I don't blame Bush for Global Warming, but

[MyUncle]

I do blame him for denying it exists and denying that is causing disasters.

That said, I can think of no scenario where changing our behavior here in the U.S.A can help us in the short run.

China, India, Brazil, the former Soviet block and for that matter much of Africa is going to consume vast amounts of additional fossil fuels in the near future. Far more than a reformed U.S.A. can save. I do not see them sacrificing their perceived economic gains for the sake of the global environment.

So, do we just batten down the hatches and increase or ability to prepare for disasters while working toward long term solutions?

Or are we screwed short term and long term?

[tuvor]

1. I blame him.

If you're not part of the solution...

[xray s]

2. or

we actively support, with money, development of alternative sources of energy in those places.

but that wouldn't put the big bucks in BushCo's pockets, would it?

[MyUncle]

3. I agree with alternative energy obviously, but developing countries

have a different mindset than the mature economies. They want it cheap and now. Kind of like shopping at Walmart. If you can afford to be socially conscious, you don't. But if you are squeezing pennies, you survive on the cheap.

Emerging economies are the same.

Gulf coasters should move back to the North East.

[xray s]

6. but there are opportunities

In an emerging economy, decisions have to be made about energy infrastructure. Power plants, refineries, drilling platforms, distribution systems all cost money. A whole bunch of money.

Look at electricity. Compare the cost of photo-voltaics in rural China versus developing a power grid. solar wins out, both from an environmental side, and the cost side.

But the goal here isn't a clean environment, or energy efficiency, or cheap energy for the consumer.

Its profits for the companies that sell the energy and the companies that build the plants and grids.

[MyUncle]

17. PV will not power a production plant, unfortunatly.

OK to run a radio, TV, maybe even a fridge. But otherwise, not efficient for high output power.

[Coastie for Truth]

4. I blame Bush on two counts

1. Calling "global warming" junk science and calling its "fossil fuel/human activities" cause junk science. Remember, this is from a President who calls Darwinian evolution junk science and advocates teaching of intelligent science.

2. Failing to take any serious actions to remedy the situation - increasing CAFE, providing serious incentives for serious efforts at conservation, new energy sources, green energy sources.

Further point - You might find James Howard Kunstler's "The Long Emergency: Surviving the End of the Oil Age, Climate Change, and Other Converging Catastrophes of the Twenty-first Century" and Amory Lovins' "Winning the Oil Endgame" (and Amory Lovins and Paul Hawken's "Natural Capitalism: Creating the Next Industrial Revolution") good reads.

To respond to your basic points, Kunstler paints a gloomy, Malthusian scenario. I have poked a lot of holes in Kunstler -- but he does have a lot of credibility on DU and his book is worth a read. As Kunstler sees it, the point is not "sacrificing their perceived economic gains for the sake of the global environment" but one of economic survival. This issue is not one of "social consciousness" but one or "survival." It is had to parse Kunstler down to onbe or two paragrahs. Read the book.

[MyUncle]

7. I agree with you Coastie,

but warming is a result of practices and policies that predate even Bush 1. It is a consequence of the mindset of the Industrial Revolution and our failure to heed warnings from the mid 60's and onward.

I emphasize again that countries that are emerging have a different mindset. To them, survival IS growth and consumption. We have been bad mentors

[smartvoter]

19. Yes. He chose to back out of Kyoto, for example. I agree with you. nt

[NNadir]

5. The simple, clean workable solution is nuclear power.

www.externe.info

[MyUncle]

8. I'm listening...are you suggesting for the U.S.A.,

developing economies, all?

[NNadir]

9. For all economies with significant fossil fuel dependencies.

The world must go nuclear and do so quickly. Nuclear enery is by far and away, the cleanest continuously available form of energy on demand.

The US should build at least 400 more nuclear plants, if it wishes to remain a first world power. We should also build two or three fuel reprocessing facilities, and move to a Thorium cycle.

