I am interested to understand then, since you do seem to believe that global warming does exist, what you consider to be draconian, rather than necessary and prudent steps to take, especially in the context of your statements that humans certainly can and do impact the environment. Let's say ill conceived. The Kyoto protocol is deeply flawed in that China was not impacted in any fashion. China of course is the largest and fastest growing producer of greenhouse gases (they are bringing coal-fired powerplants online at a rate in excess of one per week, iirc). It is hardly a stretch to imagine that bad industrialist ideologues would simply relocate to China rather than bear the economic pain of reducing emissions. The end result is that the same amount of greenhouse gases are produced as would have otherwise been the case, but with added cost of economic dislocation.People really need to consider 2nd-order effects.BTW, I understand China has recently made some movement here in the Bali discussions, so perhaps this round will produce something useful.Then there is nuclear power. France and Japan seem to manage. China is looking into pebble-bed technology. No greenhouse gases at all.Space-based power generation. Beam it down to the Gobi and distribute it.There's lots of alternatives that make sense regardless of whether global warming is caused by humans. But it doesn't have the same drama of screaming ideologue and rampaging about how someone doesn't understand science.
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |
BATS data provided in real-time. NYSE, NASDAQ and NYSEMKT data delayed 15 minutes.
Real-Time prices provided by BATS. Market data provided by Interactive Data.
Company fundamental data provided by Morningstar. Earnings Estimates, Analyst Ra