And now for something completely different...

[kandrathe]

One of the biggest problems in environmental protection issues is often thought to be the economic cost.

True environmental conservation is economically viable.

What I fear is that non-viable psuedo-environmental ideas get promoted as green solutions when they are really waste in disguise. Corn based ethanol or biodiesel are an examples of programs that here in the midwest USA has been over promoted to the detriment of our environment, and have taken important resources away from better solutions. Now, ethanol as a fuel additive is important for helping reduce automotive emissions, so some amount of ethanol production is a great idea. Light rail is another area where politically the rails never seem to be built to relieve congestion, nor do they have the capacity to replace highway lane miles. It would be much more effective to create commuter hubs and incentives for people to car pool. I'm afraid that without proper planning, even wind and solar generation may become net energy losers when the maintenance of all the additional power lines is factored into the equation.

My way of thinking is to promote changes to the societal norms, such as having everyone commute to work in the first place. How about we *really* get rid of the excessive amount of paper we consume, and establish the norm of every document being available electronically. I think economically, it would be a great idea to rethink the economic models where progress is measured upon ever increasing amounts of consumption. And, finally, nations need to agree upon strategies to encourage net zero population growth, because the problem is not just over consumption, but also world over population.