All of americas energy needs for industry & cars from 6% of land

It isn't corn, lol.

Grass? Sunflowers? Sugarcane?

6% of land -  is that 6% of total land area (including useless land like desert and cities) or is it 6% of farmable land?

IMHO you can't unbreak an egg. Nuclear has been invented, the world is doomed.

weed

atomiclol

That might work. Reduce energy output, would reduce the need for as much energy production . Rest of of the world already thinks we're a bunch of slackers, why not .

Close. As far as I remember, the most effective source is of biofuel is... weeds. As in perrenial grasses and such. No replanting required, no real maintainence. The only places humans need to use fuel is the initial planting and the harvesting. However, it is not, as you claim, carbon neutral. Since it requires use of fuel to produce the fuel, there is more carbon given off than is collected. How efficient production is would determine how effective of a power source it could be. IMO, we are much better off just growing food crops and investing in alternative energy sources. Biofuel may help if there was to be an oil crisis, but it would really not help the environment in the least, and if I remember correctly, it is not as economical as oil without the massive subsidies given to the industry.

the cannabis plant actually has a higher energy density then coal (i.e. when burned it releases more energy then a lump of coal of the same weight).

simply fyi.

Yup. Hemp is the correct answer. And thats 6% of farmland; as hemp doesn't damage soil it could be grown on viable fallow lots. And it is carbon neutral if you use biofuel to fuel the harvesters. And it IS a food source, hemp seed is one of the best sources for protien and ammino acids. And it is far more economical than oil; especially in the long term. You can actually make bio-degradeable plastics from hemp. Isn't that cool?

I'm Pro nuclear energy. It's basicly the most clean/effective energy source we have atm and nuclear reactors are really secure nowadays. And if something goes wrong fallout is in a certain degree controlable too we can affect airstreams and rainfall thus we can affect what areas get affected badly by fallout. If you are concerned about your ecological footprint nuclear is the most logical way to go except for the cooling water changing local water fauna and flora due to increased water tempratures. And if our increasing need for energy does destroy the world... Oh well whatever it had to end someday. The best sollution to ecological problem is cutting the worlds human population so start the genocide people.

Grtz,
Flipkik 

why do you think theres a war every few years?? population control. Humans are Humans only natural enemy. Other then viruses.......

Man, I hope that that's a joke...

Hardly, genocide is the only end result of a successful green movement.  After you cut the food output of the world in half and shut down international trade, over half of the world will be dead within a year.  It's the "in" thing.

Um... hemp wouldn't require food output to be cut. Infact, it'd boost food output. Why do I keep having to repeat myself? If you don't have FACTS to back up whatever mindless rhetoric you want to spout, please stfu.

Tons of Fiber per Acre:
Pine (30 year growth cycle) 3 tons per acre
Kenaf 6 tons per acre
Hemp 12 tons per acre
Cotton 0.3 tons per acre
Flax 1.3 tons per acre

Hemp only takes 3-4 months for one cylce. Additionally, 500-1300lbs of seed is produced per acre.

I hear that the ICCC starts with a ritual blood sacrifice.

Nah, they're more into the whole one-world-order thing. Read section 38 of the WCC treaty some time. I start getting worried when I see the term "climate debt" in the alternate wordings.

i knew it all along.

I'm 100% in favor of cultivating hemp, as long as smoking it is punishable by 20 years to life.

Besides, if what you want is food efficiency, you should be looking at milk, not plants.

Think of Egyptian tombs. Some have warnings on them telling us not to open or bad things will happpen.... so we open them.

Nuclear waste, with a half life in the hundreds of years (the time it takes to diminish to half the quantity), will still be around in thousands of years... and after using it for God only knows how long, the quantities stored could become insane!

Imagine the neclear waste produced in a year, what about 100 years worth? when will we stop?

Nuclear energy production still produces HEAT. So there's no Carbon output, but the heat output will still contribute to global warming.

And in some 5 or 7 thousand years, people will dig up our nuclear waste, wherever we put it. and NO MATTER WHAT warnings we put on it they WILL open it up to find out what the hell is inside

And we have not even started on accidents and natural/ manmade disasters yet. There's no such thing as a save nuclear reactor.

Mankind is hellbent on burning everything! We will not stop until we burn ourselves out of existence, there's just too much money to be made to worry about that.

Why?

How may deaths are attributed to smoking it?

http://drugwarfacts.org/cms/?q=node/30

There are many other things that cause much more harm - including alcohol and poor diet, even driving.

Try living on a diet of milk alone. You'll die, or be totally ineffective.

I'm not joking. What causes global warming all the ecological problems? 

Every single human on the planet requires energy. Cutting each of us our energy requirement won't do us any good. We just are to many thus require way to much energy. Reducing the human population on our planet with a huge amount is the only thing that might buy the human race or our planet at a whole some more time.
Also at the rate we are causing global warming atm you don't need to worry about long term things like what within 100 years cause the human race will be on the edge of excitinction by then. That if we don't find anything as effective as cutting human population within the next decade.

Grtz,
Flipkik 

ya because mankind will suddenly "forget" about the dangers of nuclear waste after they've known about it for thousands of years.  Have we forgotten that fire is hot?  No?  Weird.

It will continue to be a pressing issue until we have the technology to get rid of it.  Which will more than likely be decently soon.  Science is growing at an exponential rate.  Look around... no one even drempt of what we have today 200 years ago, let alone 2000 years ago.  So many impossible things have become possible.. yet you think 5000 years from now we will still have a problem with nuclear waste?

Yes, because the majority of mankind is stupid, unwise, and doesn't pay attention during the "boring" classes. People haven't forgotten that fire is hot; but that doesn't keep them from doing tupid shite and burning themselves.

And the attitude that the future can go hang itself only points to sociopathic tendencies and greed. If our fathers hadn't thought like that, we wouldn't be in this mess; its not the end of the world. At least not yet. But if we have that attitude for the next hundred years we'll probably be boned.

As to the fact that we may have the technology soon... well, we have the technology to go over to bio-mass production RIGHT NOW. But the only reason we don't is due to the laws about hemp that are in place; leaving only non-viable crops and sources for it to be economically viable. All the DEA would need to do is issue permits for industrial hemp and *boom* clean energy, clean plastics, and no potential danger from nuclear waste*. But more so than that; technology that exsists won't always be implemented, whether for societal or political, or military reasons.

*The thing about nuclear reactors is that they aren't one size fits all; you can't build them all over the country, for economic as well as security reasons. What most states by and large rely on are more traditional energy sources, such as coal. Hemp has much much better energy potential than coal.

I Agree! 

Also all the "leaps in science" are yet to rid mankind of the will to cause ill to others. Imagine September 11 attack was on a nuclear power plant or waste disposal site (currently USA stores waste at the reactor sites due to not knowing what to do with it).

Already there's many deaths attributed to nuclear, both directly (Hiroshima, Nagasaki, 3 mile island, Chernobyl), and indirectly - Take the troops killed in the middle east, not only a result of Sept11, but also on the hunt for "weapons of mass destruction"

There's many options for sustainable energy, but they yield less profit for the big parties involved, and cost more for the small parties (us).

The earth has the ability to absorb the carbon, in the ocean and plant growth... Sure it's damaging the climate, eco-systems and more, but slowly... When the oil and coal runs out we will have no choice but to go for alternate options, so surely now is the time to say fuck the coal and oil argument (after all, livestock is a major contributor to this too), that shit will run out anyway...

...and perhaps start to change the way we look at energy as an asset. For example here I sit burning coal to type on a PC. I could have an excercise bike with a generator to power this = less carbon emission (I still emit carbon myself while burning energy).

I won't be around, but Nuclear will destroy us all - science has developed fancy toys and a sense of invunerability in us. But science still is dumb as dogshit when it comes to a lot of things. Mankind reached the limit of intelligence the day we discovered such an incredibly dangerous thing.