Green Living Q & A

Eco friendly alternative to trash bags for your trash?

ok so i buy all those eco friendly reusable trash bags
so i bought all those reusable bags now what?

Which is the most cost effective, eco friendly way to generate electricity?

I’m keen about eco friendly electricity generating but am wondering which is the most cost affective as i am aware that some are more expensive than on the grid electrics.

How can I get my company Eco-friendly certified?

My company is an interactive media shop and would like to become eco–friendly certified? Does any one know of any businesses or programs that can certify a business to be “green?”

Has anyone had a bad experience with eco-friendly laundry detergent?

I tried it, and it bleached white spots on all my clothes, even when they were turned inside out.
This is what I get for trying to be eco–friendly…(the stuff is expensive, too!!)

If you use an eco friendly detergent and it works, what is it?

how do i clean up if an eco friendly bulb breaks IN MY BEDROOM?

eco–friendly bulb broke in my bedroom, what do i do? call a hazmat team?

I can’t tell whether I’m Republican or Democrat. Help?

On social issues, I usually side with Conservatives, except with the gay marriage thing. If there’s a separation of church and state, then religion can’t play a part in choosing our policies as a nation & in the future, a religion other than Christianity may attempt to dominate American politics. I side with the Democrats on most environmental issues, but I think if we have oil, here in America, we should start digging for it. Now, the War in Iraq. I think dictators who disregard the peoples concerns should be put out of power, but if we’re killing innocent people all the time, I don’t think we should stay there any longer. If we’re doing that, then it’s an abuse of power. At the same time, Hitler came to power at the same time America was practicing isolationism and the Holocaust killed millions of Jews, gay people, etc. & you hear different stories from every news station, etc. How do you know who to believe?
But then, Democrats seem like they’re here to serve the will of the minority. It seems like they try to hard not to offend people.

Please help me revise a speech for the election!?

It’s really bad! Be as critical as possible without being mean!
Candidates’ Environmental Plans

Polar bears are going extinct because of the melting ice burgs. The temperature is increasing 5°C every century. Global warming is causing the ozone layer, Earth’s protection against the sun’s harmful rays, to become weaker. These dilemmas are all part of one issue in our election: the environment . Both candidates devised plans to improve the environment in our country. Their plans will cover pollution, alternative energies and fuels, drilling for oil, cars, greenhouse gas emissions, green jobs, and much more. Both candidates acknowledge the fact that human pollution is a significant cause of global warming, but who has the best plan to help solve that and other problems? Barack Obama and John McCain have very different views on this subject.
Senator Obama has a very strong environmental plan. He is very supportive in investments in alternative forms of energy. He plans to spend $150 billion in environmental– friendly energies and fuels in the next ten years. I’m pleased that he is putting so much devotion in alternative energy, but where does that “investment” come from? Inevitably , some of that mammoth amount will have to come from our taxes. This democrat will produce new businesses working on wind, solar, and bio-fuels, along with millions of new “green” jobs. That will help the economy immensely. Barack Obama says 1 million hybrid cars will be running by 2050 if he becomes president. They run on batteries, and don’t require gas. Also, by 2012, 10% of electricity will be renewable, and greenhouse gases will be lowered 80% by 2050. He will try to eliminate oil imports from the Middle East within ten years. This means less taxes on gas. He mostly opposes drilling for oil domestically, but might do it as a last resort. He is neutral on nuclear energy, since it would be very expensive. Also, Barack Obama will require all cars to meet fuel efficiency expectations, so it will take less fuel to fill up American’s tanks. He supports the protection of natural places from development, which I believe all Americans should do. Humans have already destroyed the homes of too many animals. However, the senator is neutral on schemes to help save endangered species from extinction. In my opinion, this is despicable. We should transfer the energy and effort we put into unimportant matters to helping our fellow animals live happy lives and flourish. Although Barack Obama’s plan is wonderful, do they measure up to John McCain’s?
John McCain has a well- developed solution to the environmental issue. His energy plan is called the Lexington Project. This plan will help America break dependency with foreign oil, improve transportation, promote energy efficiency, and help global warming. McCain states, “In a world of hostile and unstable suppliers of oil, this nation will achieve strategic independence by 2025.” McCain will reward people who buy clean cars. The “Clean Car Challenge” will provide a $5000 tax credit to any purchaser of a zero carbon emission car. Also, he will require automakers to switch to flex fuel, which lasts longer and is better for the environment than regular fuel. He will use and create new alternative energies and fuels, but won’t make investments as large as his opponent. He strongly supports nuclear energy, unlike Barack Obama. He says it is very safe; the military has been using it for years. John McCain also plans to drill for oil in Alaska. This will lower prices in ten years. The republican says it is a long process that will pay off in the end. Although it would be helpful, there is a chance it can result in a lot of pollution if the oil spills. To people concerned about that, Senator McCain says that the ships are very secure, so a spill would be unlikely. He plans to drill in the National Petroleum Reserve, but not in the Artic Wildlife Refuge. I believe that both of these places should be left untouched. They are protected for a reason; they’re pristine and beautiful in every way. John McCain will lower greenhouse gas emissions 50- 60% by 2050, 30- 20% less than Barack Obama plans to lower it. As you can see, McCain also has a well- thought out energy/ environment plan.
Now that you know each candidate’s methods to improve the environment, it is time for you to make the decision: Barack Obama or John McCain? You are not only voting for president, you are voting for the course of action to put an end to global warming, prevent pollution, fuel our cars, saves the polar bears, and much more. It is a very critical time, and everybody needs to use their voice. Vote 2008!

thank you!
So, it would be “increasing 5 degrees C (41 degrees F)”?
I know I kept on repeating words, so can you tell me what words I repeated the most, and good words to replace it?

