Letters to the Editor
-
Let's not lay criticsm where
I voted for Obama in the primaries and I hope to vote for Obama in the general election.
I've no great love for McCain's stance on social issues or Iraq. I don't believe he's the strongest environmental candidate, but the criticsm laid out here is tenuous at best.
To oppose McCain on global warming because he might appoint conservative justices is absurd. If Supreme Court justices wield so much power that they can knock down laws willy nilly, we really will have case of having activist judges. Having a court that ensures laws are written tightly and comprehensively does not have to be a left/right issue.
McCain's stance on global warming is reasonable. I work in the power industry and the fact is nuclear power is the only quickly viable source of power than can help us reduce greenhouse emissions in the short run (20-40) years. If we were to implement an escalating carbon tax, there's no question Nuclear would be much more economic and any of the current alternatives. As much as I'd like to have enough power supplied by solar, and wind, I'm cautious. The fact is the impact of wind is actually quite unknown. If we're taking out wind energy out of the environment that's going to have some effect. On a large scale wind power could be as environmentally damaging as green house gases. We just don't know. The fact is global warming puts us between a rock and hard place. There are tough choices to be made, and it's about time that we own up to some of those choices rather than just pretending there's a perfect solution around the corner.
-
Just so we're clear
No one, not even Salon fundamentalists will tolerate a reduction in standards of living back to the turn of the 19th-20th century in the transition that results. No one. They may say they will on the blog but when push comes to shove and you're farming with a mule, beating the rugs on the washline and sending the barefoot children who survive infancy off to 3 months of school a year I bet, I just bet you'll be yelling for progress at any cost.
-
You are as bad as "they" are, Joseph Romm!
"1. Appoint judges who won't gut climate-change efforts."
You know, this is so wrong I couldn't get past it to the rest of your article.
You want to have judges appointed to the courts not because they will do their jobs and try to the best of their ability to adjudicate fairly a case that comes before the court, but because you want them to be ideologically of the same bent that you are and will decide not on the merits of the facts brought before them but to advocate and make law from the bench.
Tell me how this is any different than some right-wing asshole who wants judges appointed based on their hatred of women's reproductive rights such as Roe v. Wade?
-
Response to Fichte
The figures I have seen put nuclear plants in the $4-$8 billion range, though I think that includes the permitting process, legal challenges, etc. Doubling the number of reactors we have today, which is roughly a half a trillion dollar proposition, will not make a meaningful dent in warming.
Nuclear power currently accounts for 20% of domestic energy production. If we double our nuclear capacity by 2030, based on current energy-use projections, nuclear will only be 15% of domestic energy production at that point. So doubling current capacity doesn't even help us tread water, let alone make a positive difference.
Our current worldwide nuclear capacity is 3 megatons. The White House's own numbers claim that we need 25 megatons to begin to make a difference on climate change. That puts us roughly in the $10 trillion range for construction. And that much construction is virtually impossible to do within the next forty to fifty years, once you factor in siting and permitting issues (because, let's be honest, even if we all support nuclear power, we don't want a reactor or five down the block).
It is unfortunate. I was actually a fairly big proponent of nuclear until I did more research, and realized that, without development of a commercial-scale closed cycle reactor, it will never be a long-term answer. And it takes so long to approve and build a plant that it's not much of a short or medium term solution either.
-
I'm quitting heroin; I'm switching to crack.
building more nuclear reactos will, in the short term, only make the problem worse, from the emissions that go into their construction. they won't be delivering electricity for a decade.
then there's the question of why exactly is it better to switch from one limited nonrenewable resource with waste products which are problematic, to another limited nonrenewable resource with waste products which are problematic?
if nuclear power has any role to play in getting us out of this mess, it's got to lie with the existing, already functioning reactors.
-
I. Just. Gotta.
say that freaking image is the funniest graphic I've seen in years. The red/blue vibrates on the eye, which also makes it more immediate. And the pasted on facial expression only enhances it-- like a robot 'Batman' or something.
Congrats to the graphics person who concocted it.
-
Quite your global warming whining. GEEZ.
Global POISONING is more of a problem. So many chemicals in the water and ground is not good.
As for heating or cooling, there are systems in place in nature to balance the effect of trillion ton rocks hitting the earth at 25 miles per second and plunging the world into darkness, so the Earth can handle a slight up or down draft. For another thing, the Sun puts out 100 times more energy that varies enough to overwhelm any human activity.
Focus on things that matter, do not listen to the man on the screen, look at the man behind the curtain. Things that matter are the loss of our rights, endless lawless profitable warfare, corporate irresponsibility. Potential ability of government to disappear people who question the current corrupt system. THOSE are REAL problems, not this global warming bullshit they concocted to make vast profits off your backs while throwing you ASTRAY from the REAL issues.
God, you people... I give up. SO DENSE is everyone