Tag Archive | "green"

Resolved, that nuclear power and clean coal should be considered “green” energy sources.

Resolved, that nuclear power and clean coal should be considered “green” energy sources.

Background: Green energy often means sustainable energy, i.e., energy that meets the needs of the present generation without compromising future generations’ needs.  Sustainable energy sources typically include renewable energy which is derived from natural processes that are constantly replenished. Renewable energy sources include solar, wind, geothermal, biomass, and hydropower.  Coal is a non-renewable fossil fuel resource like oil—supplies of coal and oil are finite and will only diminish over time.  Nuclear power could continue forever and is sometimes considered sustainable, but is politically controversial because of various perceived risks like radioactive waste disposal and nuclear disaster due to accident, terrorism, or natural disaster.  However, nuclear power is the least expensive form of power now known to mankind.  No belching smokestacks of filthy black smoke.  No land or water pollution.  Nothing released into the atmosphere.  Takes up a few hundred acres of land at most, compared to the tens of thousands of acres for solar or wind use with the attendant loss of natural scenery.  And no death or injuries ever in the US nuclear industry compared to the hundreds of thousands of people disabled by black lung and other respiratory and carcinogenic diseases from coal plus the thousands of worker deaths in coal mining accidents.  The arsenic levels in coal ash increase the risk of cancer hundreds of times over.  Many believe that the perceived dangers from nuclear power come mainly from Hollywood.  On the other hand, the idea of “clean” coal comes mainly from Madison Avenue.  Many believe that clean coal is merely “public relations” by the coal industry.  There is no meaningful way to capture and sequester carbon emissions from coal.   Others contend that clean coal’s pragmatic benefits outweigh potential flaws.  The matter must be resolved soon as the green movement continues to re-energize the energy sector:

~KS FEB ’11

Posted in Domestic Affairs, Environment, Featured DebatesComments (3)

Resolved, that government mandated implementation of “green” technology is ineffective.

Many scientists and citizens around the world have great anxiety about the state of the environment and its future. In addition, valuable resources that we are dependent on becoming more and more hard to find. The government has tried to amend these problems and concerns by ordering the use of technology which is less harmful to the environment. This interference of the government is viewed as very undesirable to many Americans. Are the rewards of such mandates worth its cost?

Posted in Domestic Affairs, EnvironmentComments (2)

Thought Talk: What is the true primary motive of the “Green Movement”?

With the recent explosion of products, advice, and pressure to “go green”, there has also been an explosion of celebrities, politicians, and lobbyists who have promoted everybody to “respect the earth” and go “eco-friendly”. However, why does everybody, in a country whose society and politics have grown more and more opinionated, seem to be on board with the idea? Is this movement really about saving the planet and caring for our animal counterparts, or a selfish act in the preservation of the human race?

Posted in UncategorizedComments (1)

Resolved, that the wellbeing of the environment is more important than economic growth.

Environmentalists frequently accuse profit-driven corporations of engaging in anti-green activities, like pollution and habitat destruction, in order to exploit natural resources. The environment, many believe, belongs to everyone and is humanity’s most important asset. As such, any harm to the environment is unjust, and economic growth ought to be forsaken if it may harm the environment. While some businesses have made efforts to “go green,” other industries have difficulty making themselves environmentally friendly without enduring enormous costs.  And the additional costs of going green can cost the average American, who may accord more weight to the impacts on their paycheck than those one the ozone layer. Which green should we value more?

Posted in Domestic Affairs, Economics, EnvironmentComments (0)