posted
I personally am for Environmental "X-Prizes". Now to clarify, this isn't a Nobel Prize type award where it will be given to someone who protects the trees or is very pro-environment.
It would be prizes given out for scientific breakthroughs in technology that would help the environment/nature and mankind.
For instance. Genetic work on creating trees that would grow in the desert. Or crops that require minimal precipitation and grow like weeds. Or changes is the genetic structure of trees to make them more resilient to diseases. Increasing the oxygen output of plants.
Alternative forms of paper.
Viable tree farm options where genetically manufacturing type trees can be made to grow at an accelerating rate.
Water conservation and recycling initiatives at the home level. (using your bath water to water your lawn, capturing the rain water off of your house, etc.)
If we can make a watermellow seedless, we can make foods more healty, etc.
Viable and cheap alternatives for fuels.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Genetic work on creating trees that would grow in the desert. Or crops that require minimal precipitation and grow like weeds. Or changes is the genetic structure of trees to make them more resilient to diseases. Increasing the oxygen output of plants.
Those would not be considered environmental breakthroughs, at least not by many. If you were able to replace deserts with forests, then you are destroying the natural habitat for many species of plants an animals. People would get very upset if you replaced natural trees with improved trees that are more resiliant to disease and produce more O2.
What you are talking about is more agriculture/horticulture than enviromentalism.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
A neat book I read recently = Longitude, by Dava Sobel... back in 1714 the English Parliament offered a huge reward (worth the equivalent today of $10,000,000) to whoever could figure out how to calculate longitude at sea and thus make sailing safer... eventually an Englishman named John Harrison invented the chronomoter (a watch that can keep accurate time at sea) and collected the half the prize (lots of political/personal/bureaucratic struggles around this)...
quote:If we can make a watermellow seedless, we can make foods more healty, etc.
Actually, seedless watermelons don't have anything to do with genetic engineering, you just do some fancy hand-pollinated crossing... I'll dig out the info later from a book on veggie breeding that I've got...
Posts: 2911 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here's what I think is funny. They spent like 20 million dollars to develop and test Spaceship-1. Does anyone else find that funny?
Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Chad, it looks like you're a big genetic engineering proponent. What do you think about concerns over uncontrolled dispersal of herbicide-resistant crops, especially considering intellectual property issues, but also from a public health standpoint? What about using normally edible crops such as wheat to manufacture pharmaceuticals? Sorry, no links at the moment, but if you want I can dig some up.
I'd really like to see more being done in the following areas:
Better renewable energy sources. More efficient solar cells are a big one.
A clean, safe, and dense way of transporting energy, the way hydrocarbon fuels are currently being used. Hydrogen is nice, but hydrogen has problems.
Cleaning up contaminants like mercury, PCBs, buckyballs, etc.
More widespread consciousness and support for organic farming techniques and humane treatment of livestock. (This doesn't lend itself well to an X-Prize. Or does it?)
Efficient desalination.
Well, hey, it's a start.
Posts: 1810 | Registered: Jan 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the energy goals could be the best suited for the X-prize.
But unlike space-flight, I think it's vital that energy research get used in helpful ways. I don't mind if space-flight stays commercial and expensive for a while. But I'd hate for nice, new energy resources to be overpriced.
Posts: 1261 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
I'd be very hated as a President though because I would abuse my powers to:
Make a law that within 5 years all combustion engines must be hybrids (this would affect all future manufacture, but not cars, etc. that already exist without hybridization)
Make a law that within 15 years all petroleum based combustion engines will be outlawed. (thereby forcing a change to alternative fuels. Existing engines will be allowed but heavily taxed, but no new engines will be allowed to be manufactured)
I would place an executive price freeze on gasonline of $1.50 for at least 5 years and start negotiating with Mexico and Venezuela for changing imports to directly bypass OPEC.
It'd be tough, but waiting for the "market" to change isn't getting the job done.
