I'd consider a job where you are constructing green cars to be a green job and a manufacturing job at the same time.
One doesn't "look" for a definition of science. Science is not defined by a dictionary, website, or government agency. Science is defined by philosophy, and philosophy provides the reasoning for that definition. The definition of "science is a set of falsifiable theories" stems from the philosophy of Karl Popper.
Science is not a "testable published scientific article". It is not even a publication of any sort. Science is simply a set of falsifiable theories. (A theory being an explanatory argument). If a falsifiable theory passes internal consistency testing (ie, is logical), and external consistency testing (ie, "falsification"... ie, null hypothesis tests for it are available, practical, specific, and yield a specific result), then it becomes a theory of science. If, at any time, it were to fail a null hypothesis test, then the theory is completely and utterly destroyed, no longer being a theory of science. Science has nothing to do with consensus, peer review, various publications, supporting evidence, nor casinos... It is simply a set of falsifiable theories.
What is the "green direction" supposed to mean? What makes something "green" as opposed to "non-green"? What makes a car a "green" car rather than a "non-green" car?
The green direction is my way of saying our plan to eventually get our society off its dependence of fossil fuels. Something green is one that goes in that direction, while something not green is one that doesn't. A green car reduces our dependence on fossil fuels for locomotion. Back in the early 2000's I'd classify a far with 40 MPGs as green because it was a step in the right direction. Today it is not because it is the standard.
So hybrid and electric vehicles, which primarily make use of "fossil fuels" (as you call them), are somehow "green"?? I'm confused... How is a truck/semi/tractor/etc. ever going to get 40+MPG, or be able to be electric powered as opposed to gas/diesel powered? How are we going to completely rebuild our infrastructure into purely wind/solar/hydro and still be able to meet power demands? (especially with everybody plugging in their electric cars at the same time) How many ugly solar panels and bird slaughtering windmills will that take? Too many still and/or cloudy days and there's gonna be real issues...
And if that happens, we will have a LOT of time, won't we. This isn't hollywood where sudden onset climate change happens. Yes, it puts butts in seats in theaters, but the real world just doesn't work that way. Clearly, the angst here is predicated on predictive models that are frankly FOS. They aren't in any way accurate, don't describe the future in any meaningful way, so, the best we can do is worry, right? Nature will do what it does, regardless of what we do, and frankly don't you think it's just a teensie bit arrogant to think that making folks pay more taxes will in any way modify what nature is already doing? So, if, in a couple of thousand years, our current glacial period ends and a more historically average climate becomes pervasive, future generations might need to take some steps to adapt to a more ocean centric planet. But that day isn't today, and it doesn't end 11 years from now.
Ok, so unplug. Do your part. Stop driving, stop eating food you don't, yourself, produce. Stop heating or cooling your home. Since you won't be on the internet anymore, I doubt you'll be able to tell us what living like it's the 19th century again will be like... Good luck..
I'll make it easier for you. Please provide a link to a testable and published peer reviewed study that proves AGW.
Carpe Diem... and all that,.. right? You just have to appreciate the smug and the divorcement that some folks feel as they chide others for not listening to them about their pet religion and it's endless apocalypse. Remember, the end is nigh... Just so you can contribute to the cause.. the only cause being their financial enrichment.. but who are we to judge.. right?
The problem with "green" is it puts 100% of the focus on fossil fuels so suddenly anything that doesn't produce C02 becomes "green". Suddenly dams that stop free flowing rivers and all the natural ecosystems associated with them are green. Screw those salmon. Nuclear power plants are green. Who cares what we do with nuclear waste. Bulldozing hundreds of square miles of desert for solar plants and associated roads and power lines are green. Screw those endangered desert tortoises. Windmills go up on every hill top and suddenly killing thousands of birds every year is green unlike few and far between oil spills killing birds which is catastrophic. Suddenly mining for rare earth and it's associated pollution is well not really pollution after all. I could go on but if you don't get my point by now......
