I guess the only "bad" thing to going "green" would be the current cost of such decision.

Conservation seems to be my only option, even for food.

Unfortunately, I don't think hardly anyone read that article word for word.

Then, maybe they didn't read the bottom line, which was :

I apologize, I neglected to mention that this report was from November 2, 1922, as reported by the AP and published in The Washington Post - over 90 years ago.

Get a grip people!

Every lefty is bashing me here, as if I'm some kind of skeptic ot something!

I didn't write the article, my time machine wasn't working well then, this was from the 'Washington Post'- IN 1922!!

I thought it was bery interesting, and ironic, coming from 1922!

What a bunch of......

Tony- for instance- producing 'electric cars', and then generating the electricity to power them, is usually more pollutant than just driving a modern car? Look it up. Yet, someone gets a 'tax break' for doing it?

How much clean water is used, before one gallon of ethanol is produced? While you're at it, look that one up too.

Tony, did it ever occur to you that someone like me for instance, might have forgotten more than you ever knew?

Just saying, the OP was a quote from an article, from 1922!

It might be hilarious if our scientific capabilities were still the same as they were in 1922. We're a little better at measuring things now...so the article's surmise doesn't really carry through to the similar things we hear today.

Added to which, you can ~probably~ find an article that claims just about any point over the last 91 years.

Good point, but could we also achieve those goals by a 10% reduction in our use of current "non-green" energy?

the world goes through natural hot and cold cycles. rise and fall of water levels, naturally occurring toxins and billions of tons are spit into the air by volcanoes... solar flair cycles affect our world too - and gravity sucks!

That is all our of our control, but we still can reduce our own toxic footprint.

we pour billions of tons of toxins into our air & water, plus drugs and toxins in our cattle, pork, and chix. (cattle/pig contribute more methane than human industry)

changes in human energy sources/infrastructural, life style and diet WILL reduce toxins in our environment

want to debate who benefits from "Global warming" and how corrupt the world is ... or do WE want to make small changes that will help our envelopment, and maybe even make a better one for our children or grandchildren.....

I'd be good with going back to living in a cave in the woods (near a beach of course, with some logs to build a Proa!).

And then you asked yourself; Isn't there something MORE to life??

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=suAhGfVr_4U

Well let me tell you, There isn't!

As long as there is a good dentist close by.

Because no matter how much we do to go green it will never be enough. Cut and paste brings up 1600 years of whatever. Lets talk about what has happened to this planet in the last 40 million years to get a true perspective on "climate change".

No the power and control freaks push this agenda pure and simple and short of wiping out the entire population of the world (except for them) they will never be satisfied. NEVER. And if you believe otherwise your a fool.

OK, NO SOUP FOR YOU! - TWO WEEKS!

uh, yeah... BOOBS (that don't talk)

Boobs yes, boobs are good!

And it's a good thing there's two of them, because nobody can eat just one!

And boobs are the only time where two pair is better than three of a kind.

Don't turn this into SA. Not too cool with under age people on here.

Just a photo from a PG-13 movie, Total Recall. So if you're 13, check with your folks before reading any further.

yes, we do need to encourage youth and female sailors, which is why it's best left to keep those events separate from us old drunks and our "colorful metaphors"

Been working in air quality for more than a decade and now work at a headquarters level DoD component environmental office where we write policy and drive that whole "group" so to speak.

This has been a research subject of mine since I was a freshman in college; it's BS.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/

If you want to make a positive change, the administration will pull it's head out of its rear, finish Yuca Mtn (or some equivalent) and build more fission plants. Additionally, we need to end this antiquated policy of not reprocessing spent fuel rods due to non-proliferation concerns; the EU has done it for years w/o incident.

There are some basic facts that cannot be overcome.
- "renewables" cannot meet baseline generation needs; no if ands or buts.
- "renewables" have environmental impacts, i.e. you gotta pay to play. Where did the carbon, glass, resin come from to produce the blades for a turbine? What about the transportation and maintenance cost of the equipment? You have to put those things in the middle of nowhere, so you also have to install a distribution system to move the power from nowhere to somewhere.
- Forcing the market to purchase renewable energy over conventional results in less efficient operation of plants and higher cost. Look into the problems that germany is having with this right now....
- Cost per MW is significantly higher for "green" energy than conventional methods.

There are common sense things we could be doing to improve environmental quality without spending trillions. I agree that the issue isn't truly env quality; it's control/power and redistribution of "equity". Go dig into the IRS and UN info on environmental taxation; it becomes clear very quickly.

The way I see it is that I'd rather have a place out in the desert where I put a sign that says "stay back, danger" and store radioactive waste instead of taking and burning coal which releases fine particulate matter which is in part composed of bioaccumulative/persistent toxic metals. Those metals are then ingested by us (and everything else) through inhalation, and ingestion from soil/water and hence food.

I could really melt your brain if I went into how lowering emissions limits in the US and driving industrial activities to other countries (China, Mex, etc) actually increases global emissions due to their lax (or nonexistent) standards... Another fun one is how plastic bags are actually better for the environment than paper (outside of the problem with disposal).

.... only came here looking for info for a project and end up doing this... ack.

Maybe we should make them heavier so they won't fly around and end up in the ocean...?

All kidding aside, go look at how much energy is required to manufacture and transport paper bags. Everything from pulpwood harvesting and transport to paper production, bag production then shipping. It takes a lot more resources to produce and utilize them than plastic, however... people don't dispose of them properly and...

http://www.treehugger.com/culture/paper-bags-or-plastic-bags-everything-you-need-to-know/page5.html

You're taking this out of context Lee, when they are referring to boobs, they are referring to you

The pictures are there to through you off...