Obviously, America as a country is not doing a very good job handling the energy crisis. This is a discussion on what you think we should be doing to create energy for our future.
Argue your viewpoint:
Should we put forth effort to revamp the energy economy with already existing renewable energy sources (ex. wind, tidal, geothermal etc.).
Or put effort into theoretical, but highly efficient forms of energy that have yet to be created (ex. Fusion, magnetism, etc.).
Or, maybe, should we continue in the pursuit of oil, perhaps refining the process to be more efficient.
Or any other plan that may work for America.
Tags:
Permalink Reply by Chris G on July 10, 2011 at 4:00am
Permalink Reply by Chris G on July 10, 2011 at 8:48pm
Permalink Reply by Vulpes on August 20, 2011 at 2:57pm
Permalink Reply by Chris G on August 21, 2011 at 10:41pm
Permalink Reply by Apeman Jim on December 2, 2011 at 5:36pm We have to divorce ourselves from the idea of easy anything. Fossil fuels provided the power which replaced cheap or slave labor by being cheaper and more easily obtained and maintained. No alternative offers as high a profit margin for its production or allows for as conspicuous a rate of consumption.
Permalink Reply by Joan Denoo on December 22, 2011 at 12:24pm I lived on an army base, Wildwood Station, outside Kenai Alaska for two years and learned from native Athabaskans how to trap beaver using native methods, net fish for hooligan (smelt), make parkas and mukluks using animal parts for thread and needles, made and ate Muktuk, Uguruk, and pickled moose nose. They demonstrated Stone Age techniques of food and survival. Their culture had moved from Stone Age to Machine Age in one generation! They revealed the impact on them from European-style living, good and bad. They moved out of the Stone Age, not because they ran out of stones but because they benefitted in many way by taking on Western processes and thinking.
It is our responsibility to understand how we impact human cultures, the challenges and processes used in each one and how change takes place.
In the case of oil, especially the oil sands of Canada and the proposed piping asphalt from Athabaskan regions to Texas for refining and the risks involved to water sources all along the way. The Athabaskan population of oil sand regions provide "expert" testimony of risks and benefits. Especially as human beings must look farther ahead than the next profit statement and recognize the long range impact of continued use of fossil fuels.
If we are going to need to use alternative energy sources, lets put money into that research, stop warring over access to dwindling supplies of oil, and stop bailing out financial institutions.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/
Here are some Googled sites that may help to see and understand Athabaskan terms:
Muktuk:
http://gcrgweb.sdsu.edu:8080/AK2001Web/Photos/photos06.html
Uguruk: http://arcticblast.polarhusky.com/nomad/Nomad.nsf/05f51a12758daeb20...$FILE/Arctic%20Blast%20Unit%209.PDF
Pickled moose nose:
http://www.recipesource.com/ethnic/americas/canadian/00/rec0051.html
Permalink Reply by Ruth Anthony-Gardner on September 30, 2012 at 5:57pm
Ruth Anthony-Gardner replied to Ruth Anthony-Gardner's discussion Rossby waves - what happens in the Arctic doesn't stay in the Arctic in the group Climate Concerns
Gordon Clay replied to Debra Stevenson's discussion Joseph Smith's life before Mormonism in the group Ex-Mormon Atheists
Ruth Anthony-Gardner replied to Ruth Anthony-Gardner's discussion Countries at most risk from Climate Change in the group Eco-Logical: A Group for Environmentalists
Boothby171 liked matthew greenberg's discussion YES!!!! Wolf Blitzer asked the wrong person if she thanked the Lord....© 2013 Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

