"Jeff Liebermann" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 4 Feb 2011 10:45:42 -0800, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote:

It doesn't matter whether or
not the rise in CO2 is the cause of warming.

Sure it does. No problem can be solved without first finding at least
one culprit to blame. Once the causes/culprits/conspirators/etc are
identified, we can then move forward towards a solution.
Unfortunately, most of the energy "solutions" offered are variations
on either austerity programs, genocide, redistribution of wealth, or
indirect self-enrichment.

I hope that's a joke.

You expect "the market" -- which is driven more by profit than altruism --
to provide a useful solution?

Where do you come off claiming most of the solutions involve "austerity
programs, genocide, [or] redistribution of wealth". (I'm not sure what you
mean by "indirect self-enrichment". Dale Gribble selling carbon offsets?)
How does the gradual replacement of carbon-producing energy sources with
carbon-neutral or low-carbon sources induce "austerity" or "genocide"?


Nobody has an easy answer to the energy problem that will scale well
and satisfy everyone's requirements. That means that the status quo
will remain until the day we run out of oil.

Which is what the oil companies want. Why should we give into them, when
there /are/ solutions?


We've also been here before. During the 17th century, England had an
energy crisis of sorts when it ran out of wood, which was needed for
ship construction and heating. That's when the 14th century ban on
coal burning was magically lifted and England switched to coal.

http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com...alism-in-1306/
725
I suspect something similar will happen with nuclear power. When the
demand appears, the "problems" with nuclear will magically disappear.

They apparently already have. See...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble_bed_reactor

Of course, very little is being done about it.