Here's an excerpt:
The world desperately needs to get serious, including President-elect Obama, Europe's leaders and every UN bureaucrat who dined handsomely in the evenings in Poznan. The truth is, the world is not going to be cutting greenhouse gases anytime soon. If ever....
Not one of us – you, me, Obama or the greenest activist anywhere in the world – is willing to live without the comforts fossil fuels provide us – heat, light, instant hot food, convenient transportation, modern agriculture and airplane travel....
Given this, what can we do? Be realistic, first of all. Let's fund geo-engineering research to the hilt, exploring how we can someday modify our planet's natural systems to produce a slight atmospheric cooling. It is our destiny.
But most of all, let's open our eyes and begin to be honest. You will fly to Jamaica this winter instead of cutting your greenhouse gases. Fine. Can we please accept this and begin to move on?
6 comments:
The best part about the article, David, is the clown show in the comments. Complete with honkie horn and red ball nose.
But I agree. Our opposable thumb and big brain aren't enough to get us out of this mess. I guess fatalism is one way to look at it.
Best,
D
David,
Yep, you're right. Current direction (wind, solar, conservation) isn't getting the job done. The only way to limit co2 is to move away from coal. The only way to move away from coal is to develop "green" nuclear. Nuclear that is acceptable to a wider base of support than it currently has. Thus we see James Hansen's support for LFTR.
Tell Barack Obama the Truth -- The Whole Truth
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/
You should really check out LFTR David. You will like if you get to understand it's many advantages.
charlesH
ps Even Dano might be pragmatic enough to embrace LFTR. Nah, that's too much to expect.
A recent study from Stanford sez renewables can do it.:
Jacobson 2009. Review of solutions to global warming, air pollution, and energy security. Energy Environ. Sci. 2009 DOI: 10.1039/b809990c
I'll support nukes when the proponents agree to help out the environment's struggle to absorb our wastes by storing some barrels in their house. Preferably under their kid's beds.
Best,
D
Basically you are making the all or nothing mistake. Many would live without every CO2 hog, so we can start reducing our personal emissions.
Frankly Dano is doing the same thing. You may not want a cask in your bed, but I have a radioactive medical waste facility in the lab basement. Grow up everyone.
LFTR dramatically reduces nuclear waste volume and toxicity. LFTR variants can also burn up existing waste.
Obama/Chu/Hansen can address GW by supporting LFTR development. They can do this with modest costs and without carbon taxes that would make the voters angry. LFTR will be attractive to both warmers and skeptics, Democrats and Republicans, because it is both green and 24/7/low cost.
charlesH
Eli, the larger point is the biosphere's capacity for absorption, and the personal sacrifices needed, not whether nuke proponents would put a cylinder under their children's bed.
Best,
D
Post a Comment