Living Car Free - Oprah and hybrids/environmentalism

My wife watches Oprah all the time, so today I'm home on a day off on she tells me to check out the show. Leonardo DiCaprio is on talking about how to be environmentally friendly. They spoke about things like compact fluorescent bulbs, recycling, and hybrids. While I applaud her covering the topic and making people aware of things they can do on a daily basis to help the environment, I think she totally missed the boat on cars. Granted hybrids are step in the right direction, but she should have been promoting not using cars, hybrid or not, by walking, biking, using public transportation.

Is this the same Oprah who gave everybody in the audience a new car? Did she ever give away bikes? I didn't think so.

Is this the same Oprah who gave everybody in the audience a new car? Did she ever give away bikes? I didn't think so.
Great point. I had forgotten about that.

hybrids are great for those who can't or never will give up cars. But they do undermine the ideal that you can live life carfree. Plus, I have read somethings that say the extra fuel savings are being used up by better horse power for the hybrid SUVs.

Matt

Hybrids are a joke. They still burn gas, they still require massive amounts of materials and energy to produce, they still require a massive government subsidized road system, they still kill animals, pedestrians, and other drivers, they still contribute to the obesity epedemic in the USA...

Look, more efficient use of resources (for instance, higher gas mileage) while still maintaining the status quo will only result in more efficient destruction of the planet. It is NOT a true environmental position at all, it is merely a way for rich liberals to feel better about their wasteful lifestyles. There has to be a massive restructuring of the economy and it looks like the only way it is going to happen is when the world finally starts to run out of oil. Which is too bad, 'cause things are gonna get ugly.

Hybrids are a joke. They still burn gas, they still require massive amounts of materials and energy to produce, they still require a massive government subsidized road system, they still kill animals, pedestrians, and other drivers, they still contribute to the obesity epedemic in the USA...

Look, more efficient use of resources (for instance, higher gas mileage) while still maintaining the status quo will only result in more efficient destruction of the planet. It is NOT a true environmental position at all, it is merely a way for rich liberals to feel better about their wasteful lifestyles. There has to be a massive restructuring of the economy and it looks like the only way it is going to happen is when the world finally starts to run out of oil. Which is too bad, 'cause things are gonna get ugly.

I agree with almost everything you say Thor. Until rich liberal. That threw me. Is there such a thing?

most definitely. i wish i was one. instead of broke-ass college student liberal.

most definitely. i wish i was one. instead of broke-ass college student liberal.

Yeah, same here.

I know lots of rich liberals, though. Lots of liberals with more dollars than sense buying all manner of unnecessary consumerism garbage, telling themselves that as long as they're buying less than george bush it's all good, and contributing to the statistic that 80% of americans think somebody else (government, big business) should do something about the environment.

I agree that hybrids don't get at the real problems, but instead may worsen things by making people think they are doing good when they're doing bad, and the whole oxymoronic concept of a "hybrid SUV" shows how meaningless the hybrid gesture really is.

As for hybrids being:
merely a way for rich liberals to feel better about their wasteful lifestyles...I guess you mean as opposed to rich conservatives who already feel ecstatic about waste.
R

I agree with almost everything you say Thor. Until rich liberal. That threw me. Is there such a thing?

Yes there is such a thing. In fact, you can't throw a double soy latte without hitting one smack in the head around here (San Francisco Bay Area). Or go to any college town like, say, Boulder, Colorado - quite a few over there too. Another term would be "bourgeouis bohemian".

thor29 thank you for posting what you did so i don't have to. i agree 100%

American culture is so car-entric, so much of our economy depends on the public suckling the teat of big oil (thinking trickledown- strip malls, minimart employees, the whole delivery and distribution of goods, roadways and maintenence, etc.)

The sham of American feel-good enviromentalism allows you drive your SUV (it doesn't even have to be a hybrid if you're the 'outdoorsy' type) to the Starbucks for a latte in a double paper cup with a sleeve.

As long as you buy dolphin safe tuna at the bigbox uber-retailer whose business plan relies on the exploitation of developing nations.

Hybrids are part of the smoke and mirrors energy policy developed by some of the the most diabolical tyrants in world politics today, the leaders of American business interests. And many of the largest corporations don't pay their fair share of taxes in America under the guise of multinational business holdings.

Oprah's a nice lady and she means well. I saw Leanardo DiCaprio on her show yesterday, he's trying to use his influence to up the bar on environmental awareness in this country, even though a lot of it is feel good enviromentalism.

