Deseret News | Shift to green power will require a revolution

Reader comments
Marjorie Cortez: Shift to green power will require a revolution

Socialism | 12:55 a.m. March 31, 2009

Lesson I've learned with all these "GREEN" nuts and all this Al Gore hokey pokey is its just another way to line Al Gore's pocket book with loot.

Even Al Gore didn't turn his lights off on his property, now that's what you call a typical liberal, left wing, hypocrite. Especially when all eyes will be upon you during these dramatic times of drastic weather changes etc.

Al Gore and all his kool-aid drinkers are nothing more than a FRAUD, just like Obama!!!!

Anonymous | 7:15 a.m. March 31, 2009

clearly, the revolution will be forced upon us. Probably by shortages and high prices. We'll get there, but it will be kicking and screaming to the bitter end.

michael | 8:11 a.m. March 31, 2009

The world will be moving to a green economy. We can either lead and thrive economically or we can follow and change our dependence from the mideast to China and other producers. It is in our vital security interests to wean off oil and go to clean green. As a side benefit, we will also greatly reduce our carbon output.

Comments continue below

Dave | 8:18 a.m. March 31, 2009

Turn off your lights and light a candle?

RedShirt | 9:15 a.m. March 31, 2009

We don't need a revolution, we just need common sense to kick in. We already can produce electricty without pollution. It is called Nuclear Power, and it is probably the most "Green" power out there. In addition to being green, it also does not have the drawbacks that wind, solar, or hydroelectric have.

Waste is not an issue because it can be recycled and used again and again. What little bits can't be recycled are easily taken care of by digging a really deep hole.

In addition to producing electricity, the waste heat can be used to produce fuel from the CO2 in the atmosphere. Thus being good all around.

Romance Unveiled | 9:38 a.m. March 31, 2009

To all who espouse The wonders of solar and wind power do you realize that to supply the nation's electricity needs we would need a land area the size of New Mexico located in the desert Southwest to covered with solar panels to produce it? Do you realize that solar panel arrays in such a location will require a minimum of monthly washing to remain effective? Do you realize that we lack an adequate grid system to deliver the power from its production site to centers of use? Most importantly, do you realize that the same environmental community that extolls the virtues of solar power absolutely opposes such land use? Many of these questions also apply to wind energy production. It's great to dream of such solutions but the reality is that nuclear power solves all of these issues and has proven safe for over forty years. There comes a time to ignore the romantic rhetoric and face the fact that the answer is readily available if we, as a people, have the will to embrace it.

@RedShirt | 9:46 a.m. March 31, 2009

I have a good place for that really deep hole: RedShirt's back yard.

bob | 9:52 a.m. March 31, 2009

Nuclear is a good idea. Problem is that Carter guy banned the recycle of nuclear waste. That Bush guy thought about changing it, but that's as close as we came. Nix the political solution.

I don't think environmentalists know how hard the job they've taken on really is. They don't only have to convince people that the world is in need of saving. They have to find a way to get people to care about someone besides themselves.

There was a guy who tried doing that about 2,000 years ago. Some of us are still working on it, despite those who used, and continue to use, His name, and act with an inverse philosohpy.

Look at the number of people who won't sacrifice an hour a day to read with their children. you think they will give up their TV for a better world they won't even see?

Here's the plan:
Step 1: Show people how to care. So many of the "caring" enviromentalists are essentially really angry. Lead by example my friends.

Step 2: Convince people that change will benefit others.

Grass roots effort. All other plans lead to failure.

Demosthenes | 10:47 a.m. March 31, 2009

Conservation - the opposite of wastefulness - is universally viewed as good. It's good whether involving money, water, energy, or food.

But viewing CO2 as an enemy is complicated. CO2 is harmless to living things; it is not a pollutant. It makes plants grow better. It's in your breath. And it's very expensive to remove from exhaust. Therefore, taking strong measures to reduce CO2 necessarily have a high economic cost, and that cost affects the poor and middle class the most.

Then there is the high uncertainty about the role of CO2 in the atmosphere. CO2 levels and temperatures don't correlate very well over the past century (correlation with the price of a Big Mac is better), and CO2 rise in the past has always lagged temperature rises -- in other words, climate is NOT driven by CO2. And so the reasons for fighting CO2 emissions are unclear.

But any way you look at it, electricity use is growing quickly and we need new, clean sources of electricity. And the only viable large-scale source is nuclear power--everything else pales in comparison with its potential.

Eileen McCabe | 11:07 a.m. March 31, 2009

Whether you believe in global warming or not, take a look at the resource wars happening all over the planet, over petroleum, over uranium, over precious metals, over coltan (for cell phones)and over water. Face facts; we are running out of basic resources. We can stick our heads in the sand, or we can embrace this, and think about our lives differently. Gradually and steadily live with less. Buy things used, turn down your thermostat in winter, and up in summer ( life doesn't have to be 70 degrees 24/7), walk more, use the dryer less, declutter your living space, live in a smaller space. In exchange for less stuff in less space we get 2 key things; more time and more money. In just 2 years, the money I have saved streamlining my life has accumulated into a downpayment for a house. The time saved in not having to take care of so much stuff in so much space has blessed me with more time for myself and my kids. Living with less is not deprivation, it's true abundance. I'm not talking about cave-man days here; simplicity is highly underrated.

Eileen McCabe | 11:14 a.m. March 31, 2009

Here's another thought: what is a revolution? a turning around. Changing our habits will require a revolution. The turning around of billions of people re-evaluating and revaluing what is important. it won't be simultaneous, it won't be unanimous, but it has started. It MUST speed up.

Chad | 3:31 p.m. March 31, 2009

No one ever talks about the costs of going green. All I hear are the arguments about it being good for the planet or that we don't need it, or that it is dumb.
Let me give you a big reason: GREEN POWER ALWAYS COSTS MORE. As in, you will PAY MORE on your power bill. For example, in areas where wind and solar projects have been added, the cost per unit of energy produced is ALWAYS more than traditional power and averages more the double what traditional power costs.
What the environmentalists don't tell you is that you will not be able to afford that TV, or that AirConditioner, or that big house if you adopt their programs; that is exactly what they want.
They think you are all a bunch of greedy stupid people wrecking the planet with your consumption - like by living in comfort with your nice TV. They want the lifestyle we all work hard for to cost too much for most of us to afford. Then, and only then, will the planet be safe.

Wake up, people. Green is going to cost you in real money, Big Time.

Factmonger | 6:19 p.m. March 31, 2009

What war over Uranium? The US and Canada have a couple centuries' worth. Africa, Mexico, and Asia have more.

What MUST speed up is developing the "third world," including bringing them affordable electricity. Advanced societies pollute less per capita than the less developed (think about how you cooked your dinner last night, or how you heat your home, or what happens when you flush your toilet).

To those who suggest cost penalties, including cap-n-trade: government coercion is never a good thing, and never stays in initial limits set on it.

Al Knowing | 10:00 p.m. March 31, 2009

A shift to green power will require more resources that the world currently possesses.

Add your comment

Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.

Words Remaining

E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.