On Saturday, August 9, 2014 8:41:43 AM UTC-7, Brooklyn1 wrote:
> On Sat, 9 Aug 2014 06:59:46 -0700 (PDT), ImStillMags
>
> > wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Saturday, August 9, 2014 5:27:22 AM UTC-7, Dave Smith wrote:
>
> >> On 2014-08-08 12:16 PM, ImStillMags wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >> > When are we going to stop allowing these mining, oil and gas companies to rape the land and leave their shit behind to foul the environment. When are we going to get serious about something other than fossil fuels for energy?

> >> You travel everywhere by bicycle and stopped heating your house?
>
> >
>
> >There are alternatives to fossil fuels. Many of them. We just need to do it.
>

> Many of the apparently innocent alternatives are far worse... don't
>
> ask for what you don't want to get.

That's a challenging statement, which is worth examining. Often it depends on whose ox is gored.For example an offshore wind farm being opposed by rich residents because they say it would spoil their view. (Yes, it happened!)

The law of unintended consequences has not been repealed (G> as far as I know.
It behooves our elected representatives and certainly the companies that would seek to benefit from Technology X to weigh the cost-benefit ratio ETHICALLY and share results TRANSPARENTLY with the people.

That said, rather than deal in generalities, you could help us by listing some of the alternative technologies which you believe would be "far worse" and why that would be.

HB