So regardless of whether you call it "Climate Change" or "Global Warming" why have the?
Chicken Little's still after all these years failed to offer a SINGLE workable/viable solution to the "problem"? By workable/viable I mean a solution that doesn't negatively impact virtually every major country/economy/industry in the world?
1. Wind Power is bad if it's in the Kennedy's back yard plus it kills a few little birds so it's evil.
2. Solar Power, way to many EIR's required
3. Hydro Electric? A non starter
4. Nuclear? Another non starter
5. Ethanol again lots of haters.
6. Electric cars? Nope no one is buying them plus you still have to generate the electricity to charge them.
So short of returning to a 19th Century Lifestyle or reducing world wide population by 50% what real solutions are being offered out there.
Felonious I'm sure that we will eventually find a solution, as a species sometimes it takes us a while but we'll get there somehow. The reason I phrased the question the way I did is because the Chicken Little's loudly demand that we stop doing things the way we're doing them but when you ask them for workable alternatives that won't bankrupt us all you get are blank stares and a bit of mouth breathing on their part.
I'm old enough to remember the OPEC embargo of the early 70's and I've wondered ever since then why we weren't working on alternative fuel/energy sources. Some of the blame falls squarely on the shoulders of the Oil Companies but an equal amount of the blame also falls squarely on the shoulders of Government (both parties).
Noticed how Zombie FAILED to list ANY solutions,
Zirp thanks for the suggestions, please allow me to play devils advocate for a moment.
"use smallscale hydro-electric" How are you going to get that past the die hard environmentalists?
"reduce the consumption of animal products" Meaning what specifically? I'm a meat eater and that's NOT going to change
"reduce the consumption of cheap junk" Ok what do those who can't afford the expensive stuff do?
"create walkable cities, or at least make them small enough to use bicycles instead of cars"
Costs tens of millions of dollars we don't have and takes years to plan and build
"work closer to home, or live closer to work" Great idea in theory, won't work for 90% however. I did have a job where I could walk to work in 3 minutes. My new job is 40 miles from where I live and I will NOT live in the town closest to my job.
"reduce the working week" What would that accomplish other than bankrupting people?
- Anonymous7 years agoFavorite Answer
You forgot one thing Evromentlist protest powerlines
from windfarms over land
- bobLv 77 years ago
I don't see nuclear as a non starter. There are many great nuclear solutions being developed, including reactors that run on nuclear waste from present day reactors.But the only energy solution is conservation.It makes no sense to have one person in a 3500 sq ft home, or driving a 6000 lb SUV My family of 4 lives comfortably in a 1000 sq ft home(not counting the basement), and we often walk to the grocery store, or ride bikes to the park.
- Felonious MonkeyLv 77 years ago
The last two G8 summits have tried to find a solution to the problem but opposition typically comes from developing nations like China and Brazil.
Just because we haven't agreed on a solution yet, doesn't mean a solution doesn't exist.
I should add that whether a solution is "workable" is also a matter of opinion. I could present 10 solutions which are workable in my opinion, but people who disagree with me will simply claim those solutions are unworkable, so we're back to square one.
- 7 years ago
The 18th/19th century IS what the Left is quietly pushing the masses towards. See, we are not The People to them. We are the masses. Unless we have the wealth to afford their ever increasing push to make common utilities, foods and fuels too expensive for the common man (light bulb anyone)? We do not qualify as People to them. Base, crude mentality and yes, too "traditional."
Hydro electric no longer even suits them as "green." Dams are EVIL. I head scratch that one. In the 70's they loved hydro electric. Well, I guess that's like plastic bags. They once loved those too. Because they saved trees. Even pushed to ban paper bags. Now? They hate them.
We The People will be reduced to The masses. Elites get 21st century. We masses get the New Stone Age
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
why did you fail so massively in even your first attempt?
you say wind power is a failure because it kills a few birds and the kennedy's don't like it? that's your huge "negative impact on every major company and industry in the world"?
lol... do you even READ OR THINK before you type? you're like the long distance runner who trips over their own legs before they cross the start line and break both of them..
EDIT: NO ONE CARES ABOUT BIRDS BEING KILLED OR KENNEDY... so... is there a real point somewhere against wind?
EDIT: also "lots of haters" isn't a real reason... there are people who hate EVERYTHING... that doesn't mean that every idea is bad, just that some people are stupid
and you wonder why the USA is buying stuff from China? Stay in the 1950's while the rest of the world is developing the 21st century technologies
- LANLv 77 years ago
Note that Felon monkey wasn't able to name a single proposed action that was workable.
All they want to do is tax America, you know the country that has the highest standards of environmental protection already.
- JenniferLv 67 years ago
It's because they know they don't have to fix it...because the ones in charge of actually finding solutions know it "ain't broke." They're just enjoying all the billions of dollars changing hands.
- bilLv 77 years ago
The solution is as follows...Buy AlGore carbon credits...feel better...And Al will have the girl scouts plant a tree in YOUR name...WIN-WIN-WINSource(s): Or you could plant your own tree...LOSE-LOSE-LOSE