What's wrong here is the feeding of the cows with soya. In the former times, cows were eating grass which isn't eatable by humans and grows in places not useful for agriculture. In other words, they made additional resources available.

We aren't going to stop using whatever kind of oil we find, obviously. So we need to clean up this carbon out of the air. Classically, nature does this for us but we seem to have overloaded that mechanism. Trees have been the acme of biological agents for scrubbing the air, but we need a new one.

We need a plant that grows fast, and by growing and producing it's seeds/fruit it consumes a lot of carbon. We have just such a perfect candidate, but leave it to politics to forbid it. I am talking about hemp. Hemp has the bulk and the seed production that will yank carbon out of the air by the scruff of it's neck. It grows small tree tall in a single season and it sucks so much carbon that the seeds are teaming with a hydrocarbon.

Historically, it's a weed that farmers hate because it leaches soil quickly of nutrients. To me this isn't a problem with modern hydroponics. We have plenty of recyclable products and our own sewer to feed a hydroponic system that would feed these hemp plants. It would process waste and carbon into a plant that has more uses than I can count.

With hydroponics, lots of real estate that is worthless to build on can be used for hemp patches, piping a rich slurry to feed them, processing our own waste. We don't need to cut into crop lands, hence the "leaching" effect can be controlled.

Of course there are roadblocks to this solution. The cotton industry has been an enemy of hemp, mostly out of fear that it will replace them. Of course we have the anti-drug crowd that will insist that hippies are going to smoke it. Counters to that are that is creates new industry and innovations from a very "green" resource that is not only renewable, but it helps scrub the air. Everyone wins. Except for the hippies who tried to smoke it, who are wreathing in agony from a "ditch weed" headache.

Nuclear may or may not be part of the energy solution, but it's hardly the whole thing. You don't solve our transportation by sticking uranium up your car's tailpipes.

Reality and sanity says that we need both to look where we're using oil, and find alternative ways to generate and transport energy to those points of use, how we generate energy at all, and whether there are more efficient ways to do the same things.

Anyone who says "Global warming? Let's just go Nuclear!" is, unfortunately, failing to address 90% of the issues. Which is why you'll find those concerned about global warming don't restrict themselves to a single solution.

I dearly want us to stop banning people from living close to the businesses that serve them, as is common in the US. I want to see better use of available infrastructure, such as rail, to provide access to walkable cities from everywhere. I want more fuel efficient vehicles, and I'd like, ultimately, to see lower cost electric vehicles designed to drive the shorter distances that ought to be more common if we rethink planning policies - I don't know about you, but I don't really need a vehicle that goes for more than 50 miles without {long period of downtime due to recharging} 99% of the time, and would be happy to keep a low cost second vehicle around for those times of journey, yet 99% of the expense of electric vehicles right now has to do with the obsession of making them universal replacements for gasoline vehicles - sticking in redundant gasoline motors, or five times the number of batteries.

And here's the other thing that really bothers me: most of those pushing against global warming or insisting on single solutions are insistent that any solution must protect the status quo. The status quo sucks. My energy usage is high not because I want it to be, but because of poor zoning policies, crappy offerings from transportation businesses, and so on.

Even if gas was back to a dollar a gallon as it was under Clinton, I don't _want_ to fucking drive everywhere. Who the hell does? Who enjoys being locked in a metal box for an hour or two a day, having to concentrate on nothing except whether that box is between two lines painted on the tarmac? Who likes the fact they can't really go for a drink after work or, well, easily socialize anyway, because of the requirements and boundaries set by reliance on motor vehicles?

Does everyone actually like the fact their property and sales taxes are high despite the complete lack of the public services, solely because of the costs of maintaining many times the lengths of roads necessary because we've gone out of our way to partition off neighborhoods from businesses? What about the cost of food and other essentials? (Why is it about half the price in Britain than in the US, despite much higher taxes and much lower subsidies in the UK?)

You're looking for a positive message? That's because you're not listening! Put in the basic, obvious, solutions that have been proposed for decades, and there's every reason to believe our lives will be more relaxed, our cost of living cheaper, and our options more free.

