Yes, but Geoff's email can take other words off other keyboards. I know= he took some off mine. To wit, he goes back to the bigger picture. It= 's great to talk about carbon offsetting, but the 800-pound gorilla is e= mitting far more than carbon. If we go with wind and solar, as you sugg= est, well there's that much more acreage taken directly away, per kilowa= tt produced, than via nuclear. Don't get me wrong - I'm not advocating = nuclear; I'm advocating confronting the gorilla (___nomic gro__) instead= of the gorilla's carbon, gas, banana peels etc. First things first.
Brian Czech, Ph.D., President Center for the Advancement of the Steady State Economy SIGN THE POSITION on economic growth at: www.steadystate.org/PositiononE= G.html . EMAIL RESPONSE PROBLEMS? Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- David Bryant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Geoff, You took the words right off my keyboard! ;-) If we had the subsidies for solar/wind that nuclear did in 1970 we = would not be having this discussion now. Now that we have viable solar and wind power, largely thanks to = environmental entrepreneurs and their European customers, we can go = forward with a much less dangerous, and less expensive solution. = Ironically it is the same one that we were trumpeting 30 years ago! David David Bryant [EMAIL PROTECTED] 978-697-6123 On Feb 20, 2007, at 3:14 PM, Geoffrey Patton wrote: > Certainly, it was people consuming in an uncontrolled manner that = > increased greenhouse gases - not environmentalists concerned about = > radioactive waste. > > Trading one long-term mess for an even longer-term mess is = > irrational. There still is no solution to radioactive waste. > > We're talking thousands to hundreds of thousands of years of = > contamination, rather than just the centuries involved with global = > climate change. It comes down to externalization of costs and how = > long before that piper returns to collect his due. When will we learn?= > > Geoff Patton > Wheaton, MD > > Paul Cherubini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I don't believe I've heard anyone mention nuclear energy > in the carbon offsetting discussion. > > The other day on another forum Professor Bruce Walsh of > the University of Arizona offered this insight: > > "Is global warming a serious enough of a problem for us to > go nuclear? Remember, the folks that shut down new nuclear > power plant constructions made a major contribution to > increased greenhouse gases." > > Paul Cherubini > El Dorado, Calif. > > > > --------------------------------- > The fish are biting. > Get more visitors on your site using Yahoo! Search Marketing. David Bryant [EMAIL PROTECTED] 978-697-6123
