The new Airbus supposedly gets 100 seat miles per gallon of jet fuel, which is essentially the same stuff as kerosene, home heating oil, and diesel fuel. That is equal to about three seat miles per lb of CO2. The last time I checked trains got about 40 seat miles per gallon, using similar fuel. Electric trains, which primarily use electricity generated using coal, might be worse, since coal burning power plants are only about 35% efficient. Nuclear plants are less efficient, because the fuel rods can not be heated as hot as burning coal. However, nuclear produces no CO2, so it doesn't matter.

Nuclear is interesting because the opposition groups get a lot of their funding from the fossil fuel industry. Nuclear is probably the only viable option for non-greenhouse base load.

Hydrogen is not a very good fuel for cars, but it might be ideal for jet aircraft, because they can use liquid H2. Liquid H2 boils off continuously, so cars using LH2 would lose a lot when not in use. A jet needs to boil it to a gas to use it, so none would be lost. Pressurized H2 is scary stuff. I'm not sure I'd want it in a car.

I know people who are working on H2 for fuel. The problems of making it are not easily solved. Electrolysis is very inefficient, and uses vast amounts of electricity. Chemical methods are potentially more efficient, but still use a lot of energy. I strongly urge all of us to make an effort to understand thermodynamics, before jumping to conclusions on the solutions to global warming.

In his book, "Plows, Plagues, and Petroleum", Bill Ruddiman notes that he was able to detect the effect of diebacks on the generation of CO2. The great plagues that have afflicted the human race temporarily reduced the increase in CO2. One of the most recent was the use by Europeans of smallpox and other diseases to wipe out 50 million Amerindians to empty the Americas of competitors. Inadvertently, of course. Modern "civilization" is so dependent on fossil fuel that a great dieback in the next 50 years is almost inevitable. Global warming is self-limiting, and will be the least of the problems facing our descendants.

A recent study showed that women who got 1000 IU of Vitamin D3 had a far lower cancer rate than women who did not. However, wearing sunblock is equivalent to wearing Muslim coverups. The lowest skin cancer rates are among outdoor workers, like roofers, who get plenty of vitamin D, which also prevents skin cancer. However, if you swim or shower too soon after sun exposure you will wash off the vitamin D before your body can absorb it. BTW, the D2 that is in most supplements is worthless.

The sunblock industry is a major contributor to the American Cancer Society. I wonder why?

Skin cancer has more than one cause. There was a recent study that indicated that omega-6 fatty acids, which are inflammatory, react with sunlight to damage skin cells. It was quickly "suppressed". There is no money for research that might threaten Big Ag or Big Pharma. I ran a company that produced one of the raw materials for sunblock. As a scientist-engineer I researched the science behind sunblock. Most sunblocks do not block UVA, which is the penetrating from of UV that does genetic damage. They do, however, block UVB, which makes vitamin D, tans, and burns. The organic chemicals that constitute sunblock are themselves scary, they are highly photoreactive, and could easily do damage, especially after absorption into the body. However, the damning evidence is that a majority of studies show that sunblock users have more skin cancer than non-users. The sunblock companies claim that it is due to "not using enough". Sunblock is a total scam. Use clothing and common sense to avoid burning, give up the omega-6 fatty acids, and eat a lot of omega-3, which enhances the protective effect of tanning.

I'm lazy, so I suggest that anyone who is interested in more info on sunscreen and cancer Google various combinations of key words. One of the most important is the well-proven fact that internal cancers vary with latitude, and that the least cancer is found closest to the equator, with middle east women being the exception. Southeast Asia Muslim women who do not cover up are the exception to that. My wife is a pale skinned Scot, who always had problems with burning instead of tanning. Seven or eight years ago we started avoiding omega-6 fatty acids and taking enough supplements to give us 3 grams a day of DHA plus EPA, for other health reasons (the brain is 1/3 dry weight DHA). We began to notice that she no longer burned on reasonable sun exposure, and actually tanned very readily. We investigated a little and found that certain foods, among them dark chocolate, tea, and omega-3 were known to act as "internal" sunblocks. We both now develop fairly dark tans, protective against hours of noon sun in the high altitude cloudless skies of Idaho. Omega-6 fatty acids are bad news in many ways, they replace omega-3 in brain cells leading to behavior problems, and cause heart disease. However, since Cargill and ADM are major purveyors of soybean and corn oil (omega-6) you will never see any US research showing them to be bad business. The major sunblock brands are owned by Big Pharma companies, so the combination of Big Ag and Big Pharma will never permit real research to be done on the problems they cause. We are both well into our dotage and people are amazed at how few wrinkles and little skin damage we have. Also, while all our friends are shrinking we are exactly as tall we were in our 20's. We take 3000 IU of D3 in the winter, since it's hard to get sufficient sun at that time. 400 IU (Gov recommendation) is a joke).

Sunblock is a scam.

Hillary (and Barach) would never allow impeachment. President Pelosi would be re-elected in a landslide in 2012.