Nuclear solves 10% of the problem, and isn't a positive or negative solution, any more than windmills or solar is.

I'm sure he will, but so what?
I currently live in an area where a single large company has 10,000+ employees on the roads every daytime shift change. I've talked to a number of those people as a financial counselor, trying to help them with debt problems, usually the ones with severe, almost impossible debt problems, (and getting paid for it). I focus much more on tax related work than counseling, because so many of the financially strapped cases want nothing but free, painless solutions, and unless I pick cases very carefully, I would get nothing but customers who simply can't be satisfied. At least, anyone who badmouths me because the IRS didn't buy their story that they forgot the dog wasn't human before they claimed him doesn't scare other customers away too much, but I've had cases where I've been badmouthed for, just for example, telling a person with a 28,000 $ a year job and 375,000 $ in credit card debt that no, continuing to pay off credit cards with other credit cards was not going to get them out of the hole.
          In this process, I keep running across people who live outside the city limits and put up with taking an hour or more of bumper to bumper rush hour traffic to get to their suburb every single working day. They give me excuses such as the in city property taxes being too high, and I find out they are spending 2,000 $ a year on gas and such to avoid 500 $ a year in property taxes, plus sending their kids to inferior schools, dealing with the stress of double or triple commute times in a really bad traffic environment, and often getting much poorer services (such as septic tanks instead of a sewer system). I've shown people wherte they can literally cut their costs by 20% or more by moving into a particular location inside the city and nearer their job, or make such a move pay for itself. Often, these people's debt issues are so great such a move would pay for itself in less than a single year. And I've had some of those people literally say "Fuck You". I'm sorry, but at some point, reality is what's doing the controlling. It's not a case of whether I like some people's lifestyles or not - It's a case of reality itself doesn't like those choices.

Oh, good grief. Really?

News flash. Women want to have children, and we've designed all kinds of things like child support and welfare to encourage them to be able to exercise exactly zero forethought before going to a party, doing a bunch of drugs, getting knocked up, then calling date rape once their pregnancy test comes back positive.

If anybody cared about gender equality, a woman who had children with no way to support them would be shunned the exact same way as a deadbeat dad, and instead we'd have some way to either let the children starve or just take them away from her.

I keep getting told I'm trolling, so either I'm in a parallel universe or men need to start opening their eyes and seeing what's happening around them.

It's not homosexuals who are destroying marriage, it's women.

I work around a lot of women, and I see this consistently. When one of them gets pregnant, it's always outside of marriage. Either it's date rape or otherwise the father to be mysteriously turns into a total jackass around the 5th month of pregnancy (give or take a month). The benefits to a woman for making the baby's father out to be a complete creep creates quite the conflict of interest there.

Every now and then I'm flabbergasted to learn that one of these pregnancies happened within marriage. Then these exact same women turn around and parrot everything fox news has to say about homosexuality. It's completely hypocritical, and nobody has a problem with it. I can accept that perhaps homosexuals are abominations before god, but I'm pretty sure the scriptual basis for that also says that women having children outside of wedlock or even having children with two different men is equally abominable.

I'm sure that was part of the point you were trying to make, but let's face it. As a homosexual property owner, I'm forced to cough up tax money both from my income and for my property, and all I can do is helplessly watch as it's given to women who, beside being able to have babies, have no skills or any other way to support themselves. If that's how they want to be, then fine. They can get a husband, because I sure as hell don't want to pay for them to be able to freeload.

Or, if they really, really want to have children without involving a man for anything other than a one night stand, then they can do the responsible thing and advance themselves to a job that will pay them enough to be able to support themselves and their child. I know in an intellectual sense that females are capable of reading, writing, and math, but we have a system that lets them play the victim card and go the easy route instead of doing something they want us to believe that is just too hard like basic algebra.

But, nobody cares. Women just play the victim card over and over again, and men are perfectly happy to play along with it. I can only wonder if men who legitimize inherent victimhood for women are really so delusional as to believe that they're going to get pussy for being a white knight saving the damsel in distress.

Sickening. Simply sickening. Oh well, countdown to being modded -1 troll or offtopic for talking about the elephant in the room in 5... 4... 3...