- just wait until China starts importing cars into the U.S.... GM/Ford will be powerless against sporty, more (relatively) fuel-efficient models costing 30-40 percent less than so-called 'American' autos....

- there will be more autos on the road than ever, and with the ability to buy a 'spare' that will only have a limited life (say four years), consumers will find this new brand of cheap auto irresistable...

- there will be a lot more bicycling advocacy needed in the next five years!

(and room in the landfills)

:-(

- just wait until China starts importing cars into the U.S.... GM/Ford will be powerless against sporty, more (relatively) fuel-efficient models costing 30-40 percent less than so-called 'American' autos....

- there will be more autos on the road than ever, and with the ability to buy a 'spare' that will only have a limited life (say four years), consumers will find this new brand of cheap auto irresistable...

- there will be a lot more bicycling advocacy needed in the next five years!

(and room in the landfills)

:-(

Scary thought but probably not far off the mark.

But back to hybrid-electric tech. It's a Good Thing(TM). Sure, the side-effects aren't so great, but in principle, the technology makes a vehicle powered by anything be it the infernal combustion engine or something else more efficient. Maybe someday it will trickle-down to those electric bikes some people have. :D

In principle, the technology makes a vehicle powered by anything be it the infernal combustion engine or something else more efficient.

I think about half the fuel-economy savings in a hybrid car are due to the fact that, most of the time, it's running on one small engine and that engine gives the vehicle enough power to accelerate like a greyhound bus. You could just build slower cars, and then you wouldn't need the batteries and all that. But americans love a fast car.

It would seem that municipal buses, delivery trucks, etc. ought to be the ones that go hybrid, because a 5% savings in fuel economy for one of those is a LOT of fuel.

The fact that there are "performance" hybrids coming out is further evidence that hybrids are at least on some level up to no good.

When the Chinese become almost as wealthy as Europeans (or just as wealthy maybe) and India goes that direction as well, no amount of using gas-electric hybrids is going to make it possible for average consumers to afford their own cars. We might have cars running off electricity from nuclear power plants, depending on how prosperous the first world is at that point and how reliably the plants operate. We can grow biodiesel in farms but there's a good chance that would do no more than cover the needs of semi trucks and buses. I also don't know how economically feasible solar and wind power will be in terms of cutting in to our huge energy usage currently covered by petroleum, but they're currently a drop in the bucket.

so much of our economy depends on the public suckling the teat of big oil

Agree that "the public" are largely at fault, in that lavishly spending the world's oil reserves, like spending your capital, allows us to live high while getting poor. At the same time, it has to be emphasized that "big oil" is really sucking the public teat, in terms of subsidies, tax breaks, lax environmental standards, military intervention in oil producing regions etc.

RGC

When the Chinese become almost as wealthy as Europeans ...We can grow biodiesel in farms but there's a good chance that would do no more than cover the needs of semi trucks and buses.

When the Chinese get that wealthy they'll want to eat more beef, and all the biodiesel fuel will disappear as that corn gets turned into cattle feed.

This is one type car I would be ok with owning.

http://www.freesen.de/h2report/iss0202.htm

hydrogen volkswagen

When the Chinese get that wealthy they'll want to eat more beef, and all the biodiesel fuel will disappear as that corn gets turned into cattle feed.


Maybe Monsanto is owned by one of the oil companies.

Petrochemicals drive agribusiness too, unfortunately, both in the production/distribution. I saw a very recent, VERY SCARY Canadian documentary about the diabolical plans for by agribusiness to completely disrupt traditional methods of agriculture using pesticide dependant strains that invade and displace exsisting crops. A portion of the documentary looked into some lawsuits currently cooking in Western canada between wheat farmers and Monsanto.

The documentary showed how agricultural seed lines require heavy loads of chemicals to come to harvest, and how these plants are being genetically engineered to pervasively displace native varieties from surrounding acerage. Monsanto has attempted to sieze farmers' lands, claiming they are growing Roundup resistant wheat. The farmers want nothing of it, it has invaded their crops by air transport.


This is the development plan for world agriculture by monsanto et al.

It would seem that municipal buses, delivery trucks, etc. ought to be the ones that go hybrid, because a 5% savings in fuel economy for one of those is a LOT of fuel.



