Group discussion > Why 80? 100% is even better.
Why 80? 100% is even better.
|
Aleksandar Malečić
871 days ago |
Why should we bother with 80 per cent? Could we totally reduce our influence on environment? Politicians are evil, lazy, corrupted, slow, and passive and we (every one of us) could do their job better. Could we?
|
|
Aleksandar Malečić
808 days ago |
Speaking of 100 percent - there is a similar initiative: www.repoweramerica.org. It's nice to have a Nobel Prize laureate Al Gore supporting it, especially in America, but is it achievable? It's not enough to shout: "Let's do it!" Step-by-step activities should be visible. If one was tired, he/she should let another one to continue.
|
|
Aleksandar Malečić
646 days ago |
It seems that we shall witness discussions about renewable energy more each year. At the same time, we shall probably never have a real vision about what can be done and when. As problems with global warming and peak oil become more visible, more people will discuss about the "necessity" to use nuclear energy (problems with nuclear waste, possibility to create nuclear missiles and further international instability that can't bring us to common goals, visions and actions). The lack of clear vision may increase passivity and delay activities necessary to fix the mess. Maybe the only option left is to do as much as possible in the meantime.
|
|
Aleksandar Malečić
538 days ago |
Living beings significantly participate in carbon cycles. While reducing carbon emissions, we should also reduce deforestation, apply carbon capture and storage and as a species move to the background (Can these activities be done without population control?). No matter how technologically advanced, entropy and thermodynamics will always be out of our control. The environment has inbuilt mechanisms for self-reparation and regeneration. We should let it use them.
|
