yes it would but with the billions the oil companies have to spend lobbying, that option isn't happening anytime soon
Changing from oil to another form of energy carries with it a lot more burdens than just the "oil companies" Picture what would change if you want away from oil to something else right now. From convenience stores going under all over the country to disposal of fuel storage areas to converting millions of cars from gas engines to something else. Its not so simple as to say - hey, lets change from oil to something else. Getting gas cars off the road is a good 20-30 year process in and of itself. Starting is a good idea, but replace gas with what? There just isn't a good viable alternative right now.
the oil is going to run out eventually, it doesn't care if its difficult for us They have plugin in hybrids that get like 60 miles to the gallon there are hydrogen cars http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2001/10/1016_TVhypercar.html I think if we put our mind to it, we can figure out a way to make hydrgen cheaper, I mean we can build spaceships and atomic bombs ....
There are alternatives out there, ethanol, hydrogen and others but because the automakers as of yet haven't felt the urgency to explore those alternatives the technology required to utilize those options hasn't been a high priority. And yes no matter what route they would take, it would take years before anything would become widely adopted. It has already started though as Ford, Toyota, and others have already announced that they are ramping up production of hybrid technology vehicles.
Lexus has one of the best looking hybrids I have ever seen. They are going to be readily available over here (well at least in the UK...We will see in Ireland)
I would quote the expert articles, except they were on CNN TV discussing the odds of 2 major hurricanes hitting the same region in less than a month and the possible link to global warming. The person that was being interviewed was Ed Rapaport, a director from the national hurricane center. I guess I should modify my statement from experts stated to the aboved named person stated. Also stated was the fact that yes hurricane activity in the atlantic is higher, the pacific storms have actually been lower than average. The problem is, every time a natural disaster occurs, certain individuals automatically blame it on global warming, just see the post I was responding to which also mentioned tsunamis being caused by global warming, last time I checked, earthquakes (which cause tsunamis) have nothing to do with climate changes.
Yea the ecolibs are loving these recent dissasters because they can use it to justify their radical anti-western global warming stance. Just like they laud over troop deaths to affirm thier no war stance they are doing the same over Katrina and global warming.
Here's an article from The Independent today: http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article314510.ece
And here's an article from CNN http://www.cnn.com/NATURE/9909/17/floyd.global.warming/ No matter what your viewpoint, you will find articles to support it.
i wasn't really talking about global warming and hurricanes, I was talking more about global warming being linked to human activitity. hurricanes are supposed to go thru cycles, but its seem to be a reasonable assumption that if the globe gets warmer, and the seas are warmer , there will most likely be worse hurricanes, right? Since warm water seems to energize them.
The main problem I have with the global warming theory and climate changes is that I personally haven't seen any concrete evidence that any climate changes are happening as a direct cause of global warming. First some "expert" says that such and such event is caused by it and then you look somewhere else and some other "expert" says it isn't. What we have done to our environment is evident but I don't think anyone knows exactly how that damage is affecting weather patterns if at all. The smoking and lung cancer analogy quoted above doesn't fit in my opinion because everyone including the tobacco companies acknowlege the link. While global warming's affect on weather has strong opinions on both sides of the argument.
Not to mention the fact that even if you can prove global warming is occuring, you cannot say how it is happening for sure. Its about impossible to derive a cause. Could be humans, could be a warm period in the sun that happens naturally. Impossible to tell for sure. Pictures from Mars earlier this week suggest Mars is warming up too. Can't possibly be human involvement, gotta be natural there - who's to say its not the same thing.
But what experts? Are there any real "experts" who have actually published papers going thru the scientfic review who say that global warming isn't real or partially caused by people? Its one thing for some phd to say "hey global warming is BS" and another to actually show research and evidence to prove that case, one way or the other. What are the reasons people think that so many scientists conclusions are wrong? Are they using bad data,. is the flaws in their theories?
There are warming and cooling cycles. Also, the volume of earth's atmosphere is roughly 10^10 cubic Km ...C02 from cars and factories isn't sufficient to affect such a large atmosphere.
Not only that the communist, hippies and homesexuals use these enviromental causes to push the homesexual agenda,