There will be arguments on AGW yet to come, I'm sure, but I'm not going to post any of them on this thread. It's obvious to any rational person that even if there were no such thing as AGW, there are still many excellent reasons for weaning America off of oil and coal.
Oil is not a perpetual resource, is too valuable to burn, and has a ghastly amount of geopolitical penalties attached to importing large amounts of it. With luck we are going to be moving to electrical transportation in a big way in the next decade or two, and we're going to need power to replace the gasoline pumps.
The non-CO2 health effects of mining, moving, and burning coal are inarguable.
In short, the argument doesn't HAVE to be won or lost on either side for nuclear power (and other alternatives!) to be a priority in the United States, and if we get stuck on that asphalt infant, we won't get around to dealing with the serious political opposition to nuclear power in this country that long predates CO2 concerns.
To illustrate the latter:
If Al Gore were president, do you think we'd be building a bunch of new nuclear reactors right now?
Current Events » in reply to Bravo!
GW
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!!
