The problem with the coal and fossil fuels is that we use a technology to produce energy that is literally 400,000 years old. We have the new technology ready (nuclear power) yet we stick to this old, polluting tech. This is insane.
Is there something more than semantics here that I'm missing? Not believing in climate change is functionally the same as denying it in this instance, correct?
- denying it: there is evidence, yet they do not accept it.
- do not believe in it: we cannot prove its existence factually and there are people who still think it exists and some who do not.
Without regulation or tax incentives, it's easy to ignore the externalities in your choices. As an example taken to the extreme: if there was no regulation against dumping your industrial waste in the river, the free market should use that option, as it's cheaper than properly disposing of the waste.
Regulation is really the first resort.
The last resort is things like out-right banning the use of fossil fuels or nationalizing the energy industry.
Do you think that Denmark, Germany and others are doing it?
You are changing the unbiled costs of emitting CO2 with the ones of cleaning up after nuclear waste and nuclear accidents
Now, if we're serious about ending climate change, why not agree to setting a global target temperature?
http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/
Two decimal places looks pretty sharp to me!
If you notice, the graph is not distorted, it's linear. 1 Celsius degree changes our climate in a mix of predictable and unpredictable ways that you don't want for our planet.
Plus: there's the added problem that the changes can be exponential after a while, melted Ice melts other ice more easily, permafrost defreezing releases methane that is worse than CO2 to the atmosphere, Ice changing color, etc.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_fluoride_thorium_reacto...
I once believed that salt mines were a perfect storage place for environmental/nuclear crap. That is, until I read
"Salt: A World History" by Mark Kurlansky
https://www.amazon.com/Salt-World-History-Mark-Kurlansky/dp/...
British towns in the 19th century collapsed when salt miners removed subterranean salt by pumping water in and brine out:
https://www.google.com/search?q=salt+mining+in+19th+century+...
Here's a nice picture(scroll down to see the leaning houses):
http://nbgecko.blogspot.com/2012/10/wadihs-weekend-part-2.ht...
Turns out that if you pour water into a salt deposit, dissolve the salt and pump out the brine, the terrain above may collapse (salt columns were supporting it). Any remaining brine not pumped to the surface may travel who-knows-where underground to dissolve other salt deposits.
England went through decades of lawsuits and legislation wherein landowners cried for recompense of their collapsed lands from salt producers. The salt producers claimed it wasn't their mining that caused the collapses and the landowners usually lost.
Fast forward to oil/gas fracking in Texas, Oklahoma and other states:
most gas/oil deposits are under salt domes. Fracking injects water (and other chemicals) into the subterranean structures, the salt dissolves and the oil/gas is freed to rise. As in England, the brine that is not removed is free to travel miles underground, removing structure that has lain dormant for eons and collapsing the land above. But fracking also uses chemicals, not merely brine, and so the chance of pollution (esp. of water wells) is increased. The frackers say it does no harm. But funny sounds are coming from below and fracking chemicals are showing up in places (e.g., water wells) where they are not wanted:
https://www.google.com/search?q=fracking+chemicals+migrate&b...