McCain consistently has voted consistently against government support of solar, wind, geothermal, bioenergy, ocean and any other clean energy, with the exception of being strongly for nuclear power.

McCain believes that clean energy like solar and wind are ineffective against climate change. McCain has many times expressed his sincere belief that only nuclear power can reduce greenhouse gases.

McCain refuses to support any carbon cap and trade legislation unless it contains massive nuclear subsidies - more than any other senators are willing to support.

On environmental legislation, McCain voted with James 'Oil Man Global Warming is a Hoax' Inhofe 42 out of 44 times, and with Barbara Boxer (most environmentally conscious senator) 1 out of 50 times.

http://www.matternetwork.com/2008/9/mccains-50-votes-against-clean.cfm

McCain has also missed 8 straight votes on extending the renewable energy tax credit, and would have voted against it had he attended.

http://climateprogress.org/2008/09/20/the-greenwasher-from-arizona-has-a-record-as-dirty-as-the-denier-from-oklahoma/

How can we believe that McCain is concerned about the environment as he claims:

"I have a long record of that support of alternate energy. I come from a state where we have sunshine 360 days a year…. I’ve always been for all of those and I have not missed any crucial vote."

When his voting record is exactly the opposite of his claims? Do you buy into McCain's claim that he cares about the environment? Why or why not?

I'm doing this for a project and its due tomorrow i need the argument which i have, but i need evidence to support that global warming was the cause.
thanks

Will global warming effect it in any way? plzzz answer in detail.. thanx!!

... not worth "energy independence"? Do they figure global warming is a "scam" to make liberals like Al Gore extremely rich?

Keep in mind that Japan is far more dependent on foreign oil than we are since they have few oil wells.

I want to find out about companies leading the fight against global warming. I've found a few overseas companies (like Norway's REC); but I want stocks of domestic companies. I've tried a couple screeners but it doesn't seem like the "category" is even recognized yet. Any help will be appreciated.

Or heat exchangers or something like that... anything to take energy out of the air, convert it to something useful, and put back less heat than we took out? (That's the trick, to gather the heat somehow and use it without turning it back into heat in the air)
Uh, no... global warming is caused by too much heat. It's the CO2 that's causing the build-up, but reducing the heat would still reduce the heat, regardless of the CO2 levels. And screw Ted Kennedy... he's no liberal.

Writing a research paper.. due tomorrow! i have two reasons- Economically beneficial and Prevent global warming... but im missing another reason (whole paragraph) if i don't get a good grade on this, passing english doesn't look likely for me. PLEASE HELP!

I understand we're trying to cut back on Coal and Nuclear Energy, and find other sources such as Wind... yet am unsure of the issue at hand? Does it all have to with Global Warming?

I especially want to know the Political Stance on this, and what your opinion is on it...

-Simple yet Detailed Answers Greatly Appreciated!

In the name of climate change, the British government has become obsessed by nuclear power as the solution to future electricity generation. And yet, not long ago, nuclear power was unfashionable due to its downsides and, on the news this morning, it was said we are running out of sites to dump the waste and the sources of fuel are limited.

There are more exciting options available, such as micro generation and Combined Heat and Power, which are cheaper and can come on stream faster (I have not included wind power as it is too inefficient).

Why will the politicians not consider further alternatives?
Okay, a secondary thought: are their other considerations than climate change to bear in mind?
We always have passing 'fads' in environmental policies. We could satisfy the global warming debate and then screw up another area for later. Should we not have a wider view of any damage we might cause when choosing an energy policy?

We all know that our energy needs have caused global warming:

dependance on petrol
factories
production rates

etc

What are your ideas for renewable energy sources?

