Science

NYC_SKP

(68,644 posts)

9. Yes, it could and would and will. The book "Climate Capitalism" makes a case for it.

Tue Aug 12, 2014, 12:23 PM

Aug 2014

Hunter and Amory Lovins have made great cases for energy efficiency and the end of fossil fuels.

But the powers that be, including those in Edison's day, would rather work with commodities that they can control.

Remember when water was virtually free? Well, not water utilities are being bought up by multinationals, and we've been brainwashed into drinking bottled water.

And you hardly ever see drinking fountains, but you will find vending machines.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

10 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Physicists make 'tractor beam' in water [View all] theHandpuppet Aug 2014 OP

This sounds like it could be used to produce energy brush Aug 2014 #1

Doing it mechanically would consume more energy than it would produce Scootaloo Aug 2014 #2

Good thought brush Aug 2014 #3

part of me doesn't mind Scootaloo Aug 2014 #4

I don't think it will take two hundred years, to be frank theHandpuppet Aug 2014 #5

I don't get your first sentence brush Aug 2014 #6

History has already and continues to prove the point. There's no profit in limitless free energy. NYC_SKP Aug 2014 #7

Wouldn't the profit come from green energy though? brush Aug 2014 #8

Yes, it could and would and will. The book "Climate Capitalism" makes a case for it. NYC_SKP Aug 2014 #9

I can see it being used to capture an oil spill sooner than energy. Vincardog Aug 2014 #10