Why environmentalists don't want to solve climate change
The author's conclusion: the environmental movement is at its core misanthropic and Luddite; too busy hating humans to formulate rational or progressive policies.
What do you think?
-
-
- Nathan_Coombs
- added this
- added October 11, 2007
- flag
-
That is not the attitude of most Greens in Europe, who do, on the other hand, quite rightly think that ethanol and vegetable diesel oil for fuelling cars is not a viable solution as it takes up such large areas for growing corn and sugar cane, as well as encourages vast deforestation for these crops, to the detriment of growing food.
-
-
- Vierotchka
- 1 year ago
-
-
What about nuclear power, tidal barriers or solar reflectors?
I thought that even a relatively small array of mirrors in orbit (even if it cost billions to build it would still be cheap) would have a greater and more cost efficient result than green house targets and 'demand curbing' measures.
Why have these ideas not been received well by the environmental movement?
-
-
- Nathan_Coombs
- 1 year ago
-
-
Nuclear power won't solve anything - first of all, it takes a long time and billions of dollars to build one, and it would necessitate to build thousands and thousands of them to begin to address the electricity needs globally. Secondly, there is precious little uranium left in the world, there's perhaps enough to keep the existing nuclear plants going for five to seven years.
Putting mirrors in orbit wouldn't solve much, either - a far better, far more realistic and infinitely cheaper solution would be this:
http://green.yahoo.com/blog/ecogeek/43/92-sq-miles-of-solar-could-power-the-usa....
-
-
- Vierotchka
- 1 year ago
-







