Quote:
Originally Posted by Vman455
I disagree; just this one thread by itself is an argument against that assessment. I don't think anyone commenting here is stupid or dishonest, and we can't come to any sort of consensus on the matter. And that's just, what, 10 people?
|
I wouldn't say the path toward lower CO2 emissions is clear because it will involve such a huge array of various technologies and methods. Some things might be more clear than others, but there certainly isn't some prescription spelling out exactly what is needed.
The only way I could see the path to lower CO2 being clear is if it involves an uber authoritarian world government mandating drastically lower fossil fuel consumption, regardless of consequence, and with threat of force/death. Pretty easy to imagine that simplistic approach; one which I hope isn't being advocated for.
Quote:
Originally Posted by oil pan 4
if nuclear is more scarry then man made climate change that tells you there isn't a problem to begin with.
|
That's a very good point.
There's other legitimate criticism of nuke such as cost and time to build, but those must be related to ignorance-based fear and opposition. We used to build nuclear plants orders of magnitude cheaper and quicker back in the 70s. How is it with advances in technology it's become 20x more expensive? I suppose iron and concrete has spiked in price since then, but not by 20x.
