It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by lunarminer
I have been interested in "alternative energy" ideas for over 30 years. I looked into windmills back in the 80's, solar cells, biofuels, etc.
I even fermented grass clippings in my back yard to make alcolhol fuel to run my lawn mower. I called the idea grassahol and I called a government scientist with the Dept. of Agriculture to share my idea. I did this ten years ago.
I also checked into government grants and loans to extend my idea. That was under the Clinton/Gore administration. You know what I learned? There was not one dime of government money available to fund alternative energy ideas like mine. So much for Al Gore and deep concern for the environment.
Originally posted by Insomniac
I'm in total agreement! Sir Patrick Moore believes that the Sun is responsible for climate change and I'm inclined to agree. The Sun has been at solar minimum for a year too long now, so it's definitely not behaving as expected. The global warming industry is just one big con.
I am however heavily opposed to polution and believe that we need to clean up the planet, but I'm not allowing myself to be conned by government, eco-fascists and big business.
[edit on 19/2/09 by Insomniac]
Originally posted by nrkyIs the carbon footprint and chemical manufacturing of a solar panel network, outweighed by using electricity from the grid? Which is 'more green'?
Originally posted by Animalwhat i found the most comical about some of the posts in this thread is the typical, and boring, equation back to the establishment and how 'green' is just another scam. obviously those of you who feel this way don't know much about the movement because it is the truly crunchy greens who are the most independent, self reliant, freedom loving individuals who i have ever had the pleasure to meet.
Who benefits from this
Originally posted by nrky
As for the financial cost between the two, it's a no-brainer. Growing your own veggies in your backyard is hands-down the cheaper of the two.
However, you must also factor in the cost of the land you grow the veggies on, including the cost to the taxpayer to support your hobby farm (eg. the cost of installing utilities to your street, repair costs on your road, council expenditure on providing you with 2.4M worth of room on the footpath, etc..) Sure, the initial blow to your wallet may be lower than purchasing the food from a supermarket, but if you were buying your food and living in an apartment instead of living on a half acre block in the suburbs and growing it yourself, would your 50kg of food per week involve less cost to the rest of the taxpayers who support your hobby farm?
In summary: What I'm trying to say, is that if we lived in apartment blocks and left the outer city regions to the efficient farmers, rather than had a massive urban sprawl and we all tried to operate our own amateur hobby farms, would we be able to produce more food at a lower carbon and financial footprint?
[edit on 11/8/2009 by nrky]