Oil and other natural resources...

Christa - posted on 07/13/2010

I'd like to point out that "iReports" on CNN are from random people. So I take the "facts" in that article with a grain of salt until something more reliable can back up those claims.

Jenny - posted on 07/13/2010

I know Amie and think of all the migrating birds who will not be returning from their next Spring. Getting off oil NOW is more important than ANYTHING else we have going on. Jobs, CO2 emissions, health care, anything.

LaCi - posted on 07/13/2010

So here are some things that go through my head when it comes to using up oil. I should throw in a disclaimer that I've never in my life had a geology class, so I have no idea what I'm talking about.

It seems to me this stuff HAS to serve a purpose. So what is it, is it a lubricant? by draining the lubricant are we fucking up our tectonic plates? and whats the consequences of that? earthquakes? :| what about the hollow spaces left behind after we've pumped out a billion barrels of oil per day? Maybe thats why, after the gulf spewed for a while, guatemala caved in ;D kidding, but really, what are the geological consequences of raping the planet of its lubricant? Lack of lubrication and hollow spaces deep within the crust? Has to be bad.

Amie - posted on 07/13/2010

Jenny that's horrifying. =| I honestly don't know what to say.

Jenny - posted on 07/12/2010

From CNN: Scientists Warn Gulf Of Mexico Sea Floor Fractured Beyond Repair Video confirms it

Viewed 54,857 times
Shared 1,174 times

iReport — A dire report circulating in the Kremlin today that was prepared for Prime Minister Putin by Anatoly Sagalevich of Russia's Shirshov Institute of Oceanology warns that the Gulf of Mexico sea floor has been fractured “beyond all repair” and our World should begin preparing for an ecological disaster “beyond comprehension” unless “extraordinary measures” are undertaken to stop the massive flow of oil into our Planet’s eleventh largest body of water.
Most important to note about Sagalevich’s warning is that he and his fellow scientists from theRussian Academy of Sciences are the only human beings to have actually been to the Gulf of Mexico oil leak site after their being called to the disaster scene by British oil giant BP shortly after the April 22nd sinking of the Deepwater Horizon oil platform.
BP’s calling on Sagalevich after this catastrophe began is due to his being the holder of the World’s record for the deepest freshwater dive and his expertise with Russia’s two Deep Submergence Vehicles MIR 1 and MIR 2 [photo below] which are able to take their crews to the depth of 6,000 meters (19,685 ft).

