|
 Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
@CoccoBill: Your first paragraph is right on the money.
All those other methods are a drop in the bucket. The only real, clean, safe solution is nuclear.
The problem is that it's really hard to convince people that the constantly spewing smokestacks are more dangerous to everyone's health than isolated incidents of nuclear disasters.
World leaders love to over leverage their resources. Why cut back on the raw productive labor of fossil fuels when you can leverage its wealth surplus to counter-act its rot?
 Originally Posted by wufwugy
The only real hope regarding sequestration would be an economy so robust and advanced that it develops the technology to do so. Creating an unending crisis in the economy won't do that.
See?
Leaders of the world know how to bounce from bigger and bigger sources of power until they summit. If the only solution to climate change is to slow down, it's never going to be accepted across the world's leadership.
Even today, Putin reaffirmed that he's going to see his country suffer economically for this year and the next, and for as far as I can tell, it's because he knows how to hold power and it has nothing to do with suring up the economics of Russia.
edit I would like to add, I do admire their ability to leap from power to bigger power and can't say with any sense that there isn't a solution to be had - just that that's the gamble we're in and all I've got is to find a sense of our luck.
|