• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Do You Support Green Energy?

Do You Support Green Energy?

  • I support green energy and I wish to see it more fully implemented.

    Votes: 12 50.0%

  • I support green energy in theory, but think it needs more research to live up to expectations.

    Votes: 11 45.8%

  • I don't really support green energy, because I don't believe we need it.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • I actively dislike green energy, because I like the energy sources I use now.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Green energy? Is that like when you eat your vegetables?

    Votes: 1 4.2%
  • Total voters
    24
Perotista said:
Here is something to think about between today and yesterday, say the 1950's on being green and recycling. It is a cute read and I can remember everything this says.
BEING GREEN!


Checking out at the store, the young cashier suggested to the much older woman, that she should bring her own grocery bags because plastic bags weren't good for the environment.


The woman apologized and explained, "We didn't have this 'green thing' back in my earlier days."


The young clerk responded, "That's our problem today. Your generation did not care enough to save our environment for future generations.


She was right - our generation didn't have the 'green thing' in its day.


Back then, we returned milk bottles, soda bottles and beer bottles to the store. The store sent them back to the plant to be washed and sterilized and refilled, so it could use the same bottles over and over. So they really were recycled.


But we didn't have the 'green thing' back in our day.


Grocery stores bagged our groceries in brown paper bags, that we reused for numerous things, most memorable besides household garbage bags, was the use of brown paper bags as book covers for our schoolbooks. This was to ensure that public property, (the books provided for our use by the school) was not defaced by our scribblings. Then we were able to personalize our books on the brown paper bags.


But too bad we didn't do the 'green thing' back then.


We walked up stairs, because we didn't have an escalator in every store and office building. We walked to the grocery store and didn't climb into a 300-horsepower machine every time we had to go two blocks.


But she was right. We didn't have the 'green thing' in our day.


Back then, we washed the baby's diapers because we didn't have the throwaway kind. We dried clothes on a line, not in an energy-gobbling machine burning up 220 volts -- wind and solar power really did dry our clothes back in our early days. Kids got hand-me-down clothes from their brothers or sisters, not always brand-new clothing.


But that young lady is right; we didn't have the 'green thing' back in our day.


Back then, we had one TV, or radio, in the house -- not a TV in every room. And the TV had a small screen the size of a handkerchief (remember them?), not a screen the size of the state of Montana. In the kitchen, we blended and stirred by hand because we didn't have electric machines to do everything for us. When we packaged a fragile item to send in the mail, we used wadded up old newspapers to cushion it, not Styrofoam or plastic bubble wrap. Back then, we didn't fire up an engine and burn gasoline just to cut the lawn. We used a push mower that ran on human power. We exercised by working so we didn't need to go to a health club to run on treadmills that operate on electricity.


But she's right; we didn't have the 'green thing' back then.


We drank from a fountain when we were thirsty instead of using a cup or a plastic bottle every time we had a drink of water. We refilled writing pens with ink instead of buying a new pen, and we replaced the razor blades in a razor instead of throwing away the whole razor just because the blade got dull.


But we didn't have the 'green thing' back then.


Back then, people took the streetcar or a bus and kids rode their bikes to school or walked instead of turning their moms into a 24-hour taxi service in the family's $45,000 SUV or van, which cost what a whole house did before the 'green thing.' We had one electrical outlet in a room, not an entire bank of sockets to power a dozen appliances. And we didn't need a computerized gadget to receive a signal beamed from satellites 23,000 miles out in space in order to find the nearest burger joint.


But isn't it sad the current generation laments how wasteful we old folks were just because we didn't have the 'green thing' back then?


Please forward this on to another selfish old person who needs a lesson in conservation from a smartass young person...


We don't like being old in the first place, so it doesn't take much to piss us off... especially from a tattooed, multiple pierced smartass who can't make change without the cash register telling them how much.
Click to expand...

The bit at the end got me giggling -- all young'uns are tattooed and pierced (multiple times), and thus unqualified in their opinions. :lamo
 
Ad_Captandum said:
The bit at the end got me giggling -- all young'uns are tattooed and pierced (multiple times), and thus unqualified in their opinions. :lamo
Click to expand...

multiple pierced smartass who can't make change without the cash register telling them how much. Now this has happen to me several times. Not from a multiple pierced individual, but teen agers working the drive through.
 
Perotista said:
multiple pierced smartass who can't make change without the cash register telling them how much. Now this has happen to me several times. Not from a multiple pierced individual, but teen agers working the drive through.
Click to expand...

Hey, go figure, people without fully developed prefrontal cortexes are idiots.
 
Ad_Captandum said:
This is a really simple poll this time: Do you support green energy, and why or why not?

Could be anything from switching from fossil fuels to wind, solar, and nuclear energy, to going for electric cars instead of petrol-based combustion engines. Included as a bonus, recycling and water treatment, etc.

That's it: Go.
Click to expand...

Nuclear Power is not Green energy.
 
"Green energy" and "environmentally friendly" energy are not exactly the same. It's the "If all As are Bs, that does not mean all Bs are As."

