Green Green Business

I grew up in a freezing cold house, (sometimes my glass of water by my bed froze) I walk everywhere and didn’t even go abroad on a plane till I was 20.
When entire cities in Vagas and Tokyo don’t turn their advertisment billboard lights off at night, why should I sit in a sweater the perpetual twighlight of a (mercury filled) energy saving lightbulb sorting my green and brown glass out.
It gets dark at 4.00 in the evening here, I’m at least deserving to be nice and (even slightly uncomfortably) warm. Global warming isn’t even proven.

I drive a car that sips intstead of guzzles, and I changed the light bulbs in my house, is there anything else I could do that could help save energy reduce global warming?

Our government wants to give me a monetary incentive (tax rebate) to put up solar panels on my house in Florida. I currently have large oak trees that shade my house thereby reducing the energy use for air conditioning but also preventing me from putting up solar panels. If I go along with the government plan, I will cut down the oak trees so I can go solar (Cut down the trees to go "green"?!!!). There are several issues I must deal with here:

1) Cutting down those beautiful old oaks will make make the various fauna homeless.
2) Those oaks pull a lot of CO2 from the air. Won’t I get a net increase of greenhouse gases by cutting down and burning (or just natural decaying) them?
3) Solar is a BIG dollar investment that might be wiped out with the next hurricane. (No one makes 120mph wind solar panels)

Why is our government so short-sighted and simple-minded over this "global warming" issue?

Wind and solar power is a lot more expensive than good old coal. Are you willing to pay 3x as much for electricity to shut down coal plants and switch to ‘green’ power sources to help with ‘global warming’ , even though man made global warming is NOT a proven fact? And please, I know a lot of scientists claim it is, but a lot also claim it’s a farce. So until we have near unaniminity from the scientific community (not Al Gore) it isn’t a fact.
Sorry Fishboy, but I don’t believe everything a website called ‘gristmill’ prints either. BTW, as I live in Vegas and I wish we could all afford at least a 3KW solar generating system on the roof of every house. Imagine doing that here and phoenix and tying them all into the grid with ‘net metering’, how much power could be generated. Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for green power. I know even ‘clean coal’ pollutes. I just can’t afford 0/mo when I’m paying 300+ now. A major problem with wind is the wind farms are far away from transmission lines. And environmentalists oppose building those lines. And building them costs lots of money, which the ratepayers end up paying. There is no free lunch.

This question comes after reading an article where China says that poor countries should not sacrifice their growth to the general concern about global warming and other environment issues. They have a point by adding that most of the green house emissions comes from the richest countries and that the effect of slowing their economy is far worst than the global warming effect. I belief that if we are able to travel to the moon and orbit the earth, we can find a better way to produce our goods and energy needs in a more efficient and cleaner way than today. Because of the fundings needed for research and development it needs to be done by the governments of the wealthiest nations. We as individual also need to play a part to be more efficient in the use of energy, water and goods. And this is not only is good for the environment but also for your own family budget.

The earth is in danger of catastrophic events. Our current wastefulness is killing our wildlife, atmosphere, and water. We are responsible for this current environmental crisis. God chose the human race to care for the earth, but we have neglected and abused this responsibility.
Although there are many problems facing the planet, we can narrow them down to three main ones. They are: water pollution, over hunting and over fishing a species to extinction, and global warming.
The first item on the list, water pollution, consists of oil spills, litter, and harmful chemicals. Oil spills occur when a ship has a leak and spills oil into the river, ocean, lake, etc. Litter is the dumping of garbage into rivers, lakes, oceans, etc. Lastly, chemicals are usually dumped into rivers by industrial factories located on or near a riverbed.
All three of the water pollution problems can be solved by people being more careful, but unfortunately many people don’t care about the earth or future generations.
Oil spills could mainly be prevented if ship captains were a little bit more aware of their surroundings and avoided big objects. Litter might be resolved if people were more educated on the issues and knew what kind of deadly consequences arise every time they throw a piece of litter on the ground. To solve the problem of chemicals being dumped, local governments need to strictly regulate and enforce laws against it.
The over hunting of fish is a problem, because fishermen need to continually fish to make money, but without regulation, entire fish populations could be wiped out in a matter of years. More countries need to protect fish by putting them on an endangered species lists, therefore making it illegal to catch endangered fish.
Of the three issues, global warming is the most controversial. Although most scientists agree that global warming is a legitimate threat, there are some scientists who believe it is entirely natural and will go away in a few years. The scientists who believe that it is a threat, point towards green house gases that are poured from cars and factories every day. They believe that the gasses clog the atmosphere and trap in sunlight, that in turn, heats the planet. To help the planet from this problem, people could buy more fuel efficient light bulbs, cars, and appliances. Worldwide, governments and energy companies should begin to convert their power sources to solar power and wind energy. Car companies should also begin to design electric cars that don’t pollute the air.
These are just a few steps people can make to save the planet; if we don’t, life on the planet could cease to exist.