There really isn't all that much time left to do this.

[MyUncle]

10. How do our young DUers feel about this.

My generation, I'm 47 has "No Nukes" permanently fused into our brains. I am open minded about this.

Others?

[NNadir]

11. It varies across the board. I'm 52, and am an ex-anti-nuclear protestor.

Some young people are very enthusiastic about what I say; others are not. Overall, I would say that my support for this idea here is surprisingly large and growing.

Ten years ago this was an idea received poor reception widely, but now most people have, like you, an open mind on the subject. I have a few solid antagonists on the subject but they are pretty much the same three or four guys and to be honest - I have very, very, very low respect for their intellect.

This is good because although nuclear power is NOT perfect, it is the safest, cleanest on demand form of energy know. (Wind - and wind alone - has a lower external cost. The comparison in safety and environmental damage between nuclear and fossil fuels is not even close. We could save hundreds of thousands of lives - and hundreds of billions of dollars in environmental damage if we simply shut down all the world's coal fired plants and replaced them with nuclear plants. In the process we would create high paying jobs that produced commensurate with the salaries paid.

In the 1960's most of the people who supported nuclear power were, in fact, liberals. I have some theories on why that changed, but I think it doesn't matter now, it is clearly changing back.

[MyUncle]

14. Could this be an answer that Republicans and Democrats can agree upon?

I had a solar heating company in the early 80's that was a struggle. I have always thought for home use, solar, conservation, etc. were a reasonable solution.

But, for industrial or large scale power needs, solar and wind are just not going to cut it - escpecially if our auto fuel migrates toward electricty.

Nuclear energy, an idea that Democrats and Republicans would work on together?

Who would have thunk it.

[NNadir]

16. I don't think the Repukes are really pro-nuclear energy.

There certainly wouldn't have been all this mystical crap about uranium in the lead up for their oil war. I don't think they could have pulled this off were it not for the wide misunderstanding of nuclear power.

Their alleged pronuclear stance, I think, is just more doublespeak.

Let's be clear. They're trying to play the same card from a marked deck in Iran. A nuclear power plant in Iran may just be a force for good.

But if they, the Repukes, do actually advance nuclear power in some way, it will be one silver lining on the vast disaster they have otherwise caused.

We need nuclear power, and we need it quickly, so I guess I won't look any gift horse in the mouth, though.

[Coastie for Truth]

12. I'm 64 - pro nuclear

I worked in:

*Synthetic Fuels (Coal to liquid fuels)
*Nuclear power
*Industrial electrochemictry
*Generic to fuel cell and batteries - which are in turn key to hybrids and electric vehicles
*Photovoltaics
*Fuel cells and batteries
*Supplier of the batteries for the General Motors EV
*Environmental engineering:
*Bulk Tankers
*LNG Tankers
*Double hulled oil tankers
*Quickie course in industrial toxicology
*I worked for Assistant Energy Secretary Ivan Itkin
*I have read Kunstler, Deffeyes (both books), Goodstein, Lovins, Lovins and Hawkens, and Engdahl (geopolitics of petroleum)

I AM PRO NUCLEAR
--and I drive a Prius

and I blog at http://thinkersunderground.blogspot.com/[br />]

[NNadir]

15. I always think you're a younger man.

You think young.

[Coastie for Truth]

20. No. I just think young

I follow my grandfather's advice:
a. Always either be formally teaching OR formally studying.
b. Always be both informally teaching AND informally studying.
c. Always read something (or some writer) you disagree with.
d. Always be a fanatic about something.
e. Just as you get comfortable in a job = start preparing for a major career change.
f. Have a sense of humor.
g. Never blame evil if incompetence fits equally well.

[lonestarnot]

13. I blame him! He's done more to promote global warming and strip

away protections than any other president! and besides he's the "world's worst disaster."

[Kazak]

18. Global warming?

You and I share the blame for that, my friend.