Do Women Enjoy Chikan?

Not “chicken” Chikan.
Countries like Japan are years ahead of the United States not only in terms of product innovation, and environmental issues, they are also well ahead of us in the area of Chikan. What steps should the government take to increase awareness and make Chikan more widespread here in America?
I love both chicken and Chikan, I am dying to get my hands on a few pieces of breast and thighs.

Can you freely legally send soil internationally without having to get some kind of permit or something?

I’m from Ireland. A distant relative of mine died in America, I didn’t know him, just kinda knew of him. Anyway, his great grandparents emigrated from Ireland years ago, and settled in America.

My dad is a farmer, and this man’s family know this, so they asked him to send some soil over to them so they can toss it on the casket, as a kind of symbolic thing(!!!).

I was just wondering, could you send some soil to a different country freely, without declaring it, or could there be a problem, I don’t know, like because of environmental protection issues or something?!?!

I know this question might sound a bit weird, but I don’t want to be arrested or anything for sending something into a country thats not meant to be there!!!

Are Americans being fleeced??? Amongst all the political turmoil…?

…fragmenting our rapidly declining republic, has any one thought that these problems might be being propagated by others? Some what like a child playing his/her parents & siblings against one another. I keep coming back to a rather dubious individual, albeit a smart one for sure who coined the following phrase…”LOGIC for the individual, EMOTION for the masses”(Adolph Hitler cir cu 1934). The same socialist mentality that ushered in “Dolph & the boys” into Deutschland seems alive & well in America today. EMOTIONAL SENSATIONALISM seems to be what is the HOT seller on our major managed news media of today. Gun control, gender issues, PC speech, hate crimes, political backed environmental issues, age issues, alternative life styles, wealth desparity & needed social programs seem to attract people like moths to a light. Ironically Hitler CAMPAIGNED on PRECISELY the above mentioned issues leading up to his election as chancellor of Germany in 1933! See a PATTERN here folks???

What is the best minor for a chemical engineer for experience in biorenewables and alternative energy?

Im majoring in chemical engineering and i want my minor have background in biorenewables and alternative energy. What minor is best for an engineering student at iowa university?

What arguments can I write about for and against alternative energy.?

I want to write about alternative energy sources for an argument paper for English. (Nuclear Fusion/Fission, Wind, Geothermal, Hydrodynamic, etc.) However, it’s difficult to single out a particular argument. We have to argue a specific change the audience should make. I would like to discuss home design and improvement as well. (like improving energy efficiency in the home). however i can’t settle on a single arguemnt in which I can write a 8-page argument. any tips/suggestions?

What is a better alternative, energy saving-wise, for well water?

I’m doing a project in Science and am wondering if some other form of getting your water will save more energy…or is running on well water the best alternative?

Thanks in advance!!

Can we sustain economic growth and switch to alternative energy source in light of the economic crisis?

How can you prove/What evidence is there to support the fact that we are capable of sustaining economic growth and prosperity while switching to alternative energy sources, even in light of this economic crisis?

What degree would give you adequate knowledge about Alternative Energy?

I plan on majoring in finance, but I want to go into finance with a specialization in alternative energy sector (or biotech). What would be the ideal degree for this?

Information and Advice for My Green Future?

My Green Future
Allright guys… First and formost, I am a college student. Specifically a sophomore civil engineering student. A few years I became fascinated with the idea with going green and especially anything related to renewable energy. (Specifically the various forms of wind and solar) I cannot even begin to explain the passion I have in pursuing a degree that is going to help me with a long successful career with renewable energy. Now I have already talked to quite a few companies asking questions I think that are most beneficial to my cause, but I want to ask people outside of the formal business world and ask for their opinion’s as well as other suggestions and alternatives as to what they see as a route or path to success. Who knows, your help may also help others searching for similar questions that I might have. So in advance I would like to extend my appreciation to anyone that can help me out. Thanks alot!

Like I said above, I am currently in civil engineering, but the more research I do I keep finding that civil is probably not the type of engineering that is going to best suit me for a engineering career in renewable energy. I have narrowed down my selections to Industrial & Systems and Mechanical Engineering. I would include electrical, but I am at a point where switching and carrying credits over would affect me too much and do more harm than good. Now I already know that mechanical will probably best suit any renewable field but I am also curious where industrial and systems engineering might apply too?

Also aside from the business degree aspect what other degrees are being considered that will get someone a job in a renewable field?