You want everyone to change to Compact flourecent bulbs.
These take three times as much energy to produce and produce poluting chemical biproducts. They also contain mercury that is very lethal and they are more harm to the environment than any amount of global warming if they are broken.

You want people to drive electric cars that use acids that must be disposed of because they can not be recycled. And if disposed of improperly they are not healthy. Or if the vehicle gets in a wreck it could leak and be even worse. Plus they do not use any less energy because they have to recharge, so your gas bill goes down a little but your electric bill goes up to compensate.

Or you want people to use Hydrogen power that has a biproduct of water vapor, that just happens to be the one substance that has been scientifically proven to be an actual green house gas.

And don’t get me started on waterless toilets. We’ll be returning to the days of black plague with that one.

the reason i ask this is well obviously global warming has been going on for years but people didn’t start caring much about it at all until gas and energy prices started skyrocketing. also it seems like none of the car producers are really producing truly green cars they might not use gas but now the new cars like the ford flex that are fully "plug in" electric cars are doing nothing but moving green house gasses from the exhaust pipe to the coal mines and it seems like people think cars like that are going to stop global warming…
um im sorry but i never saw the scientific evidence that global warming doesnt exist….oh right because it does…

Could they let it slide if they get something big in return? Would it be similar to the Missouri comprimise negociated by Henrey Clay that averted the civil war for years? Maybe they could trade dropping the investigation of him for something like much improved enviromental protection? A big real serious effort to stop and fix global warming ASAP? Passing laws that actually quickly convert to Green Energy and achieve Energy Independence?, higher fuel efficiency standerds for planes, trains, big rigs, and cars and trucks? Species and Habit protection? A ban on the dirtiest technologies if replacible with cleaner? A law to phase out the sale of incandencent lightbulbs for new more efficient replacements? An honest real closed or open door debate in the full senate and house that actually finds the best possible solution that can be thought up for how to make the most possible out of Iraq and Afganistan and get out of there as gracefully, successfully and quickly as possible?
Would this allow both sides to gain something or at least one side gain something so the other wouldn’t lose something? Republicans AND DEmocrats what do you all think?
I donno maybe it would over politicize the persuit of justice in our country? Maybe that’s happened already? I donno you tell me.
ok well, at the very least something could be worked maybe behind closed doors that lets the republicans save face in exchange for something they should have agreed to in the first place that helps the enviroment and economy at the same time. Hows that sound?

I think that, considering the prices of oil, we should start building windmills, solor panel fields and such to cut down on costs. I think global warming is bogus, so I’m not concerned about that. I just want it to be cheaper to run a household and to buy gas. Why isn’t this happening? Also, why is it so expensive to get solar panels on your house?
Any rude or insulting answers will be reported.

Oh yeah, that’s right he gave Brazil billion to drill for oil? Funny thing is George Soros bought oil stock in Brazil just before the deal was sealed- is Obama paying back his friend? I thought he was worried about Global Warming? Or is that only when it is convenient?

I’m pro looking for alternative energy to fossil fuels, they are a limited resource meaning they will eventually run out, they are also one of the strongest sources of energy and are thus valuable for many reasons, which is another reason why I’m pro-conserving them.

As for global warming and carbon emissions blah-blah? I haven’t studied the facts nor kept up-to-date on current scientific studies on it, so this may be just ignorance on my part, but I don’t think I’m buying it. I understand the green house effect and carbons role in it.. Not so sure though whether the practicality is as simple as the theory.

Anyways from what I last understood, scientists are divided on whether they think global warming is man-made.
Sean Hannity is a f**king amateur, I can’t believe whatever comes outta his mouth because he is simply anti-anything not conservative.

I’d rather get my info from a neutral and respectable source

As a green house gas and the global warming situation, is there anyway that we can create something or modify something to extract carbon from CO2 or "scrub" the air of mass harmful gases? Please make sure these aren’t obvious answers like "Be more fuel economic" or "Conserve energy"; these are obvious ones that anyone with common sense can figure out.

