> Alastair,
>
> that assumes a 1 to 1 relationship between wealth and CO2 emissions.
>
> I think that renewables are entirely up to the job of providing all the
> energy a high tech civilisation needs, at a cost, yes, but not actually
> all that high a cost when compared to world GDP.
Heiko,
I am assuming a 1 to 1 relationship between wealth and CO2 emissions,
but since we in Britain are burning twice our share per head of oil, I am
assuming that we will have to cut back to the 50% which is our
share. With everyone in the world using their fair share we would still
be producing the same CO2 as now and the atmopheric level would
continue to rise at 2 ppm per year. Therefore we would have to cut back
on the 50% of current use to 20% in order that CO2 levels do not rise,
but the Greenland ice would still melt. Do you really believe that we
can produce the 80% shortfall in energy from renewables?
Cheers, Alastair.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