I was also curious if anyone had some websites or forums or any other places that they would think are beneficial to others and I looking for information regarding the rewable field?

Is it time for a social uprising?

We could use $7,000,000,000 to become energy independent. We could use the money in a brand new energy bill. The new energy bill would help guide a process that would pay for research and design, update infrastructure, give subsidies to renewable energy companies subsidies to farmers, and small business grants for start-up green energy contractors and the companies who would manufacture the equipment necessary for conversion. The bill would help create thousands of new small businesses which would hire millions of Americans, and help grow existing green energy companies.

I called for Obama, my candidate, to return to congress 2 1/2 weeks ago (before McCain) and it fell on def ears. Now im asking him to change his tone on the bailout bill and call for a new energy bill instead. Im right. Dont doubt it. The Question is.. are the people in Obama’s inner circle capable of thinking freely or are they focused on bailing out their own “401k’s” and other investments? Im gonna vote for Obama, because his core principles are the same as mine. His policies are for the most part innovative and progressive. But he needs to start thinking independently from his advisers. He needs to start listening to the people who matter. Me.. im as middle class as it gets. Im a sub-urban 25 year old white guy with a 2 year old daughter and a dog. Im in real estate, im losing money, I cant pay my bills, and my clients cant get credit. Im willing to sacrifice my career in order to stop this bailout.

Americans have lived off of credit for to long. We dont even remember what it’s like to save money and pay cash for our homes and cars like our parents and grandparents did. Because of our credit addiction the dollar is inflated and the price of commodities has sky-rocketed. We need to become an ownership society again, not slowly progress into a bank dependent one. After almost 100 years of living off of a credit system which creates money out of thin air, our federal government and the federal reserve (which is no more federal than fed-ex) have proven that the credit system is flawed. Promoting ownership and reverting to the old monetary system which backed our money with gold bullion is the right way to run our country and is whats best for our people.

Because of our flaws as a people. Because of our flaws as a country, this generation, the most selfish generation must step up and allow themselves to suffer. We may have to go head first into a depression, but just like the great depression we will come out a stronger, better country than we were before. Sacrifice by our forefathers is what made our country great. Whether you like it or not, whether you are able to admit it to yourself, you know as well as I do that this country has lost it’s way. How will history remember us? Its time to stand up, stop whining, and start being Americans. If it calls for social uprising we must meet it. If it calls for revolution we must revolt. If it calls for sacrifice we must suffer. Sadly, I believe from the bottom of my heart, this will never happen. Our federal government has divided, manipulated, and bribed our people for too long. The violent and non violent protests that made our people strong for over 200 years ended with a thud some time before I was born in the early 1980’s. My generation is silent, oppressed, and absorbed by digital media. We are weak, lazy, and inebriated. This may be the end of the American dream. What would the great society of the 1950’s have to say if they knew what a fat, lazy people we have become?

Looking back was Nov 20th 2009 the day that “Global Warming” finally ended?

November 20, 2009 is an important date because it now looks like it was the day that “global warming” ended. It was the day that a total fabrication, a hoax, was revealed to be the work of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), aided and abetted by a vast network of governmental and business leaders, a compliant media, and scientists who sold their souls for grants and other funding.

It was the day that Al Gore was shown to be unworthy to share a Nobel Peace Prize with the iniquitous IPCC, nor an Oscar for his documentary, “An Inconvenient Truth.”

It was the day that Cap-and-Trade legislation, the largest tax ever on energy use, was eviscerated as lacking any basis in science. The legislation proposed to establish a “carbon credits” trade that would have enriched the Chicago Climate Exchange created by investors that included Goldman Sachs. Following the “global warming” hoax revelations, the Exchange would close its doors within a year.
November 20 was the day that three thousand emails between the meteorologists at the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, England, specifically its director, Phil Jones, and Penn State’s Michael Mann, as well as others involved in the hoax were made available on the Internet.
The Washington Times reported that “Obama administration climate czar Carol Browner rejected the revelations in the email exchanges, saying “I’m sticking with the 2,500,” referring to the IPCC climate science members. “These people have been studying this issue for a very long time and agree this problem is real.” This, like all the other assertions about “global warming” was a lie.

It must be noted that President Barack Obama continues to talk about “climate change”, the term used to replace “global warming”. His administration has many “global warming” advocates including his science advisor, Dr. John Holden, and Secretary of Energy, Dr. Steven Chu. The Environmental Protection Agency is engaged in securing authority to regulate carbon dioxide and other “greenhouse gas emissions” as this is being written.

The administration’s funding through subsidies and mandates for “renewable energy” sources such as solar and wind energy is entirely based on the assertion that the generation of energy by coal-fired plants, is causing “global warming.” Neither solar, nor wind can even begin to provide sufficient energy for the nation, now or in the future. Support for ethanol, a biofuel, is equally without merit.
The primary assertion behind “global warming” was that it was “anthropogenic”, created by human activity, primarily the burning of “fossil fuels” by utilities to generate electricity and by industrial users. Similarly the use of oil derivatives, gasoline and diesel for transportation is blamed.

