‘It’s Not a Silver Bullet’

Maybe instead of subsidizing big agri-biz like Monsanto and Cargill that money should go to getting the wind and solar technology to the masses. I'd have either or both in a heartbeat but setting it up is impossible. Instead $$ are sent to multi billion dollar corporations.

Maybe instead of subsidizing big agri-biz like Monsanto and Cargill that money should go to getting the wind and solar technology to the masses. I'd have either or both in a heartbeat but setting it up is impossible. Instead $$ are sent to multi billion dollar corporations.

My comments and ideas are broad. Intentionally, perceived need is to make issues less constrictive. Let's all be challenged to find the best solutions. Remember, these forums aren't for us to blabber, but to discuss the best solutions. We all have opinions and specific knowledge. Obligations are extended well beyond knowledge and should be easily translated to everyone who might wish to understand.

When will the already developed 'roll-out' solar collecting (affordable) roofing material be offered to the consumer market? PBS NOVA 'Saved by the Sun' program (reported a few years ago) describes developed Corporate and consumer-level solar technologies. Also described is an experimental paint-on roofing technology. Consumers need these cheap solutions. Surely, private funding (of these) be available NOW!
Back to my description of consumer driven incentives. We deserve these cheap solutions.

Are 'biofuels' the future of energy?

Only if they're derived from people.

Are 'biofuels' the future of energy?

Only if they're derived from people...

I agree with Mr. Somerville when he says, "...the future is a basket of technologies". He also points out that the United States is far behind Europe. That's obvious and you don't need to have a degree to see that. Go to Israel and there is hardly a rooftop without a solar panel. But when he says that there is "...no crises...", I have to disagree strongly. Herman Scheer concludes in his thesis, "The Solar Economy" that: "In general, the danger of ecological destruction resulting from energy generation and manufacturing processes is more immediate than that of irrevocable exhaustion of resources." I am no Cassandra but I would bet that the issue of Global warming will eclipse Iraq, Iran, 9/11 and every paraniod terrorist plot you might imagine within the next ten years. Climate change has the potential to make human life impossible.

There is one resource that is hardly mentioned in his article. Rooftop solar panels. By harnessing the power that exists on the rooftops that are already here for business and residences we could solve all of our energy dependence in a decade. People need to be profoundly suspicious of any large venture like national ethanol programs. Once again the corporations "retain the power of production". Solar panels empower people in ways that frighten corporations.


"Economic globalization can only be made environmentally sustainable through targeted replacement of fossil fuels by solar energy sources (wind-solar-bio-mass). This is the only way to rein in the destructive imperative of the fossil economy and call a halt to the creeping homogenization of economic structures and cultures. It is the only way to make economic development diverse, sustainable and of lasting benefit to both individuals and society."

The Industrial Revolution and the current gloablization that appears sacrosanct is a continuation of this gloabal World Order that has been in place for almost two hundred years. The Internet is a threat to this World Order for obvious reasons. It empowers all of us and that is revolutionary. The solar panels, wind turbines and solar heat are equally dangerous to this world order.

Consider the futility of the Kyoto Protocol. Carbon credits and complex treaties are about protecting the turf of the current world order who seek compensation for their "loss". Technological revolutions have happenned throughout human history and there are always losers and change comes with great struggles.

GO SOLAR!

Shifting our dependency from oil to biofuels isn???t necessarily improving our energy security. An article published in Energy Policy (Eaves and Eaves 2007) and summarized in the Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/02/AR2007100201983.html) shows that biofuels could be even more unpredictable than oil do to increasingly volatile weather conditions. We are simply shifting the risk from geo-political to the weather and with climate change that???s not such a great trade.

Shifting our dependency from oil to biofuels isn???t necessarily improving our energy security. An article published in Energy Policy (Eaves and Eaves 2007) and summarized in the Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/02/AR2007100201983.html) shows that biofuels could be even more unpredictable than oil do to increasingly volatile weather conditions. We are simply shifting the risk from geo-political to the weather and with climate change that???s not such a great trade.