According to Sagalevich’s report, the oil leaking into the Gulf of Mexico is not just coming from the 22 inch well bore site being shown on American television, but from at least 18 other sites on the “fractured seafloor” with the largest being nearly 11 kilometers (7 miles) from where the Deepwater Horizon sank and is spewing into these precious waters an estimated 2 million gallons of oil a day.
Interesting to note in this report is Sagalevich stating that he and the other Russian scientists were required by the United States to sign documents forbidding them to report their findings to either the American public or media, and which they had to do in order to legally operate in US territorial waters.
However, Sagalevich says that he and the other scientists gave nearly hourly updates to both US government and BP officials about what they were seeing on the sea floor, including the US Senator from their State of Florida Bill Nelson who after one such briefing stated to the MSNBC news service“Andrea we’re looking into something new right now, that there’s reports of oil that’s seeping up from the seabed… which would indicate, if that’s true, that the well casing itself is actually pierced… underneath the seabed. So, you know, the problems could be just enormous with what we’re facing.”
Though not directly stated in Sagalevich’s report, Russian scientists findings on the true state of the Gulf of Mexico oil disaster are beyond doubt being leaked to his longtime friend, and former US President George W. Bush’s top energy advisor Matthew Simmons, who US media reports state has openly said: “Matthew Simmons is sticking by his story that there's another giant leak in the Gulf of Mexico blowing massive amounts of oil into the Gulf of Mexico. On CNBC's Fast Money, he says he'd be surprised if BP lasted this summer, saying this is disaster is entirely BP's fault.”
As a prominent oil-industry insider, and one of the World's leading experts on peak oil, Simmons further warns that the US has only two options, “let the well run dry (taking 30 years, and probably ruining the Atlantic ocean) or nuking the well.”
Obama’s government, on the other hand, has stated that a nuclear option for ending this catastrophe is not being discussed, but which brings him into conflict with both Russian and American experts advocating such an extreme measure before all is lost, and as we can read as reported by Britain’s Telegraph News Service:
“The former Soviet Union (U.S.S.R.) used nuclear weapons on five separate occasions between 1966 and 1981 to successfully cap blown-out gas and oil surface wells (there was also one attempt that failed), which have been documented in a U.S. Department of Energy report on the U.S.S.R.'s peaceful uses of nuclear explosions.
Russia is now urging the United States to consider doing the same. Komsomoloskaya Pravda, the best-selling Russian daily newspaper, asserts that although based on Soviet experience there's a one-in-five chance a nuke might not seal the well, it's "a gamble the Americans could certainly risk."
Reportedly, the U.S.S.R. developed special nuclear devices explicitly for closing blown-out gas wells, theorizing that the blast from a nuclear detonation would plug any hole within 25 to 50 meters, depending on the device's power. Much as I had idly imagined, massive explosions can be employed to collapse a runaway well on itself, thus plugging, or at least substantially stanching, the flow of oil.
“Seafloor nuclear detonation is starting to sound surprisingly feasible and appropriate," University of Texas at Austin mechanical engineer Michael E. Webber is quoted observing, while Columbia University visiting scholar on nuclear policy and former naval officer Christopher Brownfield wrote in the Daily Beast: "We should have demolished this well with explosives over a month ago. And yet we watch in excruciating suspense while BP fumbles through plan after plan to recover its oil and cover its asset.”
As to the reason for Obama’s government refusing to consider nuking this oil well, Sagalevich states in this report that the American’s “main concern” is not the environmental catastrophe this disaster is causing, but rather what the impact of using a nuclear weapon to stop this leak would have on the continued production of oil from the Gulf of Mexico, and which in an energy starved World’s remains the Planet’s only oil producing region able to increase its production.
On top of the environmental catastrophe currently unfolding in the Gulf of Mexico the situation may about to get even worse as new reports from the US are confirming the grim predictions of Russian scientists regarding the oil dispersement poisons being used by BP which are being swept up into the clouds and falling as toxic rain destroying every living plant it touches, and as we had detailed in our May 23rd report titled “Toxic Oil Spill Rains Warned Could Destroy North America”
To what the final outcome of this catastrophe will be it is not in our knowing other than to state the obvious that the choice facing the American’s today is to either stop this disaster now, by any means, or pay dearly for it later. After all, is cheap petrol really worth the cost of destroying our own Earth? BP surely thinks so, let’s keep hoping Obama doesn’t.

Jenny - posted on 07/12/2010

I'll add, force companies to pay livable wages so they are not draining Medicaid or better yet, scrap all the other programs and set up UHC (plus the livable wages of course). Minimum wage is for teenagers.

LaCi - posted on 07/12/2010

I can think of several places the money could come from.



1. release non violent drug offenders from prisons. "states spent approximately $17,110,415 per day to imprison drug offenders, or $6,245,301,475 per year."- 2007, more now



2. Legalize and tax marijuana, "California's medical marijuana dispensaries generate as much as $1.3 billion in sales and $105 million dollars in state sales taxes" and thats just with medical marijuana in california, completely legal and they'll generate more.



3. End the war in iraq, thats $150-200 billion per year.



There is a nice start. Other options are to offer incentives to corporations to adopt the renewable resources. Enough incentive will make it worth their while to begin altering their plans, they know it's the future as much as we do, but they have to combat the costs. We can help them. It's a start. I'll post more later

Kelly - posted on 07/12/2010

So again, I will ask: If not from drilling and mining, where should the money come from to pay for alternative energy exploration? You really can only raise taxes so high, and contrary to popular belief, Obama doesn't have a "stash", there isn't a money tree at the white house, and we can't just keep borrowing from China. That kind of leads into my second question, why should we keep paying foreign countries for their oil and nat. gas, and letting OPEC rule our lives? Anyone????????

Charlie - posted on 07/12/2010

"Yeah, Tara.. I'm sure a straw house is easy to heat.. Just one spark and *WHOOSH* a nice, BIG fire to keep you warm. SMH."

