Green but not crazy

Any opinions on supporting green technology based on alternative ideologies? My thoughts are that non-fossil based energy sources should be encouraged in an attempt to disarm islamic fundamentalism. To that end, certainly nuclear is the way to go from what I read, but the other common "green" technologies could be compelling, IF proven to actually be economically viable without gov't life support. Thoughts?

Post 1

Friday, March 20, 2009 - 8:20pm

My thoughts are using more of current nuclear fission technology (which is awesome), and continuing the great scientific discoveries with lithium ion batteries. The main thing we need right now is energy storage that has a high energy/volume ratio (energy density).

My thoughts on other "green" energy solutions are that they are retarded... basically other "green" energy solutions are all extremely low energy/cost ratio and very low energy output. Just build a nuclear reactor, and there are way less environmental and maintenance concerns.

Higher energy density batteries (volume) is the key to breaking away from fossil fuels.

For "energy independence" I'd seriously just consider using military force to take control of the oil fields from our enemies (do we have enemies whom we buy oil from?). If they are our friends then we can trade, and I don't see the problem with using oil. If we for some reason we needed the oil and our enemies wouldn't let us have it, we could take it anyways. So moving away from oil isn't a military or economic strategy in my opinion unless other forms of energy had higher energy density.

Fossil fuel energy density is awesome. And global warming is good (higher food production and will help us get through the coming ice age)-- even though I'd argue that CO2 released into the atmosphere from burning fossil fuels does not have a measurable impact on the earth's temperature. I consider using gasoline in motor vehicles as "green". I don't like diesel.

One thing I really don't like is burning coal, particularly coal power plants. Why complain about a little CO2 from cars when coal power plants eject tons of cancer causing materials into the air (and CO2)?

Post 2

Saturday, March 21, 2009 - 8:53am

"Green" is nice because it's usually healthier. It's that simple. Breathing in particulate matter from car exhaust, ships, and factories sucks (no pun intended).

Also, "green" tech also tends to be more diffuse than centralized (I think this came from the book "small is beautiful"), which means independence from one or two inefficient and precarious clunky energy behemoths. We could diversify our energy portfolio, which would probably make good economic and political sense. (Not to cast aspersions on the nuclear plant.)

Also, there's something to be said for the "green" aesthetic. Quieter cars are highly preferable. If it could get rid of the hideous powerlines, I'd be all over that. Bring on quiet kites over the ocean, and you'll get nothin' but smiles from me.

Jordan

Post 3

Saturday, March 21, 2009 - 4:58pm

Dean,

I'm quite surprised at your comment "I'd seriously just consider using military force to take control of the oil fields of our enemies"

As for the many alternatives, I hope efforts continue on all fronts, including coal. There are a few approaches to "clean coal' technologies, and while some still seem cost preclusive, others (already in limited use) seem promising. One thing, when talking about the future is that options for meeting demands in the near future are pretty much limited to coal, unless we start telling people "sorry, not enough electrical power for you..."

Alternate sources of energy (wind, solar) may (hopefully) be a long term fix. However, new coal and nuclear plants will be essential to keeping mankind's lights lit for the next 30-40 plus years.

And, I think carbon credits are bull...

jt

Post 4

Saturday, March 21, 2009 - 6:38pm

Who are our enemies at this point? I mean what countries are attacking us or our friends? Gaza Strip? Anyone else?

Post 5

Sunday, March 22, 2009 - 6:39am

I would consider the entirety of islamic fundamentalism to be our enemies, including associated states and international organizations. That would include infrastructure or support entities. Socialist countries that have directly stated they are enemies fall under the heading as well.

Post 6

Sunday, March 22, 2009 - 10:08am

And yet... we are not "at war" with them. Dean's suggestion about just taking control of enemy's oil fields smacks of (intentionally or not) a preemptive attack - viz. starting a war solely to expropriate their oil fields. I think one would be hard-pressed to explain how this would be consistent with Objectivist principles.

jt
(Edited by Jay Abbott on 3/22, 10:09am)

Post 7

Sunday, March 22, 2009 - 10:12am

I'll be more specific. My original post was related to seeking alternatives to fossil fuels to deny resources to hostile powers, not to justifications of initiation of force.

Post 8

Sunday, March 22, 2009 - 12:52pm

To be perfectly honest Jay, I'm playing the devil's advocate. I haven't made up my mind on this issue, and I am questioning when the "Do Not Initiate Force" principal applies. Is initiating force in our self interest in this context?

#1: I've seen others argue that its justifiable to preemptively attack a less-free government in order to enable the foreign country's citizens to establish a more free government, so that in the end we will have less enemies and more productivity in that country to trade with. After Iraq, I'd argue this is a waste of our resources.

I'd argue that performing a similar preemptive attack on a less-free government-- not to remove the government from power, but simply to take it's highly income oil resources, is more effective at accomplishing the goals in #1.

These thoughts came to mind once I changed my definition of "initiation of force" to "It is practically always in your self interest to not initiate force against other citizens and respected aliens." If the alien is not _respected_, then what is the problem with initiating force against it?

Post 9

Tuesday, March 24, 2009 - 6:28pm

Dean,

It always comes back to the same thing - by initiating force for a matter other than defense, you are sanctioning the same use of force against yourself. It is not logical, and can never be in your true self interest.

When Israel preemptively struck at the Arab states back in the late 60's, they knew clearly that Arab forces were building up at their borders in advance of an attack. Their preemptive attack was a justifiable defense move, undoubtedly saving many Israeli lives.

jt

Post 10

Tuesday, March 24, 2009 - 8:48pm

Jay, Very well. I'm in agreement, no rebuttal.

The only extent that the attack for oil would be justifiable as you say... would be as a very premature strike due to the potential threat of people who frequently say things like "Death to America" but have not yet acted out their words. I'm not currently aware of any plan they are in the process of executing that has a chance to be a significant threat, which makes this premature strike in my opinion cross a not very slippery slope from self defense to initiation of force.

I do not support the idea that we should save foreign citizens by attacking their unjust leaders... which I had used as a support of my argument earlier in this thread.
(Edited by Dean Michael Gores on 3/24, 8:50pm)

Post 11

Tuesday, March 24, 2009 - 8:55pm

I'll be more specific. My original post was related to seeking alternatives to fossil fuels to deny resources to hostile powers, not to justifications of initiation of force.

Sorry Ryan, I kinda high-jacked your thread, first exploring whether it was justifiable to attack them instead of no longer doing business with them.

I do think your idea is good. I think within maybe 10 years we will have better battery technology that will make gasoline obsolete for most ground transportation applications. Maybe even for air transportation too, if the energy density is high enough.

Post 12

Wednesday, March 25, 2009 - 7:20am