> greater emphasis on efficiency, and on alternatives once they became practical.
Sorry, that's weasel language and I hear it everyday. Electric cars existed before gas tech, the first Porsche was electric, Einstein described the photoelectric effect in 1905, got Nobel Prize in 1921. The greenhouse gas effect by carbon dioxide has been realized the century before and wind energy is in use for millennia. If we had not chosen that route, we'd be _all_ better off for sure, had probably a few wars less and wouldn't look at sea level rising for thousands of years to come.
Of course you'd do it again, the party was fun and the cleanup team pays someone else.
Electric cars need batteries, which in turn need to be manufactured and charged with electrical energy by nuclear, gas, coal, solar or wind farms, which all have their effects on the environment too (but centralized plants would be easier to keep clean). Batteries are nasty chemical contraptions that are hard to produce and dispose of cleanly. Yes sometimes in Corporatism (State and Capitalism), there are underhanded deals, but in Capitalism, things cost money, because they take time and labor. Instead of disparaging somebody with a pejorative term, why not use your smarts and labor to come up with a way of accomplishing your wishes to see something realized? Money is, in the general sense, man's way of placing some value on goods or services, his time and labor. It is not evil in and of itself, it is a thing that allows trade to take place; men act, and do either good or evil. The world is a whole lot better due to technology, markets, and Capitalism. Sure, it's not perfect, but more people have been lifted out of poverty through it, or by it. It does have its warts. You should aim for utopia (aim high, miss low), but not fail any policy that isn't 100% utopia.
As an aside, sea-levels are not going to just rise like water in a glass analogy because of polar ice melting. They are going to fall in certain places and really increase in others due to many physical reasons - see [1].
I'm not anti-capitalism. I just say we've it thrown it at the wrong energy source and went us into dark ages. Just imagine for a second all that money, labor and ingenuity had been used to develop solar. Or the other way round, where will solar be in 100 years?
And please learn the difference between melting sea ice and land ice. It's measured in kilometers.
I am assuming you are not directing the last line at my comment, since I know the difference between melting sea ice and land ice; you should read the article I referenced as it addresses sea vs. land ice, salinity near an iceberg, and many other topics. The main point was to say it is not a universal rise in levels. A lot of people, even technically-minded people, do not grok these points. Like me: I didn't know the land rebounded back up, but that make sense once you hear it. The weight compresses the land, and when it diminishes, any recoil in it acts.
We wouldn't be better off if we had not used coal, oil, and natural gas for the last 200 years, we would be much, much poorer. There would not be as much pollution in the world, but we would have missed out on a massive amount of economic growth that was only possible through abundant, realiable energy.
instead of assaulting the poster directly we should pick up where he left and think of ways to improve the situation. Bickering just breeds more negative thinking
Sorry, that's weasel language and I hear it everyday. Electric cars existed before gas tech, the first Porsche was electric, Einstein described the photoelectric effect in 1905, got Nobel Prize in 1921. The greenhouse gas effect by carbon dioxide has been realized the century before and wind energy is in use for millennia. If we had not chosen that route, we'd be _all_ better off for sure, had probably a few wars less and wouldn't look at sea level rising for thousands of years to come.
Of course you'd do it again, the party was fun and the cleanup team pays someone else.