Quote:
|
Originally Posted by sailaway21
Val,
You stated that "alternatives must be developed systematically". By that, I assume you mean to imply that alternatives are not already present? Since most of our power-generating comes from coal, and those are the only power plants that have been built in the last thirty years, and since they pollute the most, I have a radical notion for you. Nuclear power. If you are so concerned with the problem of human induced warming, and if you've examined it to your satisfaction-then go for it, I would expect you to be out mobilizing for "nukes in the neighborhood". Accidents do happen. But what's the odd melt-down or two, compared to long-term parboiling?
|
Nuclear power is not particularly radical. My city is run on it. I don't have an objection to nuclear if the waste can be dealt with responsibility. There's a mixed record on this.
Ironically, one of the better ideas I've heard lately is the best way to reduce emissions from the refining of the Alberta tar sands (very energy and water intensive) is to have a nearby nuke plant to power the processing.
I think you guys have me painted as a granola-eater. Far from it. I'm more a "enslave millions and laugh atop a throne of skulls of your enemies" type. By which I mean if some hard decisions aren't made by the people, they will be made for the people...and possibly to their disadvantage.
My political views and my ecological views come out of the same classically conservative place, but my conservatism has little to do with what goes by that name today.