Both the troubles in the middle-east and climate change center on the use of oil. Oil as an energy source has led us into war, fouled the air, and interrupts our economic expansion because of shortages.
Even if climate change science is wrong, our need for oil has created the worst national defense problem since WWII. Isn't it time we see the light?
At the present rate of advancement, we are 25 to 35 years away from being able to use hydrogen as a fuel source. The question is, can we wait that long.
Should research and development of hydrogen fuel be handled like the Manhatten Project during WWII? Could such a commitment cut that time line down considerably?
2007-04-26 02:02:57 · 5 answers · asked by Perplexed Bob 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
In reality, one of the first green cars, built in the late 80s, ran totally on hydrogen fuel cells. I retired from the company that developed the technology. The technology is a lot further advanced than the public realizes. Proprietary patent and technology rights prevent the public access to this technology.
We have to pull 'off the grid' as much as possible as Americans to help end our dependency on fossil fuels.
Burning dinosaurs is stone age technology.
2007-04-26 02:11:41 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Emissions play a part in climate change, but only a percentage. The world has seen much wider swings in the past than we are currently seeing.
See
http://www.stuffintheair.com/ancient-climates.html
for some examples.
2007-04-26 04:39:01 · answer #2 · answered by Radiosonde 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, No, in that order...
2007-04-26 02:06:21 · answer #3 · answered by Ryan F 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
there is no wall, you guys won't let us put it up.......
Cheers and have a nice day!
2007-04-26 02:06:10 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
I love graffiti too. I draw clowns.
2007-04-26 02:05:44 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