibilities in desert areas, but setting up the installations will be quite expensive. I'm afraid that we will remain using oil until the exploitation of oil fields will become comparably expensive.

Hybrids? Seems a nice idea, but they only result in a slower use of fossil fuels. It does not really make a difference if the same amount of oil is burned over a longer period: the end result is too much CO2 either way; it would only take a bit longer. A better idea is burning biofuel: either vegetable oils that can be used to fuel diesel engines or alcohol derived from sugar. For these are fuels that do not increase the amount of CO2 because. again, the same amount that is emitted is assimilated by the plants used to make the fuel.

Walking? Well, who will be willing to give up their car? And even if it would become a fashion in the western world, which is of course very doubtful, there's a "third world" in development and the net result will still be more cars, more planes, more and bigger ships, trucks and so on. It won't work.

What else do we have. Nuclear fission does not contribute to CO2 emissions but leaves us with a hardly solvable question of nuclear waste, a more dangerous world and enormous environmental damage at places where uranium can be found. Nuclear fusion is in development but still far from practically exploitable.

The discussion continues. Many options ARE being considered. But apart from a totally new technology that some people expect to be found in the next few years, a solution seems far away....

Answer 3

I'm for CO2 because I like plants. Without carbon dioxide there would be no plant life on the planet. I am all for reducing pollution but carbon dioxide is not a pollutant.

Incidentally, the earth would be warming even if there were no humans or CO2 spewing machines.

Answer 4

when baby boomers were in school, scientists told us in no uncertain terms that excess CO2 was the cause of the ice ages. now "they" are telling us its the exact opposite. with out a doubt we have put a lot of CO2 up in the air, and cleaning up our methods of energy production is a great idea on its own merits.

Answer 5

I'm a 1951-model boomer and I think lowering CO2 emissions is one of the most urgent issues facing us today.

Answer 6

CO2 is not a problem. We have many environmental problems that need immediate attention. This global warming nonsense is diverting efforts from real problems and is going to paint environmentalists as crackpots when the truth becomes clear to everyone.

Answer 7

I support anyones personal choice to do so, and I will personally adopt any of these that will save me money. I oppose any government attempt to control my lifestyle or force me to do things because they know what's best.