Yeah pollution isn’t bad, and can’t effect anything… The whole “smoking causes lung cancer” is just a commie conspiracy to. lights up a smoke mmmm mmm mm those commie bastards, trying to deny me my perfectly healthy pleasure… mmmmmm gotta luv the cyanide 
your definition of “pollution” is suspect…
-Imp
Just an update Imp (it seems you’re stuck in the ‘80’s?). The company that supplies my green energy not only turns a profit but guess what? They’re cheaper than the coal generated producers.
This must piss the old energy industry off because that was their ONLY strength and now they’re going to have to… lower their prices – OMG!. My guess is the old dinosaurs will ask for government handouts using the threat of huge job lose etc. to keep them “competitiveâ€.
Imp, lets put the “pollution†issue aside and consider the other reasons why I believe in supporting green energy.
The coal and oil energy industries are old dinosaurs from the 19th and 20th centuries. These gigantic conglomerates are among the most capital AND labour intensive industries on the planet. Because of the tremendous resources needed to produce each kilowatt of energy, these industries are among the most inefficient you’re likely to find anywhere and remember, every dollar they spend, is added to the price YOU pay for your energy.
Some of the areas where the gas/oil industries wastes billions are:
- Exploration – most drilling ends in failure
- Extraction – from miles beneath the ground or sea.
- Transportation – often half way ‘round the world in ships then trains and trucks across land.
- Storage – prime waterfront land (with deep sea access) needs to be purchased and huge storage facilities built
- Processing – the energy and other resources need to process and refine the product is immense.
- Delivery – Ship, truck, service stations / power generators plants etc
- Externalities – Additionally, there’s massive clean up costs when something goes wrong (Exxon etc and the recent explosions at BP Texas). When there’s no disasters, there are huge insurance COSTS.
You don’t need to do all this with green energy. The stages you need to go thru to turn raw energy into consumable energy has fewer, less complex processes and is cheaper, safer and cleaner. When you remove the ludicrously complex and inefficient costs mentioned above, you have huge opportunity to create a very viable and profitable energy industry — irrespective of the pollution issue.
I’m a successful business person (not a greenie) who used to train people in business process reengineering – designing production processes – so I know a thing or two about business processes and costs and I’m flawed by the complexities and inefficiencies in our energy industry. Anyway, if I go on any further I’ll get into lobby groups and politics, so I leave it at that.
PS I haven’t included what I believe to be the largest cost of them all because its debatable and could veer off course. What is it? Its the cost of Foreign Policies and Wars. – e.g. If Iraq did’nt have oil, there’s little doubt in my mind that billions of YOUR tax dollars would not be spent bombing Iraq to the ground then billions more paying U.S. corporations to rebuild it again. Talk about inefficient. But as I said, I’m happy to leave this out and concentrate on the above.
All right, lets forget about global warming, global dimming, ozone thining and ice cap melting… imagine they were all proved wrong.
My question is: wouldn’t it be nicer to have clean, clear, fresh air rather than smog?
move to suburbia…
-Imp
i’m sure you’re kidding
being sarcastic… rite?
Who knows? With people like this, he could very well be purporting a serious solution. 
If ignorance is bliss, Imp must be a very, very happy man.
not at all…
simply reporting historical fact…
it is what humans do… use up one place then move…
-Imp
and you think that’s a constructive solution?
it worked for 5000+ years of human history…
who wants to live forever?
-Imp
Hmm…I wonder if thousands of Angelinos were wrong in saying that the yellow dirty streak one sees in the Los Angeles horizon—aka: smog—counts as pollution. Imp, what do you think? Should I now open my apartment window and inhale the LA oh-two with all its glory?
sure… you choose to live there…
-Imp
That’s a typical NIMBY attitude. OKAY…okay, just kidding. 
One is right in saying that we (the human beings) cannot do enough to destroy the planet, dismantle it, and send it to oblivion. HOWEVER, it is us who need a clean environment. We need the atmosphere right above us. We need the ozone layer right above that atmosphere. Ultimately, it is us we are trying to protect when we say we want to protect the environment. This is not arrogance. It is survival.
tell that to the liberal intelligencia in martha’s vineyard…
no however about it…
-Imp
it has stopped working, open your eyes
for some weird reason, i hope life on this planet endures for a while
you’re not helping…
why do you think we explore space?
-Imp
let’s leave ‘why we do’ to rest for a bit,
i do know ‘why we should do’
because the ‘driving force; population’ causes an exponentially growing pressure
any engineer can tell you that such a system is, in fact, an unstable one
thus, it will fail
but we’re not out of here yet, (by far)
with some adequate measures, we, along with the rest of the biosphere, might endure till we are ready to go
stakes are high and so is the risk
i am not prepared to take the risk of another great extincion
we have to relief this earth from the pressure humanity exert on it, point final
willem
-Imp
you don’t understand imp
i was trying to say that in the current space exploration,
image building, curiosity, science, finding new resources and other reasons are probably more of a driving force than what you were pointing at
you were trying to say we were moving our population to newer grounds right?
mars or whatever
could you now answer the argument instead of yelling at me