It needs to be forced to change.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm with you on the hybrids, Chad. I wonder if they'll start making diesel hybrids. And what about those huge tractor trailers? Does it make sense to put a hybrid engine in that?
I'm not so sure fixing the price of gas would be a good thing. One would hope that high gas prices will start to significantly influence how much people drive and what kinds of cars they buy, but I've seen way too many SUVs on the road to believe that'll happen any time soon.
quote:It needs to be forced to change.
Change will be forced. The only question is whether we will be far enough along by the time world oil production peaks. Which may only be a couple of years away.
Posts: 1810 | Registered: Jan 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Chad, I'm curious, why freeze the gasoline prices low? We can argue that they are artificially lower here in the US than in the rest of the global economy already.
Wouldn't higher gas prices also be an incentive to switch to hybridization? Right now I think it is one of the biggest incentives there is for non-environmentally conscious people.
AJ (Whoops Mike#55 kinda said the same thing above. what I get for actually working and not refreshing the thread.)
Oh and for my own background, even though I didn't finish the degree I was doing Master's research and lifecycle analysis on some alternative fueled vehicles before I quit.
posted
But there are poor people (like myself) who if gas prices get too high have no alternative to NOT buying food.
I would freeze it so that the poor aren't victimized worse while the transfer happens. It would also give the poor the time and opportunity to save their money to BUY a hybrid or alternative fuel automobile because as soon as the freeze would be removed, the prices would skyrocket.
Gas prices themselves can force unemployment.
I would force a change because even as consumers, we are at the mercy of the manufacturers. If the only affordable option is gas guzzlers, then you have to force the only option to be gas free/alternative fuels.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, high gas prices can be a pretty big problem for lower-income folks. How about this: at the very least, waive the gas tax for people earning less than <insert some cutoff here> a year. Or even give them gas stamps (like food stamps) for a reasonable amount of gas per month, depending on the length of their commute perhaps. Yes? No?
Posts: 1810 | Registered: Jan 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
That sounds good to me. And as MPH posted, Venezuela has low gas because they export oil.
I would lock out OPEC from the US and negotiate directly with Venezuela. I would also work with the Mexican government and people to tap into their VAST oil resources as well.
IMHO, I would rather American oil import money go to democratic countries in the Americas than to the Middle East.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The gas stamps strike me as a really good, workable solution. So would some form of sliding scale tax incentive to buy a hybrid vehicle.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: So would some form of sliding scale tax incentive to buy a hybrid vehicle.
I would work out a deal in two ways. I would give the automobile manufacturers HUGE tax breaks for making hybrids the cheapest cars and markups they would have because my policy would move people to all buy new cars.
Lower price on cars made up for by mass quantity of purchases.
Also the reason I would freeze Gas prices is that it would also be necessary during the time of transition to find alternate forms of TAX income since the monies collected from Gas Taxes would be cut to nil.
That would give them time to initiate toll roads or interstate transportation taxes, etc.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: If the only affordable option is gas guzzlers
This just doesn't happen. Not counting hybrids, the gas guzzlers are generally more expensive than more fuel efficient cars. People don't buy SUVs instead of mini-vans because they can't afford mini-vans.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not just a hybrid vehicle. Any vehicle with good milage and/or low emissions should qualify. The Ford SUV hybrid, for example, is pretty good for an SUV, but isn't that great overall (fuel-economy-wise). Some lighter cars, OTOH, like Cooper Minis, get in the range of 40-50 mpg.
OK, gas stamps are good. We have a consensus of two. So when are we getting that Hatrack lobbying group together?
Posts: 1810 | Registered: Jan 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree that hybrids aren't magic -- it should be fuel consumption and emissions that are considered.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
What do you think about concerns over uncontrolled dispersal of herbicide-resistant crops, especially considering intellectual property issues, but also from a public health standpoint? What about using normally edible crops such as wheat to manufacture pharmaceuticals? Sorry, no links at the moment, but if you want I can dig some up.![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
