Alternative Energy Incentives and Global Climate Change: a quick survey

Hey Hippies! I know that most "hippies" (new and old) consider themselves environmentalists, so I thought that this would be a great place to conduct research regarding public opinions on the major environmental issue of today: global climate change.

Below is a link to a short, six-question survey about alternative energy incentives and global climate change. It is designed to assess public opinions of alternative energies, their associated government incentive programs, and their relation to global climate change. It would really help me out if you would complete the survey. It will take no more than two minutes, and your participation will tell me how to direct and focus my research. Thank you.


http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=vdU2N0L2heWabBvmGOHL1w_3d_3d

 

Thank you to all those who have taken the survey, it's very helpful! Please keep it up!

 

So what does everyone on this forum think about global climate change?

 

Global climate change: Interesting issue, but probably not the most important one and maybe even caused by nature instead of humans. But even if the climate change wasn't an issue I would still like humans to cut back on the ravaging and pollution of the earth.

 

The "Heat Island" effect is already a reality. Since urban areas are already warmer than their surrounding areas, it's just a matter of time before they collectively warm the rest of the planet. The Earth has the natural ability to regulate the overall temperature of the planet, but it does it with a give and take scenario between plant life and the atmosphere. As we continue to chop down more rain forest and pump more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, we will reach a point of no return where the Earth will no longer have what it needs to maintain that temperature. I believe that Global Climate Change is inevitable as long as we stay on the current path that we're on.


I can see a reason for having incentives for alternative energy, but some of the choices are not what they claim to be. One example would be hydrogen fuel cells. If you used fossil fuel to create the electricity needed to make the hydrogen, it would require more than twice as much oil as simply using gas in your car. So they claim that you could use solar, wind, water, geothermal or biofuel. You can't use biofuel because it would require more farm land than we're presently using for food, and since it's still a type of oil it won't help with the Climate Change problem. If the other choices are so great, why is only 13% of the world energy coming from renewables? It's not until solar, wind, water and geothermal become the major source of energy in the world that we even have a chance to change things. And I don't see that happening in the near future.

 

If you're skeptical about global climate change, google the IPCC and look at their recent report. Donski, you're right that most of our choices aren't worth the time of day. But there are technologies that exist but aren't considered for whatever reason. For instance, as of now we only make ethanol from the edible parts of plants, which is bad for a number of reasons. But ethanol has been made from plant cellulose. Growing cellulose-producing crops doesn't need to compete with food crops and 100% of the plant can be used (rather than 1% or less using only edible parts). There are others out there, but they don't get implemented because they are a financial risk, alternatives is a fairly new market.

 

Sometimes those reasons are valid reasons, they just don't tell the public the whole story.

Burning ethanol still produces greenhouse gases. Using 100% of the plant to make ethanol means there's nothing left to replenish the soil with. Doing this depletes the nutrients from the soil in less than 10 years, and then you won't be able to grow anything in it. Fertilizer doesn't just magically appear, it has to come from somewhere. The point is, ethanol is not a long term solution.

Here's another option.

Some people are now talking about mining the moon for helium 3 as a fuel for fusion reactors.

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/helium3_000630.html

But then again, we don't know the whole story yet.

 

these kind of actions humans partake in have other consequences too (i mean besides climate change). if we don't stop we, the 'greatest and most intelligent of all species on the earth, will gpo extinct within a hundred years..... that's what i think and BTW mother earth won't bother, sooner or later she will flourish again like she used to

 

That's what I ment :tongue:. The global climate change just comes in handy to finally let us realize how destructing our societies are for the last couple of centuries. It's not the biggest threat to mankind, but we need to cut back nevertheless.

 

Donski, it the particular case of cellulose ethanol production that I mentioned, the by-products of fermentation can be used to replenish the soil. But in reality, farmers would probably fertilize the old fashioned way (the haber-basch process), emitting much more CO2 than the use of ethanol reduces.
In general, I think that these technological advances, while helpful in the short term, are addressing symptoms and not causes. The root cause of global climate change is the lifestyle of consumption we've been developing since before the industrial revolution. Philosophers often use the term "environmental ethics" to discuss the root of the issue, which I also think is a fair characterization.