A segment of IPCC members did not support the global warming hoax and tried for years to marshall opposition to the Panel’s findings, published in reports shot through with baseless distortions and assertions that the Earth was heating to an extraordinary degree. Over time, they came forth and publicly disputed the IPCC for spreading the “global warming” hoax.

More here: http://americandaily.com/index.php/article/4679
Jeff if you actually read the article you’d see that it was a summary of many of the negative issues surrounding the AGW movement each of which relates to its own piece of evidence… I sense sour grapes!??!

Is one of the problems with cap & trade is that they really don’t have alternatives available?

What is Cap and Trade?
The goal: To steadily reduce carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions economy-wide in a cost-effective manner.

The cap: Each large-scale emitter, or company, will have a limit on the amount of greenhouse gas that it can emit. The firm must have an “emissions permit” for every ton of carbon dioxide it releases into the atmosphere. These permits set an enforceable limit, or cap, on the amount of greenhouse gas pollution that the company is allowed to emit. Over time, the limits become stricter, allowing less and less pollution, until the ultimate reduction goal is met. This is similar to the cap and trade program enacted by the Clean Air Act of 1990, which reduced the sulfur emissions that cause acid rain, and it met the goals at a much lower cost than industry or government predicted.

The trade: It will be relatively cheaper or easier for some companies to reduce their emissions below their required limit than others. These more efficient companies, who emit less than their allowance, can sell their extra permits to companies that are not able to make reductions as easily. This creates a system that guarantees a set level of overall reductions, while rewarding the most efficient companies and ensuring that the cap can be met at the lowest possible cost to the economy.

The profits: If the federal government auctions the emissions permits to the companies required to reduce their emissions, it would create a large and dependable revenue stream. These financial resources could be used to achieve critical public policy objectives related to climate change mitigation and economic development. The federal government can also choose to “grandfather” allowances to the polluting firms by handing them out free based on historic or projected emissions. This would give the most benefits to those companies with higher baseline emissions that have historically done the least to reduce their pollution.

What Would a Successful Cap-and-Trade Program Look Like?
The goal: To limit the rise in global temperature to approximately 2.0 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial levels by 2050 by reducing carbon dioxide and other emissions from companies as part of a larger plan for curbing global warming.

The cap: To achieve this goal, the U.S. government should steadily tighten the cap until emissions are reduced to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. Businesses would have to obtain permits entitling them to emit a certain quantity of carbon dioxide or its equivalent in other greenhouse gases. All permits would be auctioned off by the government. Emissions permits in the near term would likely fall in the range of $10 to $15 per metric ton of carbon dioxide or its equivalent.

The trade: Companies unable to meet their emissions quotas could purchase allowances from other companies that have acquired more permits than they need to account for their emissions. The cost of buying and selling these credits would be determined by the marketplace, which over time would reduce the cost of trading the credits as trading becomes more widespread and efficient.

The profits: Initial estimates by the Congressional Budget Office project that an economy-wide cap-and-trade program would generate at least $50 billion per year, but could reach up to $300 billion. Approximately 10 percent of this revenue should be allocated to help offset costs to businesses and shareholders of affected industries. Of the remaining revenue, approximately half should be devoted to help offset any energy price increases for low- and middle-income Americans that may occur as a result of the transition to more efficient energy sources. The other half of the remaining revenue should be used to invest in renewable energy, efficiency, low-carbon transportation technologies, green-collar job training, and the transition to a low-carbon economy. Some resources should also be invested in the energy, environment, and infrastructure sectors in developing nations to alleviate energy poverty with low-carbon energy systems and help these nations adapt to the inevitable effects of global warming. Revenues from the permit auction would essentially be “recycled” back into the economy to facilitate the transition to an efficient, low-carbon energy economy and ensure that consumers are not unduly burdened by potentially higher energy costs.

Now here is the problem: Coal which is the worst polluter provides about 1/2 of our electricity which means those power plants either have to convert to some other power source or buy carbon credits which of course they will pass the cost onto the consumer. Solar & wind power which is the cleanest only provides about 5% of our power and is a decade or more away from being a major provider. Nuclear energy which is about the only source of power available that can readily replace coal, oil & natural gas the liberals don’t want anything to do with. Natural gas is the cleane

Is Cap-and-trade the biggest scam of all?

It is truly amazing that anyone really familiar with the so-called cap-and-trade bill could actually accept this legislation or in Congress, vote for it.

First, it is erroneous to think that it would have any effect on global warming because carbon dioxide is not the cause, it is the effect but unfortunately that battle won in the halls of science is lost in the halls of congress.

Second, it is also erroneous to say that the bill would cut U.S. greenhouse-gas emissions because most “greenhouse-gas emissions” are water vapor – carbon dioxide is a relatively small portion of such emissions.

