A global warning Issue?

So then, you agree there is no consensus.

 

No, I am not a scientist. I do, however, drop some science from time to time.

 

He did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

 

And the science is settled.

 

I don't think you can deny that Bush's disgusting record on the environment and refusal to sign Kyoto is responsible for climate change before humans were here. Amerikkka's foreign policy also lead to the Punic war in 264 BC. America's illegal and immoral use of time travel has also caused thousands of innocent mulsims to die in the crusades. All I know is that Bush stole two elections and now dinosaurs are extinct. There was absolutely nothing in any of his illegal budgets to preserve the dinosaurs. The hottest day on record was in 1922 in Libya, how can you deny that Reagan didn't trade hostages for Co2 credits? I know for a fact that Bush caused environmental catastrophe before humans were here: someone got it on their camera phone and posted it to youtube.

Typical Republican.

 

Uh-oh, cat flatulence has now drifted to Neptune.

This is becoming too easy.

 

So anyone else read The Economist's fifteen-page supplement about green technology and economics? Great stuff--and encouraging, too, for the handful of companies that are pursuing it. Other companies (Exxon Mobil, I'm looking at you) appear to be following the Big Three automaker's business plan.

 

I bought it to read on the flight to Florida, and then promptly left it on the plane.

We're thinking of tackling a climate change issue for my corporate finance project.

Sachin

 

Curious--did you read it on the flight?

It's interesting stuff. That industry is becoming huge right now, because global warming is only one factor that makes it appealing. The only thing that concerns me is that other countries may leave the US in the dust--Denmark, Germany, and even China are investing huge amounts of money in green technology right now. Silicon Valley is doing their part, but incentives offered by national standards for carbon emissions/efficiency/development of energy from green sources would help.

There was a bit that described something called (IIRC) the NEX Index, which is like the S&P for full-on green tech/energy firms. In a few years, its value has doubled.

 

Nope.. having too much fun playing with my daughter. I'm going to subscribe to the online version anyway, so I will read it soon.

Sachin

 

Wind power bo -- that is the thing. My goal is to build a wind farm on Teddy Kennedy's ass -- I can fit enough turbines there to light up Vegas.

If nothing else, "green" tech provides a way to reduce the world's reliance on oil. And in case you haven't noticed, most oil comes from nasty places run by nasty people who use the money to fund nasty things. Places like Saudi Arabia, Iran, Nigeria, Venezuela and Canada (OK, I am joking about Canada). For nothing else but to protect ourselves, we need to get away from oil.

 

China has been making huge investments in wind power. As it currently stands, the price of wind-produced energy is approaching that of coal. The only problem is finding space for all of those turbines.

The Kennedys' protests re: the offshore windfarm disgust me to no end.

Exactly! Furthermore, the price of oil and natural gas is going to go up eventually. These are finite resources, people! We need to prepare now for the inevitable time when the cost of oil makes it a poor source of energy.

 

Many people suggest they are eyesores. But I find modern wind turbines very pleasant to look at. A few years ago I was passing through north Germany on vacation and we had lunch near a wind farm (The north German plain is an excellent place for them). And I was hypnotized by them. They seemed to speak to me. Unfortunately, my German is not very good and my wife (whose first language is German) refused to translate and threatened to have me committed or something.

Seriously though, I see no reason why we are not building these things. This is a big empty country. We have a huge coastline. Yes, we will need coal and maybe nuclear plants as back ups for peak times when the wind power is down, but we need to start building these things now. Chicago is the "Windy City" -- why not have a small demonstration farm in Lake Michigan?

 

I agree. And as solar technology gets cheaper and more versatile (i.e., the in-development "elastic" solar cells), I can see no reason why every new house over a certain size shouldn't have a solar energy system that's connected to the main power grid.

 

Fixed your post. You had the right idea, just the wrong criteria.

 

I've a south facing roof, that is obscured by trees. So, if I install solar panels, would I have to saw the trees down?

And yes, they are VERY tall trees.

 

Yes. Trees are just overgrown weeds.

 

The Economist is considered a right wing propaganda rag in England and in the US it's considered too socialist. Funny.

 

If I only have room to either put up a Satellite dish or have solar panels what do you reccomend? Keep in mind that I hate the environment.

 

Now I'm confused. I was told to have shade trees on the south side of my house so that my air conditioner wouldn't work too hard during the summer. Now I need to cut them down to put up solar panels.

Give me a call when the debate is over.

 

The answer is to install the solar panels on the tops of the trees.

Duh.

 

Windy City--remember?

I had a dish, but got rid of it because I kept getting 'searching for signal' too often. Even in good weather. I still have them downstairs somewhere.

 

You have an upstairs AND a downstairs? You're contributing to urban sprawl. Why don't you live in a small, cramped, studio apartment?

Bojendyk is going to lecture you.

 

Actually, a split level ranch. I would be willing to bet I have less square feet per person than say, I don't know--John Edwards or Algore perhaps?



My bike here is on the north side. You can see the trees in back.