I have a friend who makes straw bale houses , they are actually rendered on the outside and the bales are compressed extremely tightly and are no more fire prone than a brick home and they are the best insulation you can possibly get , cooler in summer , warmer in winter , cheaper , great at keeping noise out and extremely environmentally friendly using far less energy to construct and maintain and they are as strong as any other building material :D

Cathy - posted on 07/12/2010

I'm visualising you living in Bag End!

LaCi - posted on 07/12/2010

Yeah, my house is a heating and cooling nightmare which is the main reason I decided when I do graduate and manage to get my shit together I require my underground house. And solar panels, but that takes a backseat to being in the ground ;D Still have a couple years on all that though. bleh.

Good Day! - posted on 07/12/2010

LaCi, I saw a home built into the side of a hill somewhere up north (South Dakota maybe?). It was a pioneer home and part of a museum. It really did feel like it was air conditioned when you walked in. Very cool concept. Just wouldn't work here...gqtm.

The husband and I have actually been talking about solar panels. But we are years away from affording that. We need to update the house first...energy efficient windows and appliances and better insulation. Most of our appliances are original to our 1959 house. Terrible. But we're saving to change that!

LaCi - posted on 07/12/2010

Well the only issue I'll have is if a great flood makes the ohio river into another great lake. ;) Personal preference. Plenty of ways to be greener, that ones my chosen path.



I'm pretty sure my town also uses yardwastes for composting and mulches. I really like this town, actually.

Cathy - posted on 07/11/2010

I like the recycling system that is in place in certain parts of the UK. Regular household rubbish collection is covered in council tax. Recycling is paid for through materials collected. You get a wheelie bin for each. Black for household, green for recycling. They get collected on alternate weeks. If you're too lazy to recycle and over fill your regular bin then the bin men won't take it and you'll get a fine. Think that seems more appropriate than charging people for doing the right thing.

Good Day! - posted on 07/11/2010

Except if you live under sea level you'd drown. That's why basements are non-existent here, and there are tons of above ground burial cemetaries.

LaCi - posted on 07/11/2010

I prefer houses in the ground. no heating or cooling issues.

C. - posted on 07/11/2010

"Straw bale building is one of the most earth friendly ways to build, it's inexpensive, designed to last over 200 years, easy to heat, made from a sustainable resource, and is nice to look at."

Yeah, Tara.. I'm sure a straw house is easy to heat.. Just one spark and *WHOOSH* a nice, BIG fire to keep you warm. SMH.

And the Earth isn't 'dying', geeze. Are there things we can do to take better care of our planet, yes.. But it isn't about to die. Aye, I tell ya..

C. - posted on 07/11/2010

Gertie, I'd just tell them No thanks, I'll just take my trash straight to the dump instead. That's ridiculous that it's mandatory to recycle when you have to pay for it. I can see if it was free and mandatory, but you shouldn't make someone pay for something they don't want in the first place.

Tara - posted on 07/11/2010

There are so many alternative ways to build homes that are efficient, sustainable, affordable, and durable. Straw bale building is one of the most earth friendly ways to build, it's inexpensive, designed to last over 200 years, easy to heat, made from a sustainable resource, and is nice to look at. If there were more people interested in building green, we would see more green builders. People need to demand changes to how things are manufactured/built/constructed/imported etc. if everyone just continues to accept the way things are presented to us and we don't ask for something different how will things ever be different?
As a human being, I still choose the earth over humans. We are the biggest threat to the future of our planet. We are amusing ourselves to death. All the disposable products that are introduced every year, all the plastics that make it into landfills to be there for over 10,000 years, all the toxins we dump into our rivers and lakes. etc. etc.
The earth is dying, it's waters are polluted, the air is contaminated and yet we still say more more more... I"m with Jenny, our priorities are fucked.
Tara

Christa - posted on 07/11/2010

Jenny, I'm not putting the economy in front of the earth, I'm putting PEOPLE in front of the earth. There are already people who can't afford a home, you want to increase that number?

LaCi - posted on 07/11/2010

I eat hemp seeds. Natures perfect protein.

Cathy - posted on 07/11/2010

I use hemp nappies, prefer bamboo though!