The House bill is falsely alleged to cut U.S. greenhouse-gas 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020 and 83 percent by 2050. It would also establish a new Renewable Electricity Standard (RES), which would force utilities to supply a minimum amount of their electricity from renewable energy sources. The result will be: (1) everything used by the public will increase in price because of increased costs to producers from the need to acquire “carbon credits” for their operations will be passed on to consumers and, (2) requiring utilities to change their the means of power production from whatever is being used now to “renewable energy sources,” however defined, will necessarily increase the cost of electricity to homeowners because new “sources” will be more expensive to use that currently used fossil fuels.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/06/capandtrade_the_biggest_scam_o.html

http://blog.nj.com/southjerseylife/2009/06/news_viewpoint_global_warming.html

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=10783

How tragic this all is for the consumer!!

Project for sustainable development geography?

We have to do a one minute commercial about sustainable development.

We were thinking about doin the three R’s Reduce Reuse Recycle
but the teacher said we had to do like more about usuing our resources without using them up.

heeelp?
We need ideas
we’re in grade seven by the way.

How would you define sustainable development and why is it so difficult to define?

Also, why are there so many differing definitions?

Revising for Geography. 🙂

What is sustainable Development and are there ways to implement it in our daily lives?

To What Extent Can the Problems of urbanisation Be Met by a Policy of Sustainable Development?

OK, that is the title of my essay, well it’s the general idea of the essay but I need to chose a topic within the essay title to talk about. One example would be Problems of housing and traffic congestion and somehow making that into a title relating to the above question. Any other suggestions? So just anything that relates to the above question is welcome!
Thanks in advance!

What are some strategies for sustainable development in London?

It’s for my Geography work, so far I have done Congestion Charge, any help? 🙂

What style of clothing should I wear?

ummm.
I like scene (like spongebob shirts, baggy but cute jumpers, black skinnies, etc)

or ummm indie (sorta like white tights, berets, skinny jeans, converse, black ‘school shoes‘, cute necklaces, eco–friendly colours, etc)

idk which one to go for?
but I don’t know who I am!
lool
and I hate wasting my money on crap that I don’t need. I need a theme so at least I have an objective. :S

ECO *cute* ORGANIC CLOTHING?!?!?

I’m looking for clothes that are eco–friendly or help an organization. (cute t-shirts, shoes, sweatshirts)
but I’m not sure where to start….
websites?
I’m thinking something like www.tomsshoes.com

Any ideas?
seriously

some people have no lives.. no purpose

What are some humanitarian fashion trends?

I am looking for different clothing and accessory groups, for both girls and guys, that raise money for a cause. I allready have Tom’s Shoes and Clothing with a Cause, but what are some other ones? They can also be eco–friendly but I would prefer something that raises money for a specific charity or something.

Do I use a lot of description here? If so, how would I go about minimizing it? (story?

It’s everywhere, adverts for disposable shoes, eco–friendly motor scooters, reduced CO2 emission sports vehicles, reusable toilet paper and Nike. When you do anything public, you do it on ad space. You walk on linoleum, advertising the latest must-have gadgetry from Sony or the latest marketable, mediocre talented Disney starlet’s upcoming Coca-Cola World Tour, in the public bathrooms. The public bathroom is where the consumer is more vulnerable, whether the consumer has to sit down or stand up, because visual stimulation distractions relaxes you muscles and preoccupies your time being wasted… wasting. Men stare straight ahead (as to not be caught admiring their fellow urinal compadre) and stare straight into the asshole of capitalism. Most of the public bathrooms are privately owned by Kohler in the Pacific Northwest and they sell their ad space to every corporations from Apple to Walt Disney, the Corporations no longer worry about markets and target-audiences because the main objective and, arguably, the only objective is to sell, sell, sell. Advertising Agencies are a 20th century fad, whose main contribution to the world of Corporation was to desensitize Consumers enough that advertising was an extension of human decision making. Everything looks like a kaleidoscope of Consumer-friendly colours and literature. The entire world is trying to hawk brands at you and, unfortunately fortunately for Consumers, you buy, buy, buy. Every day, brands are making their ways into the dictionary; detergent was forced to give it’s meaning to Tide, toilet paper bullied to give it’s meaning to Charmin, tissue was blown out of the nose of the nose of the individual into a Kleenex, instant noodles were micro waved Ramen, every day brands become neologistic insurrections. University campuses and Primary playgrounds are corporate jam sessions; where everything from the benches to the monkey bars are logo’d. Caterpillar Monkey Bars and benches are floosies when it comes to ad space. The wallpaper in this bathroom and, in fact, schools, office buildings, convenient stores are Procter & Gamble owned. All brands sell ad space to brands and we’re caught in the crosshairs of these kissing cousins. Ads on top of ads on top of ads on top of humanity. We, no longer have quarrels about religion, life, love, friendship or sex but where you can find the best deal on Tide Brand tide or some brand or other. The way technology crept into your day to day life, advertising has accomplished with technology taking a supporting role and billed as Medium of Communications. Advertising was the tortoise in a race between Any Other Form of Mind Control vs. Avaricious Wants, Greed and Commodities. Religion only appeared to be winning. Advertising has taken over our life, one medium of communication at a time.

