that's the same conclusion I came to years ago. So thank you R.L. for finally getting guts enough to stand up to the anti-nuke people.
Regardless of the current CO2 problem, and many will disagree, including Dr. Peiser (Benny),
in the US we use 20 tons of CO2 per person per year. If China and India, with 4 trimes our popluations, move to our per capita levels, then we're cooked.
We should have moved to sustainable energy use years ago, but we didn't. Moving to sustainable energy can create jobs and strengthen our economy, and does not have to cripple it.
This includes nuclear power and domestic drilling.
Both France and Japan moved to nuclear years ago.
I am still concerned over ozone-freon reaction, and simply do not like manned solid launchers. They lack abort modes, and there is concern that their exhaust products work as catalysts in this reaction.
Speaking of NASA suppressing climate evidence, whatever happened to the TOMS series?
Current Events » in reply to The practicality of drastically reducing Green-House Gas emissions... (pt.1 of ?)
Thanks for answering my question
The whole thread (33 posts)
- The practicality of drastically reducing Green-House Gas emissions... (pt.1 of ?)
- Thanks for answering my question
- I love the Gasoline price graph
- The practicality of drastically reducing Green-House Gas emissions... (pt.2 of ?)
- Nuclear power and electric cars are the way to go IMO.
- The practicality of drastically reducing Green-House Gas emissions... (pt.3 of ?)
- re: The practicality of drastically reducing Green-House Gas emissions... (pt.3 of ?)
- Sorry, the system wouldnt let me post the whole thing as a single post (n/t)
- I would be interested in Podrock's and Nick's opinions of the brief discussion of Uranium availability in Part 3
- Bravo!
- Standing ovation!!
