[pollyannaish]

I have a very serious question for the scientists among us.

I know a contingent of people who want us to figure out how to use water and solar power to create fuel. (That is seriously simplified and paraphrased description, but gets the point across.)

Leaving aside feasibility arguments, I am trying to figure out how they can believe something like that would not "upset" earth's balance. I mean, if we are pumping the waste into the air and depleting water sources, wouldn't that cause the earth to get messed up?

It just seems like environmentalists are completely devoted to this balance idea, but negate potential side effects from ANY wide spread use of any fuel. Does someone have a short explanation of why this wouldn't upset "earth's balance" and explain to me exactly when that balance was perfect??

Ok, back to read the article.

[Carry_Okie]

The first idea you need to drop is that there is any such thing as a "balance of nature." The earth has never been a static place and never will be. Nature reacts to perturbations and goes on from where it is.

The only thing with which I disagree in the article is the de-emphasis placed upon aggressive introduced species. It's a real problem. I probably see three to five new weeds PER YEAR. No extant system can reasonably expect to accommodate such rapid change without damage to its constituents any more than we can integrate tens of millions of illegals and expect to retain our existing culture.

[Renfield]

"....I know a contingent of people who want us to figure out how to use water and solar power to create fuel..."

Trees have been doing this nicely for a couple of hundred million years. Tell your friends to plant trees.

Coal, by the way, is the result of solar power and water creating fuel...so is peat....