DIYbanter - View Single Post

HeyBub[_3_]

wrote:

I suppose CO2 emissions could be important, but it seems to me, having
a power source that doesn't run out seems pretty strategic to me.
The rest of the page deals with CO2.

I don't know about you, but I LIKE power sources that don't pollute.
I'm willing to pay a little more just for that benefit.

You're presuming that CO2 is a pollutant.

Were it not for CO2, there wouldn't be any plants. With no plants, there
would be no cattle. With no cattle, there'd be no food. We'd starve.

But the real issue is being prepared for the future.

We're hearing all this crazy deficit talk as if we're creating a
problem for our children. I think using up resources on the only
planet we have is much more important.

We're NOT using up resources. More precisely, we're using resources but
we're accessing more than we're using. Today, there is five times the known
reserves of natural gas than there was just five years ago.

Look up the Simon-Ehrlich wager in which a doom-sayer* wagered $10,000 with
a more pragmatic scientist over whether the scarcity of ten commodities
(picked by Ehrlich) would cost more (and therefore be harder to find) in ten
years. Ehrlich lost.

--------
* Paul R. Ehrlich's works include:
- The Population Bomb
- The Race Bomb
- Politics, Consumption, and the Human Future
- Healing the Planet
- How the Anti-Environmental Rhetoric Threatens Our Future
- The End of Affluence
And so on. And on. And on.