At present time, there is a bidding war between Coca- Cola and McDonald’s where the item being auctioned off is United States of (insert brand name here). It’s all very simple, people just got tired of choosing and with super brands taking out all of it’s competition our choices became severely limited. Brands decided to cash in on our limitations by buying more ad space and buying out everything from education to recreation or is it procreation? Since, weddings were being sponsored by some brand or another. And Corporations buying out children’s futures by paying the parents of the child thousands of dollars if they named the child Pepsi or Apple and the most common boy name in 2041 was the Nike swoosh.

It started with television, we all were desensitized and nobody/nothing stepped into to rub us with lubricate us with original ideas because in a brand world even respectable educational programming was cramming the latest everything down your metaphysical gullet with sporadic and random pop ups during History programmes of the Third Reich of McDonald’s sponsoring the programme you are currently watching. With virtually everyone in the “civilized” world desentised to megalo-branding, brands started to sensitize Consumers with whatever it was they were hawking at the beginning of this take over. Earth has been lowered in rank to share holder. You can also buy your shares of rain forests, woodlands, deserts and, most profitable in 2037-41, Alaskan wilderness. The way people use to be able to have a tree planted in their name, they have Kohler water fountains in the Mojave Desert with “Tom and Linda’s Kohler Water Fountain for a Better Tomorrow” written on the side… and the sad thing is that many took this sham as similar to the tree fiasco. Also, do not be alarmed by the Colgate-Palmolive safe havens in the Alaskan wilderness. Alas, the water is supplied by Coca-Cola owned Dasani.

I would like a pair of shoes…?

I would like a pair of shoes, like vans slip-on style or maybe flats. Possibly eco–friendly. not in-your-face, but also not subdued. sonething to wear with skinny jeans. Currently i own a pair of purple lace-up vans. Im kind of looking for something less brand name. But i definitely still like my current ones.

Degree in Renewable energy?

I am interested in saving the world‘s problems and it’s addiction to big oil..lol

There are few colleges that offer a degree in renewable energy, but I am not sure if I should go for a specific degree like that. How about studying Bachelor’s in chemical engineering or Biotechnology and then studying masters in renewable energy?

Any ideas are welcome.

Thanks

Renewable Energy Question?

Please share your thoughts in detail to help me?

cold fusion has been belittled, ridiculed and basically dismissed by the scientific community since 1989 when Fleischmann and Pons “jumped the gun” during a press conference. There is evidence that cold fusion is within reach of becoming a viable option as a renewable energy source, and that it would basically change the world economy. Check out the following article:
http://www.columbiatribune.com/news/2009/may/30/evidence-favoring-cold-fusion-as-energy-source/

Can you believe how much energy we waste?

I’m in the middle of a project for college here. Some interesting facts: Oil production peaked in the mid seventies, natural gas production will peak in 2020, the most efficient engine we use at the moment is the diesel engine which is approx 40% efficient for the fuel put in to the work done. Renewable energy (solar, wind, tidal, etc) still only accounts for a tiny percentage of the energy we use! We are totally screwed! We still breed like rabbits and still don’t treat the world responsibly! At this rate the world will be out of resources within 100 years, by then we’ll HAVE to use renewable sources of energy but the pollutants that will exist then will have completely b*ggered up the planet! Any thoughts?
Jeez Kev, that’s a bit harsh, not getting any? In fact they reckon the population will increase and hold at approximately 10 billion by 2050. We are indeed using more oil than ever but the overall number of SOURCES of oil has not been increasing since the seventies. Read the question and don’t make assumptions. Live and let live. And lose the superior attitude.

Will civilized countries develop renewable energy sources…”?

voluntarily to avoid world bankruptcy and famine, or will we wait until there is no more oil and we experience the resulting devastation and ultimate total world war?
yasiru89 – I agree with your first statement. I was very surprised when YA directed my question to philosophy. I don’t know what triggered the category choice.

Would renewable energy sources be enough to cover for nuclear power?

Ok, brace yourselves, this is for a debate that we’re doing at school and I’m the lead debater. The affirmative side is “nuclear power SHOULD be used in the modern world.” The negative side is “shouldn’t”.

My question is only because the negative side might ask us about this and stump us, and I wanna be ready with all the answers.

So, say we started using nuclear power more around the world. And we don’t have to worry about waste storage facilities, either, since we supposedly found a solution to that. But then, this guy comes along and tells us that we could be using renewable energy sources, like wind or solar power instead of the nuclear power we’re now using all over the world. And suppose we actually started doing that.
Would renewable energy sources be able to produce the same amount of energy that nuclear power was?

Oh god, that is so crucial. Simple answers are fine, but I would appreciate any help on the debate itself – I’m actually working on my speech right now. I need things that we can say to drown out the negative team’s theories and ideas. We need to defeat them good.
mark, I really don’t get what you’re saying.

How can we make these things sustainable?

How can we reduce growing Crops for food, feed, and fibre such as cotton.
And how can we reduce making room for infrastructure such as roads and housing.

Are some agricultural practices or seafood harvesting methods more sustainable than others?

This is with regard to sustaining food, fresh air and water

where can I find inexpensive land to build a self sustainable community?