I care more about the fate of humanity and the thousands of other species that will be impacted by warming for than a few salmon and turtle species. I understand there are no perfect solutions to this problem but sometimes to find a solution, we have to start with an imperfect solution and make it better. Sometimes we have to break a few eggs to make an omelete and go one step backwards to go two steps forward. The people who bring up these problems with green technologies never have any workable alternative solutions of their own.
These vehicles are green if they help move us off of fossil fuels in some way and move our technology in the right direction. Hybrid and electric cars may still use fossil fuels a lot indirectly but just the fact that we aren't directly using fossil fuels anymore is a major advance and now we can move off fossil fuels in energy production and car production. As for how is a truck going to be green, I am not sure, but I am sure that if we can put a man on the moon we can make a truck run on electricity, hydro-cell, or biofuels. How we are going to rebuild our infrustructure is a big question. We should start with a really big carbon tax to replace other taxes, big tax deductions for green energy, and lots of R&D funding into green technologies. This will make green energy a lot more profitable and the free market will start naturally building it. I'm sorry you don't like the poor birds dying, but birds die in nature all the time and climate change will kill birds too. I'm also sorry that you don't like the look of windmills, I don't like the look of buildings, so I oppose their construction.
But they are doing no such thing, though. They are still primarily making use of "fossil fuels" (as you call them) in order to operate. Precisely the point, so they are no "greener" than any other similar type of vehicle... Ummmm, yes we are, actually... So the car itself isn't directly making use of the "fossil fuels" (as you call them) as it is driving along the road, whoopity doo... The power plants, where the electricity that fuels those cars (and our homes) comes from, are still making direct use of them all the same. It's not any more "green" than driving a gasoline vehicle. No, we can't. We don't have the infrastructure in place. Those sources of energy are not consistent sources, like "fossil fuels" (as you call them) are. Those types of energy, for the space they take, produce piddle power in comparison to coal, oil, natural gas, and nuclear. Peak demands are going to be a major issue. If we can put a man on the moon, we can cure cancer and solve world hunger too while we're at it... Why such fascist policy as opposed to promoting capitalism? Why such fascist policy as opposed to promoting capitalism? Coming from who? Taxpayers? Why such fascist policy as opposed to promoting capitalism? By means of price controls? Price controls never work... PARADOX!! You just got done telling me how you support forcing the "free market" to build it (by means of fascist policies), and now you're telling me that it will be built naturally through capitalism??!! Which one is it?? Correct. But gigantic ugly windmills are not "nature". "Climate Change" (whatever that means) is not killing birds. It is a hoax. The hoax outright rejects logic, science, and mathematics. Correct, I don't. Depends on the building... I don't oppose the construction of windmills. I oppose attempting to use them as a primary energy source. Let the free market dictate what energy sources are most cost efficient in each case. Right now, coal, oil, and natural gas happen to be the winners in a lot of those cases...
What you seem to misunderstand is that these green cars do rely on plants that use fossil fuels, but those plants can then be replaced with wind and solar. So we are moving off a 100% fossil fuel dependent car to one that doesn't necessarily need fossil fuels. That is progress. The next steps is to make all energy and car production green as well. Sometimes government policy is needed to push the free market to do something and this is preferable to a government-run system. Taxes as a way to encourage behavior is a lot less heavy handed than regulations that ban behavior. We use tariffs to protect American jobs and encourage buying American and that is an example of encouraging behavior with taxes. We also give college students a tax break to encourage people to get an education. Sometimes taxes aren't enough and we need regulations, like regulations that protect our rivers from pollution. The free market isn't perfect and that is why we have some taxes and regulations to help make it better.
What you fail to recognize is in your obsession with C02 not only do real environmental issues get ignored, they get thrown under the bus and made worse. Your casual dismissal of endangered desert tortoises and "a few birds" is very telling as to your overall lack of comprehension of our ecosystems and how they function in harmony and how you are not an environmentalist at all but merely a C02 .hysteria freak with such an obsession that you go through life with blinders on seeing nothing but C02.
