At the moment it seems to me, all eggs are in the emissions reductions
basket. Research doesn't preclude other options. A lot of your
objections could be investigated through research.
You know that I do favour a rather modest climate change policy effort
at the moment, but many policies that would help reduce emissions, such
as more nuclear power or higher gasoline taxes, I like for other
reasons.
At any rate, I don't see major movement in the near term (next two
decades) on gasoline taxes or nuclear power or renewable energy, not to
the point where it would make a big difference compared to BAU. Wind
for example may be growing really fast and it has lots of potential,
but at the moment renewables = 95%+ biomass and hydro, and most of the
absolute growth comes from the likes of 3 Gorges.
Therefore, I also don't think that the difference between very little
research on geoengineering (the present state of affairs) and somewhat
more research on geoengineering (what I'd like while being politically
achievable), is going to have much effect on other climate change
policies, be it support for renewables, nuclear or higher energy taxes.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Global Change ("globalchange") newsgroup. Global Change is a public, moderated
venue for discussion of science, technology, economics and policy dimensions of
global environmental change.
Posts will be admitted to the list if and only if any moderator finds the
submission to be constructive and/or interesting, on topic, and not
gratuitously rude.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