For example, I support clean exhaust from cars. But that does not mean I think cars must get 50 mpg.

When they added CO2 to the definition of "green," they RADICALLY altered what "clean" energy means as - as in the case of nuclear power - to a 180 degree exactly opposite meaning. Sure, nuclear power can render entire areas uninhabitable for thousands of years, create huge death-zones, cause a billion birth defects, kill countless people - but since it doesn't emit CO2 then it's "clean" and "green."
 
DaveFagan said:
Nuclear Power is not Green energy.
Click to expand...

There's a lot of debate over that, actually.

Proponents of nuclear energy cite how energy efficient and clean it is, as it doesn't contribute to air pollution, produces vastly less waste, and if disposed of properly, creates no ground or water pollution -- all in addition to being the most stable and efficient energy we know of.

Detractors of nuclear energy cite how catastrophically bad nuclear energy can become on the extremely small off-chance that something bad DOES occur -- and they always cite Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima.

They're valid points -- nuclear energy is great, but it also requires a lot of responsibility.

Personally, I think that the pros outweigh the cons by an astronomical unit, both in energy efficiency and in safety/cleanliness.

It's a vast understatement to say that nuclear energy has caused the fewest deaths and destruction of any major form of energy (coal, petrol, hydroelectric, etc.).
 
I do not support the government incentive's of green energy. Pumping tax payer dollars into companies that have no business with our money in order to become "more green" does not excite me in the slightest. Especially when half the time that money doesn't get as effectively used as if somebody was investing their own money into green energy. Private green energy is good though.
 
Ad_Captandum said:
There's a lot of debate over that, actually.

Proponents of nuclear energy cite how energy efficient and clean it is, as it doesn't contribute to air pollution, produces vastly less waste, and if disposed of properly, creates no ground or water pollution -- all in addition to being the most stable and efficient energy we know of.

Detractors of nuclear energy cite how catastrophically bad nuclear energy can become on the extremely small off-chance that something bad DOES occur -- and they always cite Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima.

They're valid points -- nuclear energy is great, but it also requires a lot of responsibility.

Personally, I think that the pros outweigh the cons by an astronomical unit, both in energy efficiency and in safety/cleanliness.

It's a vast understatement to say that nuclear energy has caused the fewest deaths and destruction of any major form of energy (coal, petrol, hydroelectric, etc.).
Click to expand...

Nuclear power is astronomically expensive and is the only power source that can make an entire region uninhabitable essentially forever.

It is going to take 60 YEARS to shut down the old broken nuclear power plant here - and a couple billion just to turn it off permanently - though it's been off a few years now due to a big crack in it - that would cost over $1 billion to fix. And it's "waste" will have to be stored for THOUSANDS of years.

They cancelled the two replacement reactors - after collecting a couple billion for it and raising electric rates 50% to finance doing so - as the costs just kept increasing by billions and billions, now raising rates to pay for permanently retiring the broken one.

Nuclear power is the ONLY energy source that you have pay on for THOUSANDS of years. Thousands of years to store the massive qualities of liquid death and genetic destruction. Thousands of years if there is a melt down. The radiation going into the oceans NOW from Japan will be in our oceans all over the world for THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS of years.

Just the financial loses of just Chernobyl and Fukushima goes off the chart.

Nor is nuclear power a renewable energy source.

Even if a person doesn't care about the massive genetic damage and massive levels of birth defects, the financial costs of nuclear power are so high in the long run as to be virtually impossible to calculate. It is ONLY nuclear power that could destroy the human race. It is ONLY nuclear power that could kill our oceans - and in doing so kill nearly every upper form of life on this planet.
 
Ad_Captandum said:
There's a lot of debate over that, actually.

Proponents of nuclear energy cite how energy efficient and clean it is, as it doesn't contribute to air pollution, produces vastly less waste, and if disposed of properly, creates no ground or water pollution -- all in addition to being the most stable and efficient energy we know of.

Detractors of nuclear energy cite how catastrophically bad nuclear energy can become on the extremely small off-chance that something bad DOES occur -- and they always cite Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima.

They're valid points -- nuclear energy is great, but it also requires a lot of responsibility.

Personally, I think that the pros outweigh the cons by an astronomical unit, both in energy efficiency and in safety/cleanliness.

It's a vast understatement to say that nuclear energy has caused the fewest deaths and destruction of any major form of energy (coal, petrol, hydroelectric, etc.).
Click to expand...

Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, Fukushima and seven nuclear submarines sunk in our oceans. There are also huge quantities of nuke waste dumped before they made it illegal. It's just a slow death industry for the people.
 
First cars were electric. Steam cars built before the mid 30's. Petrol just push them out of the market because give more energy per unit weight. When electric motors achieved surplus in their favor, we all immediately transfer to them. Now it would be correct to divide the transport system by fuel. Big trucks might use compressed gas in their engines. Pickup trucks and large cars go on diesel. Heating, natural gas and coal briquette, which does not give a large amount of CO2.
And never forget that in order to charge your electric car, you need to burn a lot of coal to power plants because wind turbines and solar cells are not able to be constant sources of energy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom