Harry K wrote:
On Jul 19, 7:46 pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
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.


CO2 is poisonous to us in excessive quantities, just as is Oxygen,
Water, etc. Nature has adjusted to the what was the average CO2
content back before the industrial revolution. It is now adjusting to
our adding to it and we are not going to like the result.

As to reducing our part in it? Ain't gonna happen. Best we can do is
not increase our contribution above what it is today. Nothing we can
do will reduce it withough totally wrecking industry.




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.


Availability of resources has zip to do with whether we are depleting
them. We are. The supply of any mineral, oil, etc. resource you can
name is finite.

depleting them? what are they being transmogrified into?

they are simply being moved around and either aggregated or diluted to some
degree.