Yeah, I'm grasping at straws a bit. However, that still doesn't change the fact that coal's a bloody nice chunk of energy sitting there. Just because we haven't figured out a good way to store it or ditch it.
Look up, there is
considerably more energy raining from the sky freely every day. We have no problem storing coal, its the coal emmisions and waste products that we can't store. Not being able to store this
is reason not to use it. You
are grasping at straws.
Great. If we had completely sustainable energy sources in place that I could pull a big switch and my lappy'd be run from solar I'd happily break into the power box and flip it myself.
Are you saying that if the problem was already solved, than everything would be good? What you say, everyone will agree with. This point has no meaning. The argument is to put that sustainable energy source in place, it has not happened yet. And it will not happen while people continue give vague and ambiguous reasons as to why we should not focus on it.
It (in reference to what that quote was a respone to) is more closer to not wanting to build trains in the first place because we have plenty of horses around. Difference is all the horses are gradually disappearing. But as long as we have horses
now why worry?
I'm only going to support a genuinely bad side (and just a minor bad one at that) for the sake of discussion, and with the reasoning that furthering information might lend it credence. I mean, my actual ability to affect policy is pretty much zero. What I'm admitting is my bias, especially the fact that in a real draw of a question, I'm going to tend tp lean towards rolling in the tanks, or more likely "watch closely, with the tanks sitting on the nearest border, and a finger on the button to give the first wave of air strikes the go-ahead"
genuinely bad side
information might lend it credence
If information might lend it credence, it would not be a genuinely bad side. You would call it a genuinely bad side
after it has become evident that the side has been speaking crap. Once this has happened, you do not give them credit. We would never get anywhere if we spent the whole time considering every single side related to a situation, for the hell of considering every single side.
How can you lean towards a solution due to bias, with full knowledge you are leaning towards that solution due to bias?
What is wrong with not using it in the first place? Your solution seems to be specifically designed to require the use of coal for the hell of using coal.
Because it's something we've got in country, that a not-inconsiderable segment of the country works with, and that can certainly provide power.
This is just lazyness, while completely ignoring the points against continuing the use of coal. It is basically "Well, meh. We have coal, so meh. Yeah, climate change, but meh". It is nothing more than buying your head in the sand.
The entire point of renewables is to stop using non-renewables, so im not entirely sure what (correctly) pointing out that the country already works with coal is supposed to mean. Part of the argument is to
change what the country works with.
You do not just use something because its there.
"Focus on options that aren't coal" has *certainly* been addressed as a point. What I'm saying is that until someone's got a solution that looks like it's best, discounting research into dealing with coal's downsides is a bad idea.
You are assuming that there
will be a solution, "so just wait". What people are saying is it is best to focus resources on a long term solution, rather than a cheap hack to patch up coal for however long it would last (which is not that long). People are discouning recearch into coal's downside because one of its biggest downside is an unstoppable inevidability. It will run out. There is nothing you can do about that. We already have alternative solutions, how do you determine that a new solution is "best"? The only way to definetely know is to consider every single possible solution that could come into existance (an impossibility).
Sorry, you seem to have misunderstood the meaning of what I said alex, the enemy is an end to useful non renewables and global warming, the intention of the metaphor is to show that its better to do something now, than sit on your hands
Ok, I see now, I take back what I said.
Call me old fashioned, but yeah, I do think war's coming. Or at least greater competition between the nations/blocs of the world. And, quite frankly, the idea of America not being the strongest kid on the block any more terrifies the *shit* out of me. If we're not the principle country in the world, than everything we do matters a helluva lot less, and there's no guarantee that whomever becomes the biggest kid (China, the EU, maybe Russia even) isn't going to be willing to back burner greenification to ensure that he keeps his place?
As I have said, whoever is the biggest kid at some point
will have to greenify. It is an inevitability. What you are saying is basically milking what you can now out of fear, rather than a rational analysis of the situation. It is also "Well, they probably won't do it, so why should we"? All the while the problem continues to grow, regardless.
Wouldn't getting a renewable resource to replace oil help America retain power, instead of relying of middle eastern countries who are making large wads of cash from it? Most solutions would replace coal as well as oil. A sustainable America is an independent America, and will never have to rely on other countries (such as what has happened with oil) for energy.