LaCi - posted on 07/11/2010

yeah, and our founding fathers said something about all citizens should be growing hemp...

but god forbid we have plants.

ME - posted on 07/11/2010

I've wondered that for YEARS Jenny!

Jenny - posted on 07/11/2010

Why are we not seriously looking into hemp?
http://www.ehow.com/about_5382986_uses-h...

Hemp oil can be used in every application that is currently using petroleum. Hemp oil is a green alternative to dirty fossil fuels in almost every consumer commodity. As a food, hemp oil is nutritious and contains all the the essential fatty acids required for cell function. As a base oil for plastics, body care, fuel and paints, hemp oil has the required properties and can easily replace petroleum in each of these product categories.

Body Care
When used alone, hemp oil is a natural, moisturizing oil and can be applied after every shower or bath. Use only a small amount and rub over skin after it is dried. Use as a hair moisturizer by applying a small amount to hair while wet. Solid and liquid soap, shampoo, conditioner, make-up, lotions and creams can all be made with a hemp oil base to replace petroleum products.

Cooking
Hemp oil can be used in almost all cooking applications, though it is not suitable for high-heat cooking. It gives a slightly nutty flavor to foods. It is perfect for a salad oil and in lower temperature cooking, and can be included in baking in place of olive or vegetable oil. Use as you would use any other liquid vegetable oil.

Fuel
Hemp oil can be processed to be used as biodiesel in the same manner as all other vegetable oils. Henry Ford used hemp oil to fuel the first cars. Hemp oil can replace all petroleum fuels and oils with a safe, non-toxic oil that does not harm the environment. Biodiesel has a lower freezing point and is already in use in Canada during the winter months as a diesel fuel additive to prevent the fuel from gelling at low temperatures.

Plastics
All forms of plastic can be made with hemp oil instead of petroleum. During decomposition, the plastics would not release harmful chemicals into the environment. Plastics made with hemp oil would not require any petroleum products and would reduce our use of a non-renewable resource for disposable products.

Paints
Until 1937 hemp was the base oil in all paints. Paints made with hemp oil would not cause environmental harm when poured down the drain and would have lower emissions than current petroleum-based paints. In addition, reducing the use of petroleum-based products reduces the use of non-renewable petroleum resources.

Jenny - posted on 07/11/2010

I'm glad you have to pay for it. Recycling should be mandatory everywhere. Maybe lobby your municipality to add it as a government service so the cost is spread out. We have curbside recycling service and it is paid on property taxes (about $120 per year). We get three wheeled carts. One for garbage,, recycling and yard waste. The recycling and yard waste is the size of 4 full bags and the garbage is two. They alternate weeks on recycling and yard waste. I haven't had to go the dump since the program came in and I don't have to buy bags anymore so I save even more money that way too.



Christa, we have to stop putting the economy before the planet. Who gives a crap how much an energy efficient home is going to cost if we've killed life in our oceans and it trickles across the food chain? We can't eat money, we can't drink money. In the grand scheme of things it is completely irrelevant so I can't buy that arguement at all. Our priorities are fucked.

LaCi - posted on 07/11/2010

I agree, that is a scam. You shouldn't have to pay for recycling. My town runs everything pretty much independently, we don't use the county services and all of our crap is paid for in our taxes, except wastewater fees. I do think our county's services charge for it though. I dig the way my guys do things.

Gertie - posted on 07/11/2010

We have to pay for recycling, too. What a scam that is. I call my trash company. They ask me if I want recycle service. I tell them no...I don't want to but before I can get all the words out, she says, "Oh, you're in ****** county" I say yes...she says, well, it's mandatory in that county that you have to recycle. So, I HAVE to pay for it. They automatically put it on my bill.

Well, we only get one relatively small container for our recycleables and they only pick them up every other week. Sorry, but I'm not hanging onto garbage for that long. So I don't recycle. So, I'm being mandated by our local gov't to pay for a service I do not even use. Who ever cooked up that scam is a friggin' genious. What a sham.

LaCi - posted on 07/11/2010

that reminds me of a lewis black joke.

*we don't have solar energy because the sun goes away at night and IT DOESN'T TELL US WHERE IT'S GOING.*

Seriously, when the entire country is free of wind and sun and water flow for an entire hour I'll buy into the *we can't control it* mentality.