Here in Seattle some of the buses in the regional system are hybrids, but so far the fuel savings have not really shown up. In fact, they can't use them on the longest routes, because they will run out of fuel. Must not have been thought through very well.

There seems to be a lot of confusion about alternative technology for cars. First, the reason that hybrids get better gas mileage is because when they are stuck in traffic or stopped at a traffic light, the gas powered engine is turned off. When they are moving slowly (as in stop and go traffic) they are using the electric motor. The gas powered motor is used for stronger acceleration and for cruising at higher speeds. This is why hybrid cars get better gas mileage in the city rather than on the highway. For long highway trips they are no better than a normal car.

As far as hydrogen powered cars go, the promise of a clean exhaust seems to be blinding people to one serious flaw - where does hydrogen come from? There is not any hydrogen just laying around, waiting for people to scoop it up and shove it in their gas tank. Take a wild guess as to where hydrogen comes from right now - NATURAL GAS. That's right, at the current time, hydrogen is actually a non renewable fossil fuel!!! It is theoretically possible to build solar power and wind power plants to split water into hydrogen and oxygen, but so far I have not heard of a single plant in the world actually doing this.

Don't get me started on biodiesel... There's just no way in heck the planet could handle humans taking that much more land/biomass and using it to power all of the cars currently in existence. It will take 5 times as much land to grow crops once we run out of oil...

Is this the same Oprah who gave everybody in the audience a new car? Did she ever give away bikes? I didn't think so.

Perhaps the prime constituency of the show
is either too FAT or too out of shape to ride a bike. :O(
Enter Fat/FAST food rants here. => :)
Ned Goudy

To heck with hybrids, I want a bastard HPV trike made with solar cell fairing, dual opposing flywheels the size of Yap currency and an electric assist.

Perhaps the prime constituency of the show
is either too FAT or too out of shape to ride a bike.

Or that's what they think.

One of my favorite things on this forum is the fact that some people say they're too fat or out of shape NOT to ride.

I'm in pretty good shape, but I'd better not stop riding because otherwise there's no way I'd stay that way.

I think the emphasis on things like hybrid cars, more efficient lightbulbs, etc. is largely for practical, marketing reasons. Since there's so much emphasis on cars in north america, it's probably easier to get people to drive more efficient ones, rather than give them up entirely. The same way it's easier to get people to use more efficient forms of energy, rather than get them to use less.

Unfortunately, it all comes back to consumerism: A primary catalyst for our economy is the production and consumption of goods and services. Such a system will almost always encourage citizens to consume rather than conserve, and this is the root of the problem. As a society, we need to encourage more investment and conservation.

Hybrids are a joke. They still burn gas, they still require massive amounts of materials and energy to produce, they still require a massive government subsidized road system, they still kill animals, pedestrians, and other drivers, they still contribute to the obesity epedemic in the USA...

Look, more efficient use of resources (for instance, higher gas mileage) while still maintaining the status quo will only result in more efficient destruction of the planet. It is NOT a true environmental position at all, it is merely a way for rich liberals to feel better about their wasteful lifestyles. There has to be a massive restructuring of the economy and it looks like the only way it is going to happen is when the world finally starts to run out of oil. Which is too bad, 'cause things are gonna get ugly.

Couldn't agree with you more. I read "The Long Emergency" by James Howard Kunstler and am reading "Asphalt Nation" by Jane Holtz Kay. Higher mileage cars or alternative fuels are not the answer.

And there are rich liberals. Some, if not most, are the wackos in Hollywood.

benchmark year for hybrid vehicles; the government's full $2,000 tax credit goes away, replaced by a much more limited program.

I'm not sure of the specifics, but don't be suprised if the number of hybrids sold goes down against sales of gas guzzlers.


Hybrid vehicles that get 1mpg more on the highway than the fleet vehicle they emulate hardly classify as a major improvement in fuel economy.

As far as hydrogen powered cars go, the promise of a clean exhaust seems to be blinding people to one serious flaw - where does hydrogen come from? There is not any hydrogen just laying around, waiting for people to scoop it up and shove it in their gas tank. Take a wild guess as to where hydrogen comes from right now

Maybe I didn't learn anything in my HS chemistry class but if I remember right there is 2 parts hydrogen and 1 part oxygen in water. Now saying that if there was to be more popularity with hydrogen powerd cars you would think that we would be able to find an easy way of separating the two right?

