huntmmup wrote:So what you say is since the CO2 takes a long time to decrease, we should say screw it dont do anything just keep putting more and more and more into the atmosphere! That again is just stupid.
And if we replace coal power plants with nuclear and natural gas (the IPCC even backs fracking, so there goes your "they are all anti capitalism") you wont have to chuck spears and wear animals, that is just asinine.
How do you propose to force China to do this? How about India? How about Russia?
I have not seen ANY credible plan that would get China on board and China may well be producing half of the CO2 by mid century. Do we go to war if they refuse to get on board? Do we hamstring ourselves economically while an aggressive national like China expands militarily and economically? If you are serious, and I've been seriously involved with this for quite awhile now, it is very tough to see how we really change the course we are on. Like it or not, sometimes prayer is all you have.
Now, the biggest reason it seems like we are doing nothing is because the morons in DC. We cannot build a damn thing in this country. If the administration cannot build a damn website, do you think they can build a next generation nuclear power plant?
Things that should have been built and operating so we can learn how to make them better.http://www.inl.gov/research/next-generation-nuclear-plant/
This is a terrible floundering project that I have had peripheral involvement with. I don't know the current status, but for something that is supposed to be such a priority, why is the government not acting like it. They build lots of token wind and solar, but that is inadequate and does not help you in transportation. This is one path. And if successful, it would be a source of cheaper electricity as well. I like the concept for many reasons. Like all of them. Cost is a big challenge.http://www.ne.anl.gov/About/reactors/integral-fast-reactor.shtml
Clinton killed this one. This should have been built and operating. There are challenges with recycling nuclear fuel and keeping the cost reasonable. Nothing I have seen indicates that that is even absolutely necessary. It may be and this is one path to get there. The fast reactor opens up a lot of options. I have been heavily involved in variations of this concept for more than a decade.
It looks like the South Koreans are going to build this in cooperation with the U.S. I just started working a very minimal amount on that project.http://terrapower.com/
Of course, probably the best thing to do is get government out of the way. These guys will likely be building reactors in China in the future. They are not going to waste their time with the U.S. bureaucracy. I know a lot of people that work for this company. I've flirted with the idea of working with this company. If I were much younger, I think this is where I'd be.
We need to build things and those things are expensive and risky (financially). This is the limited role for the federal government, but they cannot even build a freaking website, so as much as we try to do things, I fear it is not going to happen. Not exactly exciting prospects for my future. Now personally, I think the reason for doing these things is less about CO2 and more about other environment and health and safety issues, but two birds with one stone.
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.