Marty's Comments

Good article. All that being said, ethanol still produces more green house gases and has fewer BTUs per gallon than gasoline. There is no getting around that.

I guess i'm one of those "die hards".
http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/news_press_release,176495.shtml

Hey Mark, I found another article that seems to take issue with your conclusion that Man Made Global Warming is no longer debateable. This seems to be a common tact by many: marginalize the opposing opinion instead of debating the issue. The debate is not over.
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=b35c36a3-802a-23ad-46ec-6880767e7966

You talk as if it is a fact that man can influence global warming one way or the other. I 'm not ready to accept that presupposition yet. Too many scientists IN THE FIELD disagree. At this point it appears to be more political/religon than true science. However, that being said, keep the alternative energy tech coming. Let's not shoot the economy between the eyes based on psuedo-science just yet. Best wishes to all.

Listen to yourselves. Hasn't solar, wind and other emerging technologies received benefits from  the same type of subsidies? Nuclear is not our enemy.

It sounds like the author and the report assumes that changing man's actions/behavior can stop global warming. I didn't know that the argument was over. A more plausible explanation for global warming is that the sun, for some reason, is putting out more energy. If that were true then the other planets would be getting warmer also. Oh wait, they are!

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=927b9303-802a-23ad-494b-dccb00b51a12&Region_id=&Issue_id=

If you took all of the corn currently in production in the US and made ethanol it would only alleviate 17% of our oil needs. There are about 30% less BTUs in ethanol than gasoline, which means 30% less MPG. I tell you, this isn't the way to go...

France is having second thoughts on whether or not global warming is man made. http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=2f4cc62e-5b0d-4b59-8705-fc28f14da388
Mars' temperatures are rising at the same rate as earth's. Maybe there is more (or less) to this story than the current hype. It doesn't look like we can conclusively say that man is the cause of Global warming yet.

Hey Chuck,I looked at your array. That's very nice. When the tree grows to the point where its shading the panels will you cut it down or just live with the reduced output? Also make a note, people sound less extreme and more educated when they don't use expletives. When people rely on emotions instead of facts that also counts against them.

This is an unreasonable request. If controlling CO2 emission were the only issue then clean coal and Nuclear plants would be a sensible alternative. There must be an alternative motive for wanting to send mankind back to the stoneage. I'll keep my eye on this column to see if someone can give me a reason why the fringe environmental kooks (read Greenpeace) hate mankind.

After reading over my comment, I agree that I was not totally clear.
I completely agree and subscribe to RE. I think, and pray that the us gov continue to subsidize all of these technologies. With the most generous estimated growth rate, RE has decades before we can begin to rely on them for the lion's share of our energy needs.
It is vital, for our national security that we become independent of imported oil. It is vital for the Global Warming issue that we use only clean energy. Any energy that is clean should be jumped on with both feet.

Fringe environmentalists (Green Peace)offer solutions that if followed to the letter would put us back in the stoneage (basically the abolition of the internal combustion engine, as well as every other method for producing electricity. With no transportation and no electricity other than RE, we are in the stoneage). They say, "Well that produces too much CO2". When CO2 is controlled they will come up with another reason why it isn't acceptable. "Well, that's too dangerous" or "well, it's 'so-called clean'" implying that it's still dirty. Even hyroelectric is not good enough. The kooks would say that you are killing the salmon.
There doesn't seem to be any real desire to look at solutions that accomplish their own emission goals. There is no give and take. If you don't accept their plan then you hate clean air and you're a environmental heretic. I say you can love RE, get clean air AND the protect the USA.