Maybe I didn't learn anything in my HS chemistry class but if I remember right there is 2 parts hydrogen and 1 part oxygen in water. Now saying that if there was to be more popularity with hydrogen powerd cars you would think that we would be able to find an easy way of separating the two right?

Separating the two takes energy, which has to be generated somewhere. It is not physically/chemically possible to separate the two in an energy positive way.

Hybrids are a joke. They still burn gas, they still require massive amounts of materials and energy to produce, they still require a massive government subsidized road system, they still kill animals, pedestrians, and other drivers, they still contribute to the obesity epedemic in the USA...

Look, more efficient use of resources (for instance, higher gas mileage) while still maintaining the status quo will only result in more efficient destruction of the planet. It is NOT a true environmental position at all, it is merely a way for rich liberals to feel better about their wasteful lifestyles. There has to be a massive restructuring of the economy and it looks like the only way it is going to happen is when the world finally starts to run out of oil. Which is too bad, 'cause things are gonna get ugly.

Maybe the fact that people go around telling people that only the most radical solutions are acceptable as "true environmental" solutions is why so many people just tune out environmentalists as whackos and go back to their SUVs without even trying to do anything. If you think everyone is going to sell all their cars tomorrow just because you whine about it, you're not going to help anything. A "massive restructuring of the economy" is indeed necessary, but it won't happen overnight, and we will have to have interim measures like hybrids.

Maybe the fact that people go around telling people that only the most radical solutions are acceptable as "true environmental" solutions is why so many people just tune out environmentalists as whackos and go back to their SUVs without even trying to do anything. If you think everyone is going to sell all their cars tomorrow just because you whine about it, you're not going to help anything. A "massive restructuring of the economy" is indeed necessary, but it won't happen overnight, and we will have to have interim measures like hybrids.

Exactly :o

Change is very difficult for most people, but it is feasible if presented and performed in gradual, incremental stages. I think even more people would be hospitable to environmentally responsibility if it's advocates came of as sensible, calm people, rather than eccentric loonies - the way so many environmentalists behave.

It's the same thing with so many issues on the left, and why the right has been more successful the last couple decades. The right is much better at perception management; that is, cultivating a perception that is amenable to the average person (regardless of what the truth is). Too often, those on the left (including environmentalists) make themselves seem like radical loonies. This discourages many people from even considering their ideas, regardless of how good they might be.

Maybe the fact that people go around telling people that only the most radical solutions are acceptable as "true environmental" solutions is why so many people just tune out environmentalists as whackos and go back to their SUVs without even trying to do anything. If you think everyone is going to sell all their cars tomorrow just because you whine about it, you're not going to help anything. A "massive restructuring of the economy" is indeed necessary, but it won't happen overnight, and we will have to have interim measures like hybrids.
Now that you've ripped somebody else's idea to shreds, do you have any thoughts of your own? Please share!

Exactly :o

Change is very difficult for most people, but it is feasible if presented and performed in gradual, incremental stages. I think even more people would be hospitable to environmentally responsibility if it's advocates came of as sensible, calm people, rather than eccentric loonies - the way so many environmentalists behave.

It's the same thing with so many issues on the left, and why the right has been more successful the last couple decades. The right is much better at perception management; that is, cultivating a perception that is amenable to the average person (regardless of what the truth is). Too often, those on the left (including environmentalists) make themselves seem like radical loonies. This discourages many people from even considering their ideas, regardless of how good they might be.
Some of the biggest changes in history have been wrought by "radical loonies." Think Jefferson, Marx, Henry Ford, Voltaire, Socrates, Reagan, etc. Are you sure that the earth has enough time left for gradual change?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but is this not the same Oprah who was planning to do a show on banning bicycles from cities back in 1999? I seem to recall some mention of it on the old cyber cyclery site back then. The show was canned when she found something else to whine about, but even so, I wouldn't be expecting anything sensible from that show anytime soon.

Look at it for what it is -- light entertainment.

Exactly :o

Change is very difficult for most people, but it is feasible if presented and performed in gradual, incremental stages. I think even more people would be hospitable to environmentally responsibility if it's advocates came of as sensible, calm people, rather than eccentric loonies - the way so many environmentalists behave.

It's the same thing with so many issues on the left, and why the right has been more successful the last couple decades. The right is much better at perception management; that is, cultivating a perception that is amenable to the average person (regardless of what the truth is). Too often, those on the left (including environmentalists) make themselves seem like radical loonies. This discourages many people from even considering their ideas, regardless of how good they might be.