C. - posted on 07/11/2010

LOL Kati! As far as I know, no. I know they used to in NY b/c my mom used to go there, but I haven't heard of any since we moved down here. If they do, then it's probably not anywhere near us (unless it's in a secret hiding place that we've never heard of).

Rosie - posted on 07/11/2010

do they have a recycling center you can take them too? i know my bin get's crazy full sometimes so i take them to the center if it gets too cluttered.
i'm more pissed that i have to pay money to get garbage tags if i have more than 2 garbage bins, which i used to until lucas got potty trained, lol!! i think i've saved the destruciton of my earth about 10 fold since he got potty trained, lol!!!

C. - posted on 07/11/2010

"The problem with wind/solar/water power is it relies on things we can not control"

Good point, Christa.

C. - posted on 07/11/2010

You're right, Kati.. You don't know how they do things in other states. In SC and (I believe) HI, you have to pay (and I think in NC, too, but not 100% sure) and it doesn't get picked up with the trash. A separate truck comes by for the recycling and they only pick it up every 2 weeks (my neighbor recycles and we've talked about that, that's how I know). Not worth the extra money, especially if it's only getting picked up every 2 weeks. Do you know how many milk jugs I could accumulate in a 2 week span??? I do, and I'd have milk jugs coming out the wazoo. No thanks.



And I already mentioned about HI doing the bottles and stuff.

Christa - posted on 07/11/2010

Here's my thoughts. . . While what you have suggested sounds great. I'm all for some regulations for higher building standards, however in doing so you will for sure raise the cost to purchase these homes, not to mention make the home values of our existing homes plummet. In this economy do you really think that's the best idea? The only way to make these things, like solar panels, a reality is to truly make them cheaper. The only way for that to really happen (without making gov'ts go broke subsidizing) is to mass produce them. To do that the demand has to be high enough to justify such and we have to have enough supplies (I have no idea what all is needed to produce these panels) Also I don't know how much the up keep is, but I imagine a lot particularly in areas with frequent extreme whether (ie hail and wind). The problem with wind/solar/water power is it relies on things we can not control. We have to have another alternative that would be more reliable for times of extreme need or times of severe/unusual weather.

Rosie - posted on 07/11/2010

christina, i'm not sure how they do things in other states, but in iowa we pay a fee for our trash and sewer usage with our water bill. and when garbage gets picked up so does the recycling. we also have a plant that you can take your recycling to for free. i think the charge that i have for curbside is to pay the guys to actually come and get it along with the garbage.

we also get 5cents a can deposit and refund in you turn them into the grocery store, on pop cans here. and i'm positive hawaii has the same thing. i'm really surprised more states don't do that, i know it's major incentive to return them to get your money back! when i was younger my mother would stop and get cans whenever she saw one abandoned and that was how camp and theme parks were paid for, pop cans!! lol! :)

ME - posted on 07/11/2010

Just clarifying...I said all SINGLE FAMILY homes, not every single dwelling place in the country...and I should probably have found the article or not mentioned it at all, there were other things involved...I don't know much about the huffington post...I have read it MAYBE twice...you don't have to get nasty...

Tara - posted on 07/11/2010

I'm a bit radical on this one. I really feel that all governments should be required to phase out the use of oil. There are proven green technologies that are inexpensive and renewable. If each farmer that is failing in the agriculture sector were helped with setting up a solar farm or a wind farm on their unused (overly treated and often infertile) lands, we would be helping the farmer and supplying power to the grid, if there were subsidies in place to help the average home owner to install solar, geo-thermal, wind, etc. than each person could start to make a difference right in their own home. We know that fossil fuels will run out, we know they pollute our air and water, we know we are raping the earth to feed our greed for oil. We need to take a radical outlook and start to making products that don't rely on the oil industry.
What we are doing to our planet in the name of oil and it's by products will be the end of us as a species if we don't stop, and we'll be taking a lot of other species with us.
The overuse and misuse of oil has been our greatest downfall.
Tara

Amie - posted on 07/11/2010

Gertie,
Cathy did say in her post each individual country. So that means Americans can come up with their own solutions to the problem no? What has been stressed time and time again, what works in other countries won't work in America. I don't see why not though. Oh except for the higher taxes aspect, apparently this is a very bad idea for most Americans. Which I can understand to a point. But coming from a country where I already pay relatively high taxes, and enjoy many benefits from those taxes, excuse me for feeling no pity.