Oil Palm plantations are growing at rapid rates in the tropical nations of Indonesia and Malaysia. These lands were once covered by upwards to 90% rain forest just a century ago, while that has declined presently to less than 50%. This is due largely to oil palm plantations. Palm oil has been used historically as a cooking and cosmetics additive with other uses. However, the palm oil industry is now booming with its realization of clean energy. Europe has turned to this clean energy in hopes of reducing the global warming problem. Palm oil is about 8-10 times as efficient as ethanol for power. However, rainforests are being slashed and burned at record rates in these nations, to make room for more palm oil plantations. These areas which were a rich are for trees and plants as well as animals are now being turned into an oil palm monoculture for profits. Think about how the atmosphere is effected when dense rain forests are being burnt down at blinding speeds.

It's a joke! First, there's the debate on whether or not there is actually MORE energy used to process the corn to get the ethanol than the ethanol is worth. At best, right now there is a 1:1.2 ration of energy in to energy out. That's not even close for something to run a nation on, especially a culture that uses the most energy per capita in the world.

Second, there isn't enough farm land in the world to plant enough corn to supply enough energy to the people of america. We're talking automobiles, homes, factories, businesses...we'd probably need 5 planets of corn with continuous cultivation.

Third, there is the whole nitrogen problem. Corn is a very inefficient plant at taking in nitrogen. Nitrogen has to be manufactured and poured all over the fields so that the corn grows fast and large enough. This requires even more energy, more pollution, and a big mess if corn plantations continue to spread with this new demand.
And please, don't even bring up palm oil...if you think that global warming is impacted by man, then using palm oil as an alternative energy may be the thing that kills us all.
And don't forget about all of the energy required to grow and cultivate corn...you don't just plant corn seeds and watch it grow...corn is one of the more difficult plants to grow. It requires huge fields to be plowed, machines to plant it, machines to cultivate it...all of those machines run on fossil fuels, and if you want them to run on ethanol, you're going to be getting even less out of the yield if you factor all of that in.

Or, we can do it all by hand and see a fraction of the yield.
Kerry, shut the fuck up. Ethanol is a type of alcohol, that comes from CORN. That is what I'm talking about. Ethanol. Not alcohol. I never mentioned alcohol in my post. And ethanol is the alternative energy source that is being presented and marketed by two of the top leaders in the United States. And shut the fuck up about other forms of energy...I am asking why anyone thinks ETHANOL is a solution, because it's such a hot topic.

And yes, I know why it is being marketed. Corporations like Monsanto and Archer Daniels Midland are making a fortune off of this. Monsanto owns patents on the corn genome that is grown in this country, producing corn that only produces sterile seed, forcing farmers to rebuy fertile seeds from them annually. And this is why farmers in Mexico can no longer afford to grow their own corn.

What will the environmentalist have to complain about if we switch to alternative energy sources? Will they start to "Tax" the wind and sun?

Will they come up with new theories saying wind turbines and solar panels are hogging too much natural resources, which is causing global warming, lol??

What next? They already complain about the turbines killing birds?

Why some americans oppose to the same block of issues. I observed entire internet Macro Networks on the internet, chain of radio stations, some mayor tv corporations that opose systematically to Renewable Energy, Immigration Reform, Global Warming, Health Care for Everybody and the theory of 'The Expanding Earth'.

The U.S?

People worrying about the harmful environmental effects of these two power sources along with nuclear power generation, was the reason these types of energy sources were supressed in the first place.

Would Americans trade off the Carbon dioxide emitting fuels for radiation, dead birds, and dead fish?

I'm all for it. I'd love to see our dependence on foreign oil reduced. I'm just wondering if the global warming crowd is going to clash with the Peta crowd.
Please not that a dam made for hydroelectrice power would destroy most species of fish upstream of that dam. This would then have wider effects on the larger ecosystem

In other words, humans will be ok, bears not so much.
And with the slower windmills comes the noise pollution....
Not to mention the number of windmills that would be needed to produce as much power as we use right now would probably cover the U.S.

I hear you, you are sick of Al Gore and aren't convinced in the science behind global warming. But would you buy renewable energy anyway, since it pollutes less? Even if it cost a little more? Say extra a month for 200KwH if your Electric Company offered it? It would be nice if congress passed a law that required Electric Companies to offer renewable energy so that at least you would have the option to buy renewable if you wanted to?