I am looking to build energy efficient and eco friendly housing, with the goal of developing a community that can sustain itself in every way possible. from food to energy, water treatment. using underground/earth sheltered construction and combining any or all methods to achieve these goals.

I want to make a large sustainable rabbit litter box for three house rabbits with soil, any insights?

I’m thinking of building a lined wood box about 3’X3’X3′ and filling it halfway with soil and a layer of hay on top with a ramp and food bowls inside. I figure I can just keep turning over the soil indefinately if it works right but I am just guessing at this point. Any pointers?

I’m writing a paper on how to redesign the food supply system for San Francisco. Any ideas?

I have a paper I’m writing about how to provide large volumes of affordable, sustainable and local food to San Franciscans. The idea is to come up with policies that can be implemented both inside and outside the city to encourage production, consumption and recycling of local, sustainable foods. These are some ideas I have already: a carbon tax on high carbon foods, a water tax on water consuming foods, shifting agribusiness funds to organic growers, purchasing land in the valley in name of San Francisco and hiring growers to use the land under long term lease, offering prisoners training and experience in return for labor and reduced prison sentences, redeveloping electric rails to San Francisco to bring volumes of food stuffs in at a reduced price and carbon cost, creating tax or economic incentives for local residents to grow and compost their own food, offering food sold under a city brand in most neighborhoods for easy access at a sliding scale so more can afford it, setting up a school in city to train local growers and develop local cultivars, focus on growing perennial plants, redeveloping abandoned warehouses into greenhouses, establish an urban development zone to contain future development both in the city and around the farm land. I’m sure there’s more I could so with this. Does anyone have more ideas and especially know of any concrete examples of similar projects being done on a large scale?

Alternative Fuels Question?

Shouldn’t we build the infrastructure to store the energy we already waste at night?
Also build to store the energy the nukes could be producing as they ramp them down 60-75% at night?
This would be about 5%.
We could store the energy at night, then use it during peak times.
Since you will need storage to make any alternative energy, (except hydraulic) viable, ins’t storing already wasted energy the first option?
Wouldn’t that eliminate more gas consumer than solar/wind.
Without storage we won’t be able to take any existing plants offline.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7598212.stm

Did Hillary lie when she accuses Obama’s vote on the 2005 Energy Bill as having hurt America?

According to MSNBC’s Dan Abrams, Hillary has been untruthful and she distorts the facts. The Energy Bill – which Hillary rejected – actually was profitable for America.
It raised taxes SLIGHTLY On The Oil Industry As A Whole. Although the Energy Policy Act of 2005 contained $14.3 billion in tax breaks, most of those breaks were for electric utilities, nuclear power plants, alternative fuels research and subsidies for energy efficient cars and homes.

AP also reported The AP reported, “Clinton is on shakier ground when attacking Obama for supporting “Dick Cheney’s energy bill,” and not just because it’s a stretch to assign the vice president name – red meat to Democrats – to the legislation. The 2005 act that she describes as packed with billions of dollars in oil industry breaks actually raised taxes on the oil and gas industry by about $300 million over 11 years, according to the Congressional Research Service. The nonpartisan analysis found $2.6 billion in tax cuts for the oil and gas industry and $2.9 billion in tax increases. The bulk of tax breaks went to other sources of energy, including alternative fuels favored by both Clinton and Obama.” [AP, 2/15/08]
Obama Worked Consistently to Improve Energy Bill, Which Took Important Step Towards Energy Independence. When Obama first voted for the bill, he said that he voted for the bill reluctantly and that he was disappointed with the missed opportunity to do something bolder to move the country towards energy independence by recognizing the importance of a fuel alternative. Obama played a leadership role in promoting seven amendments that strengthened the 2005 bill when it was on the floor and did not stop fighting to strengthen the bill after it was passed, introducing legislation in 2007 to end some of the most egregious tax breaks for the oil industry that were part of the 2005 bill. [HR 6, Vote 139, 6/15/06; SA 851 to HR 6, Passed by UC, 6/23/05; HR 6, Vote 141, 6/16/05; HR 6, Vote 145, 6/21/05; SA 919 to HR 6, Passed by UC, 6/23/05; 110th, S. 115, Referred to Finance, 1/4/07; S. 133, Introduced 1/4/07; S. 767, Passed Commerce Committee, 5/8/07]
http://obama.senate.gov/news/050728-tax_credit_for_e85_fuel_in_ene/
2005-2007: Obama Introduced Legislation Repealing Tax Breaks And Other Perks For the Oil Industry, Requiring Yearly Increases In CAFE Standards, And Requiring Significant Increases In Renewable Fuel Mandates And Alternative Energy Incentives. Since 2005, Obama has introduced legislation suspending the 2005 energy bill’s tax incentives and other perks for the oil industry in the Energy Policy Act of 2005, requiring significant increases in the renewable fuel mandates over the next few years, requiring yearly increases in CAFÉ standards, and providing incentives for E-85 fuel pump installation, alternative vehicle research and production. [S. 115, 110th Congress; S. 23, 110th Congress; S. 133, Introduced 1/4/07; S. 2202, Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. 10/18/2007 S. 2984, 109th Congress; S. 1324, Introduced 5/7/07; Press Release, 5/7/07]

Did Hillary lie when she accuses Obama’s vote on the 2005 Energy Bill has hurt America?