Christina,
I'd say "40-50 years" and "not going cold turkey" are not over night switches. As you claimed others have been stating. I have not seen one person say cut of all resources that we use now and switch completely to green energy tomorrow. (well one did but that was a joke.) Slow implementation is what everyone is talking about. Over a period of time, so that in the long term the short term goals set will have been reached and we will then be free of the heavy reliance we now have on the oil industry.

Cathy - posted on 07/11/2010

Well I did say that it's a slow process. "It's something to strive for in the next 40-50 years."

C. - posted on 07/11/2010

"Ban building poor energy effient homes will not cost the government but will stop builders from cutting corners and producing poor quality homes."

I can tell you now that with the buildings going up like I've seen lately (for instances, whole brand-new apartment complexes going up in 4-6 MONTHS??) just to make money, they aren't going to do that. What are they going to do with the millions of houses/apartments/businesses that were JUST built (albeit VERY poorly- just way too quick to be a good job)? They aren't going to do that for a while.

While I agree with you that we should invest in our future, that is going to take time and small steps as well. It will eventually happen that we are able to make better, Earth-friendly products, but it's just going to take time.

(And someone's Congress passed bills on tons of unnecessary spending last January?? (I think it was Jan.. in the beginning of the year at least) which put us further in the hole.. So as you can see, until our country gets more out of debt, it's going to take a while.)

And yes, the whole recycling thing is ridiculous. My sister and I were talking about it a while ago. When we were in HI, they would have people come to the Commissary and collect plastic bottles and they'd pay like 5¢ a bottle or something (whatever the value was on the back of the bottle) and she got into the whole curbside thing (which we didn't do in HI, even on base I think you had to pay). Crazy stuff.

Cathy - posted on 07/11/2010

Christina - Wow. That's ridiculous that you have to pay for curbside recycling. They make money and profit by selling the materials collected. You shouldn't be paying!

Cathy - posted on 07/11/2010

The changes would pay for themselves long-term. Many successfully implemented in the UK. Who will it cost to ban selling poor energy efficient products that burn through electric and cost the buyer more long term.



Investing in companies who produce such as solar panels will make jobs, increase revenue and will quickly make the government back money through taxes.



Ban building poor energy efficient homes will not cost the government but will stop builders from cutting corners and producing poor quality homes.



Investing in making existing homes more energy efficient with government loans that will be payed back by the home owners will ensure that targets for reduction of global emissions by 30% are met.

As for the elderly receiving grants that is probably how our individual countries treat our elderly.



I fail to see logic in ploughing money into fossil fuels which will inevitably run out. Investments into the future of this planet have to be made now.

C. - posted on 07/11/2010

Cathy.. We have recycling w/ curbside collection.. BUT WE have to PAY for them to take our recyclables!!! Too many people don't have the extra money to pay to get their recyclables taken. The government should be paying US, IMO. I think more people would be apt to recycle if they were being payed instead of having to pay. They are doing the Earth a favor, why should they have to pay??

C. - posted on 07/11/2010

While I don't like to see things like the oil spill in the Gulf (who does).. At the same time, I think we need to lessen our dependence on foreign oil. I have no problem with drilling for oil on land for now.. But you all act like we can have alternatives for everything made with petroleum overnight! It just doesn't happen like that.

We need to have long term goals, yes.. But we need SHORT TERM goals in the meantime.

Gertie - posted on 07/11/2010

Um...who exactly is going to pay for all that?

Who is going to provide grants for the elderly?

Who is going to loan money with a zero interest rate???

Where is the gov't supposed to get the money from to do all that...we can't afford what we are currently spending much less spend more.

I'm not saying they are all bad ideas...but you've got to be practical about this for it to be a worthwhile arguement.

Cathy - posted on 07/10/2010

Ignoring the last few posts and moving on ...



We cannot go cold turkey on oil but that doesn't mean that our individual governments can't take appropriate steps to decrease the carbon footprints of each our countries and reduce the dependency on fossil fuels.