That's pretty funny - the right wing conservatives in America seem to have no problem getting their wacko ideas into practice. Witness their success in Kansas getting Creationism into schools.

What is so radical about seeing a problem and realizing that drastic changes need to be made? The status quo is going to result in a horrific disaster in the next 50 years (probably much less). If you truly believe that the current paradigm of unlimited growth on a finite planet is sensible, I guess there's not much any of us loonie environmentalists can say to you.

if you talk to any competant climatologist, the buzz is the earth is experiencing massive global climate change, the effects of which they cannot even begin to predict. Looked at in a Holocenic perspective, it's the day the dam burst while someone was screwing the pooch in the pumphouse.

Now that you've ripped somebody else's idea to shreds, do you have any thoughts of your own? Please share!

Sure. Let's drive more hybrids while we make the transition to the inevitable oil-free economy.

What is so radical about seeing a problem and realizing that drastic changes need to be made? The status quo is going to result in a horrific disaster in the next 50 years (probably much less). If you truly believe that the current paradigm of unlimited growth on a finite planet is sensible, I guess there's not much any of us loonie environmentalists can say to you.

The problem is when you want the drastic changes to happen IMMEDIATELY. Not in 50 years, or much less, but RIGHT NOW. No compromise, no transition. That's impossible, and nobody listens when they hear it. It only hurts the environmental cause.

The problem is when you want the drastic changes to happen IMMEDIATELY. Not in 50 years, or much less, but RIGHT NOW. No compromise, no transition. That's impossible, and nobody listens when they hear it. It only hurts the environmental cause.

That's a red herring. No one is saying that. My point (and others') is that hybrid cars and fuel efficiency alone won't solve the problem. Fuel efficiency MUST be combined with a plan to transition the entire country off of fossil fuels. What is the point of trying to buy more time if you aren't doing anything with it?

It's great when these movie stars talk about environmentalism. Ha, sure they drive a Prius, but then how many joules do their 5 10,000 square foot houses use, not to mention the private jets, yadayada, etc. etc.

benchmark year for hybrid vehicles; the government's full $2,000 tax credit goes away, replaced by a much more limited program.

I'm not sure of the specifics, but don't be suprised if the number of hybrids sold goes down against sales of gas guzzlers.


Hybrid vehicles that get 1mpg more on the highway than the fleet vehicle they emulate hardly classify as a major improvement in fuel economy.

Back in the 1980s I owned a Pontiac Firefly, which was made by Suzuki. The car got 65 mph, and it cost me exactly $50 to drive from the Pacific coast in British Columbia to the Atlantic coast in Connecticut. What's the mpg on a hybrid? Doubt it's much more.

3200 miles / 65 mpg = 49.23 gallons

49.23 * aprox $1/gallon = $49.23

That's not quite $50, so I must have taken a slight detour somewhere. ;)

Some of the biggest changes in history have been wrought by "radical loonies." Think Jefferson, Marx, Henry Ford, Voltaire, Socrates, Reagan, etc. Are you sure that the earth has enough time left for gradual change?

No, we don't have much time left, but the fact remains that radical, immediate change is impossible anyway. I'm all for it, but it won't happen tomorrow. None of the loonies above said it would be easy, or quick, to make the changes they proposed. We shouldn't think that either.

That's a red herring. No one is saying that. My point (and others') is that hybrid cars and fuel efficiency alone won't solve the problem. Fuel efficiency MUST be combined with a plan to transition the entire country off of fossil fuels. What is the point of trying to buy more time if you aren't doing anything with it?

I couldn't agree more. But in your earlier post you didn't say hybrid cars "alone won't solve the problem," you said they were "a joke." You seemed to want to go straight to a utopian hydrogen economy or whatever, starting immediately. Now you seem to be including them in the solution. That's all I'm saying - hybrids are the first step. Even if we are 100% committed to radical change, it will take many years to get the technology working and build all the facilities and make all the vehicles. Hybrids, as you note, buy us the time to do that, as we should.

how car manufacturers could sell several cars with highway MPG over 50 in the 1980s, and twenty five years later, exclaim cars getting 35mpg as fuel efficient.

What the heck happened? Do car makers think we have such a short memory we've forgtten those fuel sipping 1980's compacts?

That's pretty funny - the right wing conservatives in America seem to have no problem getting their wacko ideas into practice. Witness their success in Kansas getting Creationism into schools.

