This is the kind of “outside the box”strategy I’m trying to get across, and it can beput into production vastly faster than nuclear. Got it?

“You have a very warped understanding of environmentalism. Many environmentalists are driven by the knowledge that people everywhere are living in discomfort and suffering. A love for the human race, and for human achievement, drives activists to seek solutions that prevent humans from destroying the ecosystem. Technology has caused many problems – but it also has the potential to solve them, and more.”

On the contrary, it is anyone who believes that environmentalists have the best interest of mankind at heart who have a “warped view” of environmentalism.

Any real danger to the environment can be dealt with rationally through technological advances and laws relating to air and property rights.

You claim that “people everywhere are living in discomfort and suffering”. I have no idea what you mean by that, because I look around the world and see that only people who have the misfortune to live without Capitalism suffer from deprivation. Environmentalists consistently propose total government control of industry and the choices of private individuals in order to “protect the planet” – so it should be very obvious that human happiness is not their goal since only freedom brings both prosperity and good stewardship of the environment.

The policies of Environmentalism have, in fact, increased human suffering around the world. One example: the banning of the use of cheap, effective pesticides like DDT has doomed unknown legions of Africans to slow, tortuous death by Malaria. I guess that the deaths of these humans is just the price we have to pay, right?

Environmentalists use nice-sounding platitudes to mask their goals, but their political proposals always reveal the truth. The idea of “saving the planet”is only a means of duping the average person into unwittingly supporting the real agenda which is the destruction of Capitalism and individual freedom.

… I also find it hard to believe I’m the only one who cares about the rain-forest anymore. Whatever happened to that whole environmental movement? I think by definition progressives have a very short attention span.

It’s not that I don’t care about the rain-forest – it’s that ethanol has never been the best answer to carbon emission reduction. Repeatedly bringing it up is a distraction from better solutions. Solar is one of these solutions.

The cost would only be about $80,000 per household. So for 100M homes in the US that comes out to about $8 trillion. These days that kind of coin is no big deal. Let’s just get Obama to put that on the old bar tab. Honestly, it makes a lot more sense than paying it out to failed financial institutions.

Yes, at current retail rates the cost would be large (although your estimate is perhaps 8 times the current cost), but given the efficiencies of scale, a large roll-out would likely cost less. Perhaps $1 trillion, which would be recouped in a short time from power generation. You are correct that it probably would be a better investment than the unfortunate bailouts. Also a much better investment than drilling for more oil, or importing our fuel from overseas, or turning coal into gas. Free and clean power is the future.

Peace.

DS

“PV solar cells, by the way, repay their manufacturing energy costs within about 6 years, and they last for about 30.”

Well David that is definitely an improvement presumably for high-end cells not being produced in China. Believe me, I won’t be bitter and gnashing my teeth if someday we could all be significantly sustained through solar power, especially if it is an option that gives us personal ownership of our own energy production.

But wait a minute… the day may already be upon us. The cost would only be about $80,000 per household. So for 100M homes in the US that comes out to about $8 trillion. These days that kind of coin is no big deal. Let’s just get Obama to put that on the old bar tab. Honestly, it makes a lot more sense than paying it out to failed financial institutions.

By the way, every time I see a picture of solar panels they look pristine. Are they somehow repellent to bird crap? But that’s an easy fix anyway, we can just repeal those gun restrictions and we’ll all be enjoying stewed seagull while soaking up all that free electricity.

Nice talking to you David. Happy Easter!

You are the only one here obsessed with ethanol. I know it’s not the best solution – that’s why I don’t focus on it. What’s your excuse?

PV solar cells, by the way, repay their manufacturing energy costs within about 6 years, and they last for about 30.

Peace.

DS

No David, you actually just don’t get it. The inputs required to convert crops into fuel mean that there is an environmental cost associated with producing this fuel. There is some debate about whether or not there is any net benefit from ethanol in terms of greenhouse gas emissions when compared with petroleum. If we also must cut down rain-forests to make room for bio-fuel crops then the whole prospect is much more costly (in terms of environmental impact). In the case of a corn crop I believe it takes 200 years to pay back the damage of deforestation (both in releasing stored carbon in the forest and lost carbon sequestration over the life of the crop). So in other words, it doesn’t get paid back and we cause immediate damage of higher magnitude than normal fossil fuel use.

The Backlash Against biofuels