Talk:Alternative technology

message: Thanks in advance for all kind comments and feedback, your opinions are valued
I like this page but I feel it needs a bit of work. I suggest some divisions are required into types and areas of alternative treatment technology such as waste management, power generation and others. --Alex 13:04, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: There are more companies engaged in alternative technologies than could possibly be listed here, and besides there are other lists for this sort of thing for people who wish to have such information. Furthermore, there are all sorts of non-corporate alternative technology developments in the academic and open source communities, so there is no need to give the impression that it must be developed under corporate models.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.94.105.238 (talk) 19:00, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Companies 

message: I was going to add this paragraph to give some concrete examples of technologies that have gone mainstream, but they are all probably debatable in one way or another.  If you could think of some better examples or if you can confirm or discount any of these, your help would be appreciated.
:For example, unleaded gasoline, unleaded paint, and the recycling of paper and certain metal and plastic cans and bottles have become widely adopted in the United States.  What is considered "alternative" may differ by location.  For example, according to the 2004 CIA World Fact Book, the US produces 74.1% of its electricity from fossil fuels, 20.7% from nuclear fission, and 5.6% from hydroelectric sources.  In contrast, 57.9% of Canada's electricity comes from hydro power.
-- Beland 01:57, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Examples of "alternatives" gone "mainstream" needed 

message: I included the phrase "whether or not they are actually better for the environment" because people do actually argue over whether some "alternative technologies" help or hurt the environment.  For example, San Francisco recently had a controversy about converting some of its municipal buses to CNG.  Advocates on one side said that reduced emissions from buses would reduce air pollutions.  Advocates for the other side said that this plan would actually increase air pollution, because testing determined that the buses were less reliable.  The presumption being that less reliable transit service would spur more people to drive, pushing up emissions from automobiles.  There's another controversy over reliance on more fuel-efficient diesel engines to reduce global warming - apparently some say that increased particulate emissions would increase local air pollution and have an adverse impact on human health. -- Beland 01:49, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Better for the environment? 

message: some argue that these new technologies are not as safe or clean...this is mainly the oil companies that want your money.  Also, some wrong perception are that diesel is dirty and unclean. But the new Biodiesel is very clean and does less harm to the environment than electric automobiles.
I think we should go into further detail about each of the examples of alternative technology and explain why they are considered to be alternative technology. I  think this is necessary because it will help the reader understand more about what alternative technologies are and what sets them apart/relates them. I think it is also important because then they will be able to relate to some of these things that maybe they didn't know were alternative technologies that they see in their day to day lives.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelacilea (talk • contribs) 14:26, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Perceptions