----- Original Message -----
From: "Alastair McDonald" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Newsgroups: gmane.science.general.global-change
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 02, 2007 4:53 AM
Subject: [Global Change: 1828] Re: The Secret Campaign of President Bush's
Administration To Deny Global Warming
>>>
>>> There aren't enough nuclear fuels to provide for the US's prodigal
>>> runaway
>>> expansion of the use of the world's limited resources. How
>>> is that going to stop the world being destroyed?
>>>
>>> Zeke, You are an economist. Do you hear what I am saying?
>>>
>>
>> There is plenty of nuclear fuel to attain the expansion of nuclear power
>> production indicated in the IPCC stabilization scenarios. Combine that
>> reduction in coal-fired electric power production with improved energy
>> efficiency and stabilization may be achieved without substantially lower
>> living standards. That will presumably avoid whatever additional
>> destruction would result from failing to stabilize. It's worth a try,
>> don't you think?
>
> Yes, try it. But then you can't, because the people won't let you :-(
>
In scientific polls majorities consistently support further development of
nuclear power.
>
> Moreover, there may be enough nuclear fuel still available to keep
> the American Dream alive, but what about Europe, China and India?
As you reminded us once before, this is a *global* forum. When I mentioned
the IPCC scenarios, those are *global* scenarios - with a six-to-ten-fold
expansion in nuclear power production *world-wide*. Nuclear fuel supply is
not a limiting factor as natural Uranium can be transformed to fissionable
fuel through neutron capture.
> If Americans insist on becoming richer, because that is the American
> Way of Life, do you really think that the rest of the world will take
> a stoical approach and not try to emulate them?
People in general are interested in improving their living standards. If
you'd really like to know what the people won't let you do, try lowering
their living standards. An aside: I think it's a mistake to simply equate
"American Way of Life" with material living standards, the phrase also
refers to vesting political power in the hands of the many rather than the
few (i.e. "Democracy"), among other things.
> The only answer is to cut consumption until we can get the global
> population down to a sustainable level. If we don't, then God or
> Gaia will cut the population down for us without our cooperation :-(
It will take about 200 years to get the global pop down to "sustainable
levels" (taking Pimentel's definition of what that means, for example) -
meanwhile we need to build up a support system for a peak population of 8-10
Billion people with least damage. Building electric power plants is an
important part of that development, and building nuclear plants instead of
coal plants will minimize the damage.
-dl
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
