What are the countries involved in integrating the green revolution?

Question

umm....thats not what i asked...i asked for the agricultural green revolution...

Answer 1

Sweden is pretty green, but so are a lot of European countries.  Sweden will be oil-free by 2020.

As for the first answer-- there's absolutely NO such thing as a "non-polluting" nuclear power plant.  Simply isn't possible.  Burying extremely highly toxic nuclear waste in the ground does not qualify as "non-polluting"

As for the second answer, most "lefties" in the US won't do enough for the environment.  I'm sorry Obama and Hillary, but raising the mpg on cars is not enough.  The ones who will actually help our country are squashed by the media that is supposed to operate in the public's interest and by Bush's cronies.  

Clean coal is not helpful.  Neither are carbon offsets.  These are not the solutions.  We need wind, solar, and geothermal solutions and we need our government to help support less resource-intensive manufacturing as well as local, organic, sustainable agriculture.  

We need to make big changes in our lifestyles...  There's simply no way we can continue driving SUVs, eating meat from factory farms, or using plastic grocery bags and solve any environmental problems.  O

ur country needs someone with balls to do something "radical" and save us.  Seriously.  Anyone who knows anything about the scope of our environmental degradation knows this.  It's going to take a lifestyle change.  Yes, doing one or two little things helps, but in the end, it isn't going to be enough.

Answer 2

Well I vote for those lefties in France.  They lead the world in non polluting nuclear power plants, having started with an American design from Westinghouse.   Our lefties here have not allowed a new plant in thirty years.  Try to build a nuke plant and bring a sleeping cot to court.  This does not match the democrat propaganda you received in school does it?

Answer 3

Well I wouldn't vote for those righties in the U.S. who won't let us preserve the environment. Almost totalitarian in their protection for everything polluting or dangerous.  Can't see the sense in having clean energy that's cheaper than nuclear to build and safer and will never need fuel of any kind.  Won't have to cart radioactive waste all over the U.S. to get it to Yucca Mtn Nevada dump site.

Try to build safe solar energy and you have to convince a skeptical world.

As I've posted before, there's a proposal to convert U.S. electric grid to 65% solar by 2050 and nearly 100% solar by 2100

Scientific American article at:http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=a-so...



It uses less public money than we are now giving to oil companies in tax incentives, over 20 years or so.That includes building new HVDC distribution trunks from the southwest to other major areas.

According to Ausra,  one company involved with solar thermal:

"Solar thermal power plants such as Ausra's generate electricity by driving steam turbines with sunshine. Ausra's solar concentrators boil water with focused sunlight, and produce electricity at prices directly competitive with gas- and coal-fired electric power."

and

"Solar is one the most land-efficient sources of clean power we have, using a fraction of the area needed by hydro or wind projects of comparable output. All of America's needs for electric power – the entire US grid, night and day – can be generated with Ausra's current technology using a square parcel of land 92 miles on a side. For comparison, this is less than 1% of America's deserts, less land than currently in use in the U.S. for coal mines."

Go to the Green Wombat website where there are several articles about solar thermal power plants in California, and some of the other companies involved.  Concentrating PV solar works as well.

Answer 4

I concur with the first two answers.