On Sep 8, 7:45 pm, James Annan <[email protected]> wrote:
> ...
> There are those for who this will obviously negate the need to think
> further about fossil fuel consumption, as it basically solves the
> problem ...
Unfortunately, it would be very expensive. Who pays?
> ... it is bound to have other effects, ...
Certainly would. Some would be steady employment in a
part of the world which needs sources of employment;
a steaedily growing supply of biomass derived energy
sources to directly compete with coal and natural gas;
the possibility of enhancing or reducing North Atalntic
tropical cyclones; reducing the Mautitanian coast
fishery.
> ... half way between ...
Yes, mst unlikely.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
