Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragoneye
Not only that...the argument against electricity is not very solid. It's much more efficient to burn a fuel in one central source than a million little engines. Easier to control emissions (research the output of a modern coal-fired generating station...you may be surprised), and cheaper per mile in terms of energy cost.
Also...where do you think gasoline comes from? A gas vein in the ground like gold? No, it's heated and separated out from all the other goodies found in crude oil. Which means nearly as much burning of nasty stuff as electrical generation.
Finally...the future holds promise in the way of electrical generation. Solar, wind, biomass, and even nuclear if our leaders can get a clue...all of these can help contribute to our total energy production. In concert with simple conservation to help balance the load of these new cars and trim our electrical requirements across the country, it's not as impossible as some would believe.
|
This is all assuming that global warming is even real; if anything, the premise for global warming is unfounded and contradictory. Even if it was real, you'll find that government guidance would be less inefficient at preventing/slowing global warming than market arrangements. Here's a good excerpt from the SIRC on the "precautionary principle" being so obviously used in GW: "[t]he precautionary principle is, however, a very useful one for consumer activists precisely because it prevents scientific debate. The burden of evidence and proof is taken away from those who make unjustified and often whimsical claims and placed on the scientific community which, because it proceeds logically and rationally, is often powerless to respond. This is what makes the principle so dangerous. It generates a quasi-religious bigotry which history should have has [sic] taught us to fear. Its inherent irrationality renders it unsustainable."