The new energy bill does nothing to increase competition against oil and coal, instead protects these industries from competition while giving Wal-Mart a financial shot in the arm.

This bill does nothing to reduce green house gases. Oil and coal will still reign as kings of energy for many years to come.

If congress pushed nuclear power, then we could actually reduce ghg’s no matter how many incandescent light bulbs were used.

Instead congress places the burden on the user rather than the producer while at the same time not giving us the option to choose a cleaner burning source of power.

Which proves my point. Global warming is not about the reduction of ghg’s, as politicians will always need polluters so they can maintain a source of power.

The people will be the ones to feel the abuse of power from the politicians.

First it’s the light bulbs, then it will be the SUV’s, then bottled water.

Meanwhile we will still be building coal generators.

Anyone else agree?

Deniers all day your on here telling me how you think Global warming is not man made, or you don’t even believe it’s happening! But my question is why do you resist the change to green energy? Wouldn’t you like for your house and car to be powered by free energy from the sun????? meanwhile cleaning out all the polluted air out of the city so we can breath???? Why do you resist a change for the better
With this push for green technology will come cheap solar cells.. you will be off the grid and free energy for every one.
Necessity is the mother of invention. Push the green movement now and the solar panels will get there. and yes once the technology is there and man can recreate it there is no way to charge you for sun power

since global warming and the need for more greener energy like wind power increases, is it really possible you can make lots of money by buying these companies now that are worth virtually nothing, and wait until the world gets the need of renewable energy? (buying shares of stocks). Thanks

Anyone with a home of over 10,000 square feet must modify the home to be powered solely on solar power or wind power.

After all, every little bit helps, and people who live in 10,000 plus square foot houses have huge carbon footprints due to their heating and power requirements. If every house over that size was powered by green energy, it would definitely reduce pollution, dependence on oil/coal, etc.

If you support efforts to reduce carbon emissions, do you also support this suggestion? If not, why not?
I’m not suggesting that we allow carbon offsets. I’m suggesting that if Global Warming is real, then Al Gore and Sheryl Crow and others who live in giant homes should have no issue with modifying them to be completely green. No credits available.
smcgilli….. you must have missed my point.

The people clamoring for us to use one sheet of toilet paper, and turn the heat down to 67 degrees, live in 10,000, 15,000 and 20,000 square foot mansions. My suggestion is, if they are right and global warming is going to kill the planet, then they should have no objection to turning their luxury homes completely green. Right? Wanna bet how fast they’d sidestep this….?
sarge — you missed the point too…. you’re talking about what’s "fair." What would be "fair" is if Sheryl Crow and Al Gore HAD THE SAME CARBON FOOTPRINT AS YOU AND ME. People in 10,000 square foot homes in Malibu, and private villas, and airports in their front yards, are telling you and me that WE have to spend money greening out homes, but they don’t green theirs. WE have to drive hybrid cars and bio-diesel, they say - but they fly in jets 100 times per year — WE have to use one square of toilet paper, and THEY make sure their entourages and themselves are bathed in luxuries while on "tour" and making movies (which are pure luxuries - and major pollution sources).

how do we get energy in our homes? do we get energy in our homes by burrning coals?

i know carbon dioxide and other green house gases causes global warming, but what KIND of ACTIVITIES CAUSES global warming?

1.) What are three non traditional, alternative resources of energy through which electrical energy can be generated with little or no air pollution?

2.) What is the Green House Effect?

3.) What is Global Warming?

green-house producing sources like coal, although we have centuries of coal reserves, will place our future at very high stakes in aiding in global warming.
What is the best alternative to energy production that will be abundant and sufficient enough to prevent global warming?

1. I'm interested in knowing how much savings on your energy bill… insignificant or quite noticeable.
2. Have you experienced anything negative in comparison to the regular light bulbs?
3. What were your reasons for buying the light bulbs? Cheaper energy bill? Reduce green house gases causing global warming? or Trendy?

I think this is good, and forward-looking, but it's so inconsistent with his energy policies and the Republican mantra that there's no global warming.
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/02/is_george_bush.php

Wouldn't it make more sense to call it "green," "clean," or "renewable" energy? Just what exactly is green energy an alternative to? Is it an alternative to global warming, dependency on fossil fuels, deforestation, depletion of the earth's resources, extinction of several species, and acid rain? Is it an alternative to fighting wars over oil, oil lobbyists trying to run the show, and large corporations getting tax breaks and large subsidies? It doesn't sound like an alternative to me; it sounds like a solution. What do you think?