Make all new white goods ... fridges, freezers , washing machines etc. all 'A' rated and above energy efficient and ban sales of all lower rated machines.



Put government grants into companies producing solar panels to make manufacturing them as efficiently and cheaply as possible thus reducing cost to the consumer as well as creating jobs, from manufacturing through to installation. This goes for companies manufacturing other green products such electric cars etc. Green companies need to gain a good profit and self sustainability before we can start to pull the plug on fossil fuels.



Curbside recycling collections.



Restrictions and requirements on energy efficiency of all new build homes. Double glazed windows, wall insulation, loft insulation. High energy efficiency within the building sector should become the norm, not just commendable but a necessity.

Low or zero interest loans available to home owners to implement changes to their homes to improve energy efficiency.

Grants for the elderly.



Once are homes are no longer reliant on fossil fuels then we can make the necessary steps to researching ways to removing their need entirely. It won't happen overnight. It's something to strive for in the next 40-50 years. To be a totally energy sustainable planet.

Gertie - posted on 07/10/2010

Laci, perhaps you should read Mary's post...she's the one who mentioned outfitting everyone's home with the solar panels. I happen to be from the f-ing planet that reads the post above my own. Maybe you'd like to join me? :-P I was responding to her, not you. Either way, it wasn't a very good financial comparison, which is why I posted what I did. Nobody said you had to read it...

"And no, it isn't the governments job to put panels on homes, its the governments job to tell out power companies that we don't want their toxic fucking waste anymore and they need to move on to cleaner technology."

Um...no, its not the gov't job to tell power companies they need to move on to cleaner technology. It's our job as consumers to tell them that. It's our job to use science and technology to come up with FEASIBLE alternatives. We have already come a long way in terms of cleaning up our messes, you have to give it time. It doesn't make sense to stop using what works and is affordable before we are sure what will work.

What's with all the f-bombs? Can't you debate like an adult?



@Mary: I apologize if I misrepresented your point about the cost of the war. You used that as an example of cost comparisons while I took it another way. Sorry.

Kelly - posted on 07/10/2010

How the hell are solar panels going to make us foreign oil free? Have you been reading the Huffington Post again? (I swear you have to be a dumb shit to write for that rag......) Solar panels do nothing for the trucking industry that supplies and moves the majority of goods, solar panels don't put gas in vehicles, busses, public trans. systems (trains, etc). Sure, they would help with electricity, but that is ONE FACET of the energy that is consumed daily.

And I am sorry, but the Iraq thing is COMPLETELY played out. It is reality. We are there. The Dems and Repubs BOTH supported going in. We obviously can't just leave as that is one of the many campaign promises Obama has broken. GET OVER IT.

You just as easily could have used the example of how much money is wasted on social programs, public schools and the post office.

Bottom line Mary Elizabeth, I think where we are disagreeing is on where to obtain the resources to spend on new technology research. I say, drill drill drill and then drill some more. Since the money on Iraq is already spent, and we can't do anything to change that, where do you suggest the money come from?

ME - posted on 07/10/2010

yes...thanks Laci...I never mentioned President Bush, it was a financial comparison and an example of how our choices in where we put our financial resources effect what we are capable of accomplishing in this country...if we continue to put those financial resources where they should not be, we will not accomplish what everyone seems to agree with...namely, that we need new sources of energy.

LaCi - posted on 07/10/2010

Gertie, pull the stick out of your ass. This isn't, as far as I know, A lib vs rep debate.



I absolutely will buy solar panels as soon as I'm able, but not everyone can afford them and it doesn't stop the rest of the world from being completely fucking toxic if I have solar panels powering my home.



The only reason iraq was brought up was for financial comparison, this isn't about the fucking war.



And no, it isn't the governments job to put panels on homes, its the governments job to tell out power companies that we don't want their toxic fucking waste anymore and they need to move on to cleaner technology.



and I'll repeat. We don't HAVE TO PUT SOLAR PANELS ON EVERYONE'S HOME. What fucking planet are you from?



Maybe it's late, but fucking hell, who the fuck said anything about every home needs off grid solar power? Too many freakin' misconceptions about how to fix the planet wandering around on the internet.