What is so radical about seeing a problem and realizing that drastic changes need to be made? The status quo is going to result in a horrific disaster in the next 50 years (probably much less). If you truly believe that the current paradigm of unlimited growth on a finite planet is sensible, I guess there's not much any of us loonie environmentalists can say to you.

The right is generally very good about how ideas are presented. The point I was making isn't about the ideas themselves, but how they are presented. I've read about how different organizations on both the left and right strategize, and in general the right is just more organized and astute than the left.

Again, the point I was making is about perception management - politicians like Reagan might have had some loonie radical ideas, but he had a very well cultivated image as a wise, likable, grandfather figure. This is what appealed to so many people - not his ideas, but his persona. This is why someone like Jerry Brown never made national headway. His appeal was among a limited demographic, specifically - leftists of varying degrees. Moderates thought he was a looney, and this is the group you need to appeal to in order to win elections and popular support for a cause.

how car manufacturers could sell several cars with highway MPG over 50 in the 1980s, and twenty five years later, exclaim cars getting 35mpg as fuel efficient.

What the heck happened? Do car makers think we have such a short memory we've forgtten those fuel sipping 1980's compacts?

Have you forgotten that people expect all manner of power options, ABS, airbags, and A/C as standard equipment? And new cars are built to a higher safety standard, with crush zones fore and aft, and anti-intrusion bars in the doors.

you said they were "a joke." You seemed to want to go straight to a utopian hydrogen economy or whatever, starting immediately.

Hydrogen, now there is a joke. Hydrogen, like electricity is not an energy source, in the sense that the energy doesn't originate with it. It's an energy transmission device. Hydrogen powered cars and battery powered cars seem clean, but their emissions are out of sight, at the plant that created them.

Battery powered cars and hydrogen cars both suffer from serious impracticality. Where do we store the hydrogen? What do we do with all of the carbon dioxide emissions caused by the inefficiency of storing energy in a battery and getting it back out again?

The right is generally very good about how ideas are presented. The point I was making isn't about the ideas themselves, but how they are presented. I've read about how different organizations on both the left and right strategize, and in general the right is just more organized and astute than the left.

Again, the point I was making is about perception management - politicians like Reagan might have had some loonie radical ideas, but he had a very well cultivated image as a wise, likable, grandfather figure. This is what appealed to so many people - not his ideas, but his persona. This is why someone like Jerry Brown never made national headway. His appeal was among a limited demographic, specifically - leftists of varying degrees. Moderates thought he was a looney, and this is the group you need to appeal to in order to win elections and popular support for a cause.
Actually, it's a lack of ideas that is the weakness of the left, not their menner of presenting ideas. Most Democratic leaders lack the imagination and courage that they would require to present bold ideas and capture the imaginations of voters. This timidity is especially evident in the "newer" areas of peak oil, global warming, urban sprawl, and other automobile-related issues. Leftist leaders are so reluctant to break the eggs that the omelet will probably never be made. They ostracize anyone who tries to address these concerns, like Brown and Nader.

Hydrogen, now there is a joke. Hydrogen, like electricity is not an energy source, in the sense that the energy doesn't originate with it. It's an energy transmission device. Hydrogen powered cars and battery powered cars seem clean, but their emissions are out of sight, at the plant that created them.

Battery powered cars and hydrogen cars both suffer from serious impracticality. Where do we store the hydrogen? What do we do with all of the carbon dioxide emissions caused by the inefficiency of storing energy in a battery and getting it back out again?
Yeah, I suppose that those researching hydrogen and hybrids mean well, but sometimes it seems like both are just feel-good proposals that won't come close to solving the real problems. We need an energy source that is:


* only a low to moderate source of pollution (especially greenhouse gasses),
* developed enough to go online in 10 or 20 years,
* as cheap as petroleum,
* domestically available,
* and sustainable for at least 100 years.


Maybe nuclear?

Yeah, to some extent I think that's true. Right now, the democrats are a party without a compelling leader, and consequently, without compelling ideas. In discussion perception, it's not so much environmental, but social issues that a problematic for the left. Most glaringly, same-sex marriage. I have no problem with it, but the most people in the U.S. are ardently opposed to it - it would be stupid for the democrats to pursue and issue most people oppose, so most are publicly opposed to same-sex marriage.

Again, this is just used as an example, and obviously, environmentally friendly technologies aren't nearly as controversial.