According to MSNBC’s Dan Abrams, Hillary has been untruthful and she distorts the facts. The Energy Bill – which Hillary rejected – actually was profitable for America.
It raised taxes SLIGHTLY On The Oil Industry As A Whole. Although the Energy Policy Act of 2005 contained $14.3 billion in tax breaks, most of those breaks were for electric utilities, nuclear power plants, alternative fuels research and subsidies for energy efficient cars and homes.

AP also reported The AP reported, “Clinton is on shakier ground when attacking Obama for supporting “Dick Cheney’s energy bill,” and not just because it’s a stretch to assign the vice president name – red meat to Democrats – to the legislation. The 2005 act that she describes as packed with billions of dollars in oil industry breaks actually raised taxes on the oil and gas industry by about $300 million over 11 years, according to the Congressional Research Service. The nonpartisan analysis found $2.6 billion in tax cuts for the oil and gas industry and $2.9 billion in tax increases. The bulk of tax breaks went to other sources of energy, including alternative fuels favored by both Clinton and Obama.” [AP, 2/15/08]
Obama Worked Consistently to Improve Energy Bill, Which Took Important Step Towards Energy Independence. When Obama first voted for the bill, he said that he voted for the bill reluctantly and that he was disappointed with the missed opportunity to do something bolder to move the country towards energy independence by recognizing the importance of a fuel alternative. Obama played a leadership role in promoting seven amendments that strengthened the 2005 bill when it was on the floor and did not stop fighting to strengthen the bill after it was passed, introducing legislation in 2007 to end some of the most egregious tax breaks for the oil industry that were part of the 2005 bill. [HR 6, Vote 139, 6/15/06; SA 851 to HR 6, Passed by UC, 6/23/05; HR 6, Vote 141, 6/16/05; HR 6, Vote 145, 6/21/05; SA 919 to HR 6, Passed by UC, 6/23/05; 110th, S. 115, Referred to Finance, 1/4/07; S. 133, Introduced 1/4/07; S. 767, Passed Commerce Committee, 5/8/07]
http://obama.senate.gov/news/050728-tax_credit_for_e85_fuel_in_ene/
2005-2007: Obama Introduced Legislation Repealing Tax Breaks And Other Perks For the Oil Industry, Requiring Yearly Increases In CAFE Standards, And Requiring Significant Increases In Renewable Fuel Mandates And Alternative Energy Incentives. Since 2005, Obama has introduced legislation suspending the 2005 energy bill’s tax incentives and other perks for the oil industry in the Energy Policy Act of 2005, requiring significant increases in the renewable fuel mandates over the next few years, requiring yearly increases in CAFÉ standards, and providing incentives for E-85 fuel pump installation, alternative vehicle research and production. [S. 115, 110th Congress; S. 23, 110th Congress; S. 133, Introduced 1/4/07; S. 2202, Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. 10/18/2007 S. 2984, 109th Congress; S. 1324, Introduced 5/7/07; Press Release, 5/7/07]

Woo-hoo finally a serious energy bill?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071218/ap_on_go_co/congress_energy

will raise standards for appliances, increase alternative energy production, and make the fleet gas mileage requirment on new cars to be 35mpg and include trucks and SUVs in that calculation. Suprisingly, Bush says he intends to sign it too. I think this will solve a lot of problems personally. Do you support/disagree?
small cars are much cheaper to build than big SUVs, and if everyone is driving smaller cars people will feel less of a need to buy a big car to keep up with the Joneses, you will need less gas, plus demand will go down which can lower price

Give me a good reason to disagree with Brodman’s view? ?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081001/ap_on_re_eu/eu_france_us_nuclear;_ylt=AgJ.Win4nWk1pLvWzA6q3S50bBAF

Mine is that taking on so much additional debt trying to retool instead of manage a financial crisis will extend the defecit to such an extent that America will not only lose its credit rating but will not be able to raise the funds for Nuclear or Alternative Energy.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081001/ap_on_re_eu/eu_france_us_nuclear;_ylt=AgJ.Win4nWk1pLvWzA6q3S50bBAF

Iceland offers free parking for Eco friendly cars,should USA have the same deal,…?

http://www.icelandreview.com/icelandreview/daily_news/?cat_id=40764&ew_0_a_id=286879

Why is it not eco friendly to buy a new car?

I read that it’s more eco friendly to keep your old car than to spring for the new eco car.

eco-friendly cars under 50,000?

Plz. give info on eco- friendly cars?

currently, what is the safest, most eco-friendly car?

i am all about giving back to my community and my earth. i have a daughter and as a single mother i am trying to set a good example so that when she grows she too will want to give back. that being said, i need a safe car and one that will reduce my carbon footprint. so what is the most eco friendly and the safest car on the market right now?