It's not only about the inventions and the energy, it's also about the whole sustainability and resulting behaviours. For example, instead of buying meat being mass-produced and shipped across half of the world, you buy meat at a local butcher who gets the meat from a local farmer.
How does that help sustainability? Besides, I do live in Montana, where cows outnumber people 2/1, and are not mass produced. It would be inefficient not to eat them, even McDonald uses "local" cows.
Or in cities, around here there's a trend to buy vegetable more at the markets and at stores who get them from the surrounding area, instead of buying them at bigger food chains.
I could see that helping the small country, but how does that effect the environment?
Well in my country it doesn't make a huuuge difference since it's relatively small, but it still reduces transports->ollution, and it helps the local structures and the small and medium-sized businesses; which is good for the economy. In France for example, they put too much on the bigger enterprises and not enough on the multitude of smaller ones; you see where that brought their economy...
How so? Don't the small companies still have to transport just as many goods?
Regardless that it doesn't help the economy at the moment, helping the environment via sustainable development will save our planet in the future.
Then say that, instead of saying that it will aid the economy.
Over the next hundred or so years, the global temperature could increase by 5 degrees Celsius (41 F). This may not seem like a lot but the temperature of a City like New York which isn't relatively hot compared to the rest of the World will be a hot as the Sahara desert during the summer.
Source?
Other than that, it will also mean that areas once 5 degrees to cold will now be accessible, correct? Witch means more crop land, more food, and less hunger.
What's worse is if the global temperature increased by 2 C (37 F), 30 to 200 million people dependant on agriculture (such as people living in Africa would starve).
....Everyone...Is...Dependent...On...Agriculture. Where. In. Hell. are. you. getting. This?
What makes Africa more dependent on agriculture then the rest of the world? And wouldn't higher temperatures mean better crops? Or are you saying crop production would be down so that 200 million people would be unable to feed themselves? Where do you get this statistic?
Yes greener energies cost more and it may be a pain but hydrogen powered cars are cheaper than oil and petrol which are both rising in cost by the day and hydrogen won't run out.
Your contradicting yourself. Are they cheaper or not?
Hydrogen powered cars, in the modern day, are inferior to oil cars in every way. They are more expensive, weaker, more dangerous, and whatever you can have you. Most people sponsoring it say it would take forty years for it to be at a point where it would have a significant impact on global worming. How is a viable option at this moment?
We have a moral responsibility to our future generations and we must start now before it's too late. Most of the countries of the World are making doing what they can to stop messing things up for the next generation, why can't those who don't care for the environment accept the fact that it is a necessity that we can't ignore?
Most of the countries in the world can not afford to care like we can. I don't know why you think they do, but for the most part, only the industrialized western world seems to care about the environment at all, those poor places like the Africans you mentioned really don't care.
It is. But if you're using electricity like nobody's business, or insist on driving large cars, of course you're going to feel the pinch. Almost no one consumes energy per capita on the same scale as America does.
That was not the point. The point was he was saying that the people where making "Overpriced oil deals", witch as we both know is simply not true.
Obama already is. The plain cold fact is that America simply does not have enough. It might have enough to sustain itself in the really short run, but oil is finite, and pretty soon will be used up. Better to swallow some pain now and develop technologies instead of relying on fossil fuel.
Really? I have always heard that it was somewhere between 1.442 trillion barrels and 198 billion barrels, depending on what we are calling "recoverable oil". And America only uses what, 18 million a day?
France for example, runs on 78% nuclear energy. That is a remarkable achievement in itself.
While impressive, you must take into account that France uses far less energy than the U.S. For example, the U.S produces more energy from nuclear power then France does, but it doesn't even cover 20% of our energy needs.
Many may view this true, but try convincing the people with the power and money to make it happen. It just isn't cost-effective, or else we would have switched to greener options long ago. These companies are all about profit. If they can make more dough using resources that punch the Earth, they're all for it. Now, not every single company does this, but I'd venture to say it is true in quite a few cases.
Why shouldn't they be all about profit? It is their job, after all, and there is no real reason they should give up millions of dollars for a small impact...
Which means the average summer temperature of the actual Sahara will be 135 F, and the average winter temperature will scrape 100 F. In the past hundred years, the earth has heated up 1.33 F. Saying the average temperature of earth will go up 41 F means we'll all die. And, if we were going to all roast in the coming century, I assume more would be taking place in the 'green' effort. I'm skeptical of this data. Besides, even if there is a site where this can be found, you can find dozens of different data options on dozens of different views and opinions on global warming, or the myth of.
I am confused on what you are trying to say here.
My bet is that it might expand in the long run if other sources can't be utilised fully. Solar energy still isn't cost-efficient, wind/hydro isn't possible everywhere, so the other alternative after fossil fuels runs out is possibly nuclear, also given the fact that using corn and maize on biofuels is a crap idea.
So your saying that nuclear energy is the only viable output? Doesn't that have a large chance of catastrophic consequences if it is not taken completely and utterly seriously? I am sure Japan would agree that nuclear power can be dangerous, the recent earthquakes have shown such.
If we end in a ball of sun-caused fire or nuclear fire, it would really be the same in the end, wouldn't it?
Alaska's reserves are tiny compared to world output. Current estimates in the NPR is less than a billion. Other than the fact that the USA will still need to import, even as it drills more simply due to huge demand, the fact remains that oil prices will not dip and decrease even if America drills more, simply because oil is a global commodity. It is traded at a world price, and no single country other than Saudi Arabia has enough clout to change this price.
Like I said, we have many billions or even over a trillion, if we are willing to work for it. 
