“Is it just me, or is it getting awfully warm in here?”

Another option would be to designate certain, less efficient, vehicles as bio-fuel only so that the nasty hydrocarbon emissions are at least limited. there’s plenty of room for experiments and thinking outside the box. But some attitudes will need to be forced.

“It’s been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Democrats are OK with the idea of surrendering our spot atop the world economy.”

Since it’s the Republican economic policies that have already achieved the effect of surrendering our position in the world economy, this is an interesting circumlocution. It also defies even a grade school level of logic or the simplest critical thinking. Morons.

I disagree about the waste tax. They’ll automatically get hit financially at the pump when driving a low MPG vehicle. However, renewing vehicle tabs/licenses should be based on weight, i.e., wear and tear on the roads.

The real kicker is that new technologies, including efficient vehicles, will make huge fortunes. But it can’t happen until the energy lobby’s stranglehold on Washington is broken. The sad fact is it will probably take a whole new generation of politician to allow real progress in green and alternative tech.

StratRat, nice takedown

It’s getting easier and easier. Thanks for the kind words.

One also needs to consider the other damage our insane drive to burn stuff is doing. Remember “acid rain”? It’s still getting worse and now there’s a new one (that was predicted in the 19th century) called oceanic acidification. Basically, when there is more CO2 in the air the ocean absorbs more. As water absorbs CO2 it becomes more acidic. One of the chief problems with this is that any tiny rise in acidity interferes with the ability of various invertebrates to make shells. Worst possible case? Every shelled ocean creature goes extinct and takes nearly everything else with them.

And that’s just one.

The simple fact is that we, as a species, need to consider the effect we have when we burn stuff. If our planet is to continue to support anything approaching the number of people it does now? We MUST burn less stuff per person. We MUST make changes but sacrifices will be superficial. Though, I must admit, I regret the inevitability that we MUST sacrifice size and performance in vehicles. But anyone who claims we need to destroy the world’s economy or return to caves is either a frightened child or an oil man.

gunclinger Says:

I’m not willing to lower my standard of living, nor sacrifice our economy when the science is not conclusive.

I wonder where gunclinger stood on the whole “invade Iraq” question in 2003?

I wonder if he saw the BushCo marketing campaign as “not conclusive”.

And about the same percentage of GOP lawmakers believe Adam rode a dinosaur to work.

(As a side note, I object to the wording “believe in man-made global warming”, on the basis that it makes a well-supported scientific explanation sound like a religious matter, something one can choose to “convert” to -which is absolutely not the case.)

gunclinger Says:
Ralph llama,
I never once said the science on global warming was “liberal”. I said it was inconclusive.

You said it was “political”.

You keep saying the science is “inconclusive”, and you say it with an air of certainty. Yet many more learned folks disagree with you:

http://www.greenhouse.gov.au/science/publications/major-achievements.html

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/science/topics/globalwarming/index.html

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/03/17/60minutes/main1415985.shtml

http://disturbingtrends.org/2007/02/is-climate-change-politics-or-science.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/5279390.stm

You also seem pretty sure of yourself when you say:

there’s no reason to unfairly punish Americans just because the Democrat politicians want to come off as being pro-environment friends to their constituents

Do you consider opportunities for innovation “punishment”?

Are you content to let OPEC dictate our way of life? That, to me, sounds more like “punishment”.

The drive to develop new clean energy technologies seems to me much closer to an opportunity for the US to exploit its technological and educational advantages to regain the global lead in the energy infrastructure and economy of the future.

But then, sounds like I have more confidence in the power of American drive and discovery than you do.

Yes, they are Shayne.