Can economic progress go hand in hand with the prevention of global warming?



Answer:
Not in its present form, I think.
Does the Pope wear a tall hat? Of course. The question is...will it?
Absolutely yes. The United States, as well as most of the world, is dependant on oil as the life blood of the economy. Oil creates global warming conditions when it is processed and burned. May of the countries which produce oil are at odds with the United States on several levels. It woudl be in the USA's bet interest, economically, politically and environmentally to adopt policies which reduce our dependancy on oil. Solar pannels on all new construction is environmentally friendly, economically friendly but politically unfriendly. Our power grid in the USA is stretched, almost to it's limit. Adding power plants in an expensive and environentally un desireable thing to do. If each house produced its own electricity from solar panels, then the power plant woudl be your solar panels. We could build less power plants and have more reliable electricity if this was mandated. anouther source of oil use is in heating our homes. Geothermal heating and cooling could vastly reduce the need for fossil fuels to heat our homes. In turn, the long term costs of geothermal are greatly reduced when their is no travel involved for the source of your heating. The ground is naturally 55-60 degrees F under 3-5 feet underground. This can keep our homes both heated in the winter and cooled in the summer with little assistance needed from any other system. The electrical power needed for the pump for the system can be provided by the solar array on the house. The drawbacks are local building codes are not all the same and the initial cost. For a basic geothermal heating and cooling system it is about $25-30,000 per home. The average solar array to power a residential home is about 60-80,000. This is out of the range of most home owners.
If there was enough time for a smooth transition from a petroleum based to alternative based economy, maybe; there isn't.
You bet.
In fact the long term social and economic progress can be ensured only by being eco-friendly and preventing global warming.

You cant keep on depleting fossil fuel reserves without a restraint and expect to find endless supplies of same.

Already the reckless use of fossil fuels has caused the prices to shoot sky high-- countries like USA are waging wars in the gulf--Iraq , and Afghan for OIL-- it all boils down to cost to the taxpayer-- and adverse impacts on economy--except of arms and ammunitions companies.

more fuel effecient and increased use of renwable sources like wind, solar, hydro, energies is bound to pull down energy costs too.
Absolutely, the old saying that when one door closes another opens up holds true here. Fossil fuels are obsolete period. New energy markets such as solar and wind power can and will help but technology must find a way to replace the fuels we currently use. This is where new sources of energy will spawn new businesses and jobs that will replace the current jobs that are harmful to the environment and promote an entire new industry that can help save our planet for future generations.
Here's some ways:

>encouraging home modifications to conserve enrgy creates jobds (contractors) and over time consumer savings mean more discretionary income=spending=increased growth genrally
>R&D produces not only new technology (alternative enrgy, etc) but new industries, new jobs
> reducing dependance on foreign oil will help our balance of trade--and make us less vulnerable to oil price variations, reducing energy costs.

What all this (and there's a lot more) won't do is work to the advantage of the fossil fuel companies like Exxon. These technologies are going to become declining industries within a very few years. AWWWWWWWWWWW!
it might
They do. Compare the production to pollution ratio from countries like France, Briton, Germany, Canada, and the USA to the same ratios of countries like Bangladesh, Egypt, Russia, China, and Viet Nam.

The more capitalist a country is, the greater production and less waste. Here, waste is turned into profits. There waste is waste.
Sure, just consider Toyota, they became no.1 by making their cars more fuel efficient.

GM, on the other hand is losing money making the gas guzzlers.

The answers post by the user, for information only, FunQA.com does not guarantee the right.



More Questions and Answers:
  • Can Liquefied Petroleum Gas can be used as Rocket engine Fuel?
  • Are the bombs and planes in IRAQ helping cause global warming?
  • Is there an environmental jobs e-listserv in Portland, Oregon?
  • What is the largest carbon dioxide sink?
  • I thought concerts were bad for the environment?
  • The best reason to fight global warming??
  • Optimistic? i don't think so !?
  • What is the carbon foot print of "live earth" going to be?
  • Do you think it's a good idea to locate solar panels on buildings in order to increase energy independence?