Re: Global Warming
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Can you explain how human greenhouse emissions can be reduced, for example by one half (preferably by one order of magnitude), without crippling the world economically?
[/ QUOTE ]
I've posted links to all of this stuff before so I'm not going to dig them up again. I'd rather make a website so I don't have to repeat myself 20 times a month.
Scientists at berkeley are very close to coming out with an algae that can be used to fuel all of our cars while taking up only a very tiny amount of farm land to grow.
MIT has tons of battery technology coming out.
Algae factory scrubbers perform amazingly well cutting CO2 emissions to a fraction of what it originally was.
If ITER ever comes online (fusion power) that is zero emissions.
All of this is non-profit research btw.
OCES is zero emissions.
I'm becoming more and more confident that we not only can reduce our emissions but we can eventually become a zero emission country through technology. WIth phytoplankton seeding we should be able to become a negative emission country. The only major barrier IMO is developing a fuel cell catalyst. I strongly believe that all the other pieces can be solved with simply time and money. Even the fuel cell catalyst can be avoided if solid state batteries ever come to fruition.
The very economist you link to wants us to tax $1 a gallon and all of these programs would only cost 5 cents a gallon to fund. I really don't see why it isn't being done. Obviously the tax won't hurt the economy and the extra technology will only spur our economic development.
I'm not going to provide a ton of links because I've done them a dozen times before. I'm just going to create a website instead. Il mostro send me your e-mail cuz I know you are a great source of information despite being overly pessimistic IMO.
I'm 99% sure this is my last post for the day.
[/ QUOTE ]
That all sounds great, but it's only half of the equation. How much will these alternative technologies cost? If they are uneconomical, then forcing their use is wasteful, and if you're talking about forcing waste on the entire economy, it's going to cripple the economy.
Also, you're confusing me with someone else again, because I haven't linked to any economists advocating any kind of taxes for anything. You're probably thinking of natedogg.
My point is, and will remain, that when alternative energy technologies and cleaner production technologies become economical, they will be used. Until they are economical, they are uneconomical (by definition). Doing things that are uneconomical is wasteful (by definition). Wasting resources makes people poorer. Wasting resources on a large scale makes lots of people a lot poorer. What the world needs is less poverty, not more.
|