(Page 8 of 15)
I disagree completely with the notion of signing the Kyoto protocol. It is nothing more than a clever attempt to transfer wealth from the United States to emerging countries such as India and China. Even if I accepted global warming, I would have to oppose Kyoto because, although it would reduce America's emissions, it would not actually reduce World emissions. Furthermore, the world won't love us even if we sign it because we are still too rich and too free.
p>The only thing standing in the way of nuclear power is the same green lobby that so loves Kyoto. Just because we sign it do you really think they will get out of the way? It remains the best solution for electricity but is still burdened by the ugly problem of waste disposal. I support it because I believe the benefits outweigh the risks. The problem, of course, is that scare tactics shaped public perception on nuclear power just like scary "global warming" is shaping public perception on greenhouse gas emissions. br> -- Tom Cabanski /p>I don't understand why Kyoto needs endorsing to get nuclear power since the carbon trading schemes may accomplish the same thing by driving up the cost of coal generated electricity. Many states and large cities are implementing Kyoto secretly on a region by region basis. This will be a an interesting experiment to see if the economic stress of conforming to Kyoto will bless or curse those areas that embrace Kyoto.
According to a graph of historic carbon dioxide levels provided in October 2006 issue of Scientific American, p.71, atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide have exceeded 1000 parts per million for about 180 million out of the last 325 million years. The estimated present value of 385 has only been lower for a brief time about 250 million years ago. I don't understand the justification for holding carbon dioxide at such a low level when it is clearly natural for it to be higher than it is now.
p>Signing on to Kyoto to get nuclear power is like signing on to the Holocaust to get population control. This sounds like the latest version of the ends justifying the means. br> -- Danny L. Newton br> Cookeville, Tennessee /p>We can learn much from history, even how to deal with global warming. The early part of the middle ages was characterized by intense climate warming, particularly in the Mediterranean. This gave rise to new economic leaders as local agricultural trends changed, this change affected the next 1000 years of history. That example of global warming surely can't be traced to human interaction or CFC's.
Technology is the answer to the energy crisis but we won't get there by closing smokestacks and spending billions to reduce emissions. We need to do everything we can to support our economy so we can fund the research and accommodate the companies that will lead us in this development. Kyoto was a tree-hugger's pipe-dream offering no real solutions.
p>This isn't about politics, it's about science.
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
The speech our President should make.
A noted economist fires back.
How political can you get?
You might have missed it, but it was boomed in January.
Farcical feminism is a decades-old phenomenon, as George Will's essay from 1970 reminds us.
louis vuitton| 4.27.10 @ 1:11AM
Democratic regime that sees the UN in a different light than the present Republican majority. the inward-looking antihero, with all but 60 days suspended,canada gooseAfter the immigration bill failed in the U.S. Senate, the postmortems deplored